1964-08-12

PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege concerning the members of our party.
In view of the fact that the honesty and the integrity of my colleagues and myself are at stake, I feel I must raise the matter before the whole house.
Lately a commercial representative of the telephone company advised the chairman of our caucus that Social Credit members owed long distance call bills and pleaded with him to have those accounts paid up. Those outstanding bills amounted respectively to $130.95,	$137.15,	$160.65,	$66.65,	$86.50,
$457.65, $412.55 and $66.70.
After an investigation, Mr. Speaker, I am in a position to state that no member of our party is owing telephone bills other than the current monthly bills.
It is true that we voted in the house for the increase of the hon. members' indemnity, but we can afford to pay our long distance bills.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, no member of the Social Credit is in debt to the telephone company for the amounts indicated above. I felt I had to make a statement on that matter so that the reputation of Social Credit would not be tarnished in the eyes of that company.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, *on the same question of privilege, I think similar telephone bills must be owed by members of the Ralliement Creditiste, and for the simple reason that, about a year ago, the house passed a bill to the effect that telephone calls made by members of this house between Ottawa and their ridings would be paid by the House of Commons.
Time and time again we have asked that the provisions of this legislation we have passed be observed, especially since there happens to be some discrimination in this
parliament against certain members and, I would go so far as to say, the great majority of them. There is a direct line between Ottawa and Montreal on which calls are made without charge and which enables all members from the Montreal area, most of whom are Liberal members, to make free calls to their constituencies. The same situation exists between Ottawa and Toronto.
As for the hon. members living in the Ottawa area, there are also no long distance charges.
Members of the House of Commons living in the west, in the maritime provinces or in rather distant districts do not have the same advantages.
We are asking that the same advantages be given to all members of the house whether they live in Toronto, Montreal, Ottawa or in the other provinces.
This is why we have always refused to pay telephone bills connected with our activities as members of the house since the law provides that they must be paid by the House of Commons.
That is why when we met in caucus this morning-and as a matter of principle, since we want to defend those principles-it was decided that we would let our telephone lines be cut rather than pay for what the House of Commons had decided it would pay.
May I add, Mr. Speaker, that this matter concerns not only members of our party but also several Liberal members who came to see me and who asked me to speak at the same time on their behalf, as well as many Conservative members.



AGRICULTURE AND COLONIZATION

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on agriculture and colonization-Mr. Honey.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the house to table the correspondence exchanged between Mr. HOUSE OF COMMONS
Questions
Justice Dryer and myself on the matter of appearance before a parliamentary committee. It may be, Mr. Speaker, that hon. members would find it useful if these letters were produced as an appendix to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the house agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: For text of letters referred to above, see Appendix "A"J



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Howard: 1.	Since April 8, 1963, what steps have been taken to implement the commitment that 500 families of Chinese origin would be permitted to come to Canada, and when is it expected that (a) the families will commence arriving, and (b) the full complement of 500 will have arrived?
2.	Are any plans in existence to make similar arrangements in the future and, and, if so, what are the details of any such plans?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Since April 8, 1963, a number of changes have been made in respect of the admission of Chinese to Canada. Departmental staff in Hong Kong has also been increased and staff in Ottawa reorganized to deal more expeditiously with immigration from Hong Kong. As a result, some 1,571 Chinese were admitted in 1963 as compared with a total of 867 in 1962. In the first five months of this year, 879 were admitted as against 481 during the same period in 1963. In other words, the number of Chinese immigrants in 1963 increased almost 100 per cent over the figures for 1962 and has again increased 84 per cent in the first five months of this year as compared with the same period in 1963. It will be noted therefore since April, 1963, hundreds of Chinese families have in fact emigrated to Canada and hundreds more have been reunited in this country.
2.	The ordinary immigrant classes as they affect Chinese are broad: they permit the admission of the immediate families, parents, grandparents and fiancees of Canadian residents, as well as unsponsored immigrants who have sufficient education or skills to become established in Canada. In addition, Canadian citizens may sponsor the admission of such non dependent relatives as adult or married sons or daughters, along with the spouse and children of such sons and daugh-

ters subject to appropriate educational and occupational standards.


NEWS REPORTERS, PHOTOGRAPHERS, ETC., EMPLOYED BY C.B.C.
Mr. Cowan: What are the names of newspaper and/or magazine reporters, commentators, photographers, and news analysts who have participated in any way in news, news commentary, or similar programs broadcast by the C.B.C. between January 1, 1964, and March 31, 1964?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secrelary of Stale):: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that the following persons have been participants on one or more occasions in news commentary, news analysis and public affairs programs broadcast between January 1, 1964 and March 31, 1964. This list has been prepared after examination of records of regularly scheduled programs, in these categories.
George Vine, Edward Ellison, Jean Ethier-Blais, Bruce Philips, Ben Rose, Brian Upton, Fred Schindler, Fred Nossal, William Stringer, Walter Young, John Holmes, Donald Coxe, Antal Deutsch, Peter Trueman, Tom Saunders, Jean David, Blair Fraser, Peter Stursberg, Charles Lynch, Gordon Donaldson, Peter Dempson, Robert W. Needham, Marcel Gingras, Clement Brown, Tim Creery, Michael Barkway, Richard Gwyn, Norman Campbell, Greg Connolly, Bernard Dufresne, Peter C. Newman, Walter Stewart, Anthony Westell, Val Sears, Peter Worthington, Norman Phillips, Uwe Kitzinger, Kenneth McKenzie, Gerald Waring, Dillon O'Leary, Anthony Lewis, Ramsay Cook, Stanley West-all, John McLeod, Charles Wasserman, Andre Laurendeau, Peter Desbarats, John Harbron, Warren Troyer, Peter McLintock, Clive Baxter, Jean Charpentier, Gerard Pelletier, Warren Baldwin, Gordon Dewar, Jack Cahill, Ron Collister, Bruce MacDonald, Don McGil-livray, Farmer Tissington, John Walker, W. A. Wilson, Anthony J. Wright, Lubor J. Zink, William Pogson, Max MacMahon, Lewis Harke, Mark Harrison, Thomas Franck, Donald Gordon, William Stevenson, Marc Lalonde, George Rawlyk, Robert Bingham, Willson Woodside, Michel Brunet, Earl Berger, Charles Baily, Hugh Munro, Jean V. Dufresne, Christopher Young, James Stewart, John Bird, William Metcalfe, Edward M. Cabe, Jack Kinsella, Jack Thompson, Pat Best, W. M. Arnott, George Blain, Arthur Blakely, Clyde Gilmour, Charles Fullman, Robert Fulford, Pierre Berton, Gordon Sinclair, George Kirk, Paul Fox, Walter Heller,

Dimitrios Roussopoulos, Charles Huband, Joseph O'Sullivan, Khalid Sayeed, Albert Shea, Wolfgang Friedmann, Yvon Turcot, Murray Back, Jurgen Hesse, Glenn How, Maurice Arpin, David Slater, Jean Pellerin, Frank Tumpane, Jack Webster, Conrad Ahlers, Joseph Kraft, Mark Gayn, Paul Moore, Christopher Parker, Godfrey Hodgson, Peter Mansfield, Charles Taylor, William Stevenson, William Hines, Karl Meyer, Arthur Olson, Robert Carvel, William Milmanship, Max Frankel, Arthur Brydon, John Grace, Geoffrey Godsell, Leslie Roberts, James R. Mallory, Robert McKenzie, Peter Trueman, James Cameron, J. P. Fournier, Boyce Richardson, Robert Duffy, Alex Young, Jean Marc Poliquin, Michel Van Schendel, Tad Szulc, Alain Clement, Milton Viorst, Leo Sauvage, Robert Fenin, Helena de la Souchere, Claude Julien, Edouard Sablier, Marc Mar-ceau, Eric Rouleau, Jean Choffel, Aydemir Balkan, Michel Roy, Maurice Duverger, M. Nobecourt, Brian Crozier, Geo. Wolff, K. S. Karol, Jean Lacouture, Simon Malley, Louis Wiznitzer, Robert Guillain, Christopher Johnson, Tibor Mende, Hubert Beuve-Mery, Bernard Feron, Michel Gordey, Isaac Deut-scher, William Pickles, J.-Marc Leger, Claude Ryan, Thomas Hamilton, Jacques Kattel, John Perry, Raymond Dube, Fernand Gagnon, Germain Tremblay, Yves Michaud, Solange Chaput-Rolland, Nairn Kattan, Jacques-Yvan Guay, Paul Sauriol, Denis Masse, J-Louis Gagnon, Jean Pellerin, Vincent Prince, Nicole Mongeau, Marc Foisy, Ber-thold Brisebois, Amedee Gaudreault, Nicolas Chatelain, Claire Detrisac, Marcel Thivierge, Serge Deyglun, Bernard L'Ecuyer, Leon Trepanier, Gustave Morf, Charles Couture, Marie Laurier, Celine Legare, Frangoise Gaudet-Smet, Jean Basile, Roger Filion, Henri Pierre, Gerard Gosselin, Geo. Schwartz, Emmanuel Garon, Gilles Henault, Andre Boily, Solange Chalvin, Paul Chamberland, Albert Brie, Jean Desrapes, Alain Stanke, Pierrette Champoux, Jean Pare, Roger Cyr, C.-Armand Sheppard, Louis Chantigny, Andre Trudelle, Marcel Vleminckx, Pierre De Belle-feuille, Jean Vincent, Lawrence Smith, Henri Pierre, Andre Scemama, Adalbert De Segon-zac, Sylvain Mangeot, Pierre O'Neill, Julien Morissette, Jean Tainturier, Andre Fontaine, Bernard Beguin, Michel D'Hospital, Geo. Parent, Horia Georgesco, Arnold Edin-borough, P.-Paul Blais, Cyrille Felteau, Georges Broussine, Adele Lauzon, Andrd Blanchet, Alfred Latham-Koenig, Roger Champoux, J.-Claude Dussault, Alfred Ayotte, Anita VanKahler, Jacques Lafreniere,
Questions
Mario Rossi, Raymond Millet, Jogues Girard, Ky Van Tran, Sacha Simon, Evelyn Gagnon, Carlo Scarsini, Ann Weill, Gladys Delmas, Jean Farniot, Maurice Bernier, Roger Brun-eau, Claude Dery, Jacques Monnier, Lionel Marleau, Lorenzo Pare, Louis Deroche.


C.N.R. LEASE WITH MATHEWS COAL CO., HALIFAX
Mr. Douglas: 1.	Has the lease between the Mathews coal company at Willow Park, Halifax, and the Canadian National Railways been cancelled after being in existence for almost 34 years?
2.	If so, what were the urgent or pressing needs which led the Canadian National Railways to terminate the long-time lease of the Mathews Coal Company?
3.	Has the piece of property subsequently been leased to another company?
4.	If so, what is the name of this other company?
5.	If so, in what respects do the terms of the lease with the new company differ from the terms of the lease with the Mathews Coal Company?
6.	Did the Canadian National Railways have any correspondence concerning the land with other companies prior to the cancellation of the Mathews Coal Company lease?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: The management of Canadian National Railways advise as follows:
1.	The lease was on an annual basis, terminable by either party on two months' notice in writing, cancelled effective January 31, 1964.
2.	It is the policy of the company to lease its lands, particularly in industrial areas, to those industries that will produce traffic for the railway. It is not considered by management that the purpose for which the property was leased was being fulfilled.
3.	No.
4.	Not applicable.
5.	Not applicable.
6.	Inquiries had been made by other interested companies.


OWNERSHIP OF LAND FOR BOURQUE BUILDING, OTTAWA
Mr. Aiken: When the Department of Public Works communicated to Immeubles Laurentien Realties Co. Limited on October 31, November 15, and November 18, 1963, its intention to lease space in the Bourque Memorial Building (Hansard p. 938) (a) did Immeubles Laurentien Realties Co. Limited own the land upon which the building was to be constructed (b) if so, on what date or dates did they acquire it (c) if not, who were the owners of the land at that time (d) did Immeubles Laurentien Realties Co. Limited subsequently acquire the land (e) if so, on what date or dates and at what price or prices (f) did Immeubles Laurentien Realties Co. Limited hold a building permit issued by the city of Ottawa (g) if so, what was its

Questions
number and when was It issued (h) if not, was a building permit subsequently issued (i) if so, what is its number and when was it issued (j) on November 18, 1963, what in detail was the condition of the lands at the northeast comer of King Edward avenue and Rideau street in the city of Ottawa, specifying what structures, if any, or excavations, if any, there were on the said lands (k) on what date did the Department of Public Works advise the prospective mortgagee of the lands and buildings of its intention to lease (1) how was this advice communicated?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelels (Minister of Public Works):: (a) No. (Immeubles Laurentien Realties Co. Limited held options to purchase only); (b>
not applicable; (c) T. Landry Limited and Loblaws Limited; (d) yes; (e) December 20, 1963, to T. Landry, $185,000; to Loblaws Limited, $90,000; (f) not at that time; (g) not applicable; (h>
yes; (i) No. 52981 issued December 2, 1963; (j) the records ol the department do not record any data as to what structures or excavations, if any, were present on the land as at November 18, 1963; (k) the Department of Public Works did not advise the prospective mortgagee of its intention to lease; (1) not applicable.


POWER-BAY OF FUNDY INVESTIGATION
Mr. Coates: 1.	Where does the investigation into the harnessing of the bay of Fundy tides, from a power point of view, stand at the present time?
2.	What is the estimated length of time before the present phase of the investigation will be completed?
3.	What is the cost to date of the investigation and what is the estimated final cost of same?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I am informed by the Atlantic development board as follows:
1.	An investigation of foundation conditions in the Cumberland basin-Shepody bay area, upper bay of Fundy, in connection with possible tidal power developments, has been carried out and the report has been received.
2.	See 1 above.
3.	The cost of the investigation under the agreement with the consultant was $100,000.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE AND ASSISTANCE PAYMENTS
Mr. Gauthier: 1.	What amounts were paid in the form of unemployment insurance in each of the provinces (a) for the year 1963 (b) for the year 1964?
2.	What amounts were paid by the federal government in the form of unemployment assistance in each of the provinces (a) for the year 1963 (b) for the year 1964?


Hon. Maurice State): 1.	Lamontagne (Secretary of	
Province	1963	1964
	(Jan. to June)	
N e wf oundland Prince Edward	$ 19,523,248 $	15,731,617Island	3,356,374	2,655,476Nova Scotia	20,108,361	14,166,928New Brunswick	19,295,500	13,282,257Quebec	125,377,682	80,725,895Ontario	114,661,500	68,180,714Manitoba	18,278,052	11,490,839Saskatchewan	12,257,095	8,020,637Alberta	22,203,293	14,014,586British Columbia	40,339,624	24,594,1792. Payments to the provinces for	unemployment assistance for 1963 and for 1964 to July 31 are shown below. Payments for 1964 do not reflect the full cost of assistance for the months covered because the provinces are permitted six months within which to submit final claims for any month.1963	1964Newfoundland	$ 4,539,808	(to July 31) $ 1,742,994Prince Edward Island	284,892	83,699Nova Scotia	1,740,209	514,518New Brunswick	1,780,609	522,074Quebec	38,825,009	16,856,410Ontario	23,682,583	10,254,766Manitoba	4,923,207	1,120,974Saskatchewan	4,623,628	1,902,850Alberta	7,663,009	3,114,190British Columbia	16,742,406	7,194,496Yukon Territory	62,756	7,374Northwest Territories 85,246	29,080Total	$104,953,362	$43,343,425


ARDA PROJECTS, QUEBEC
Mr. Gaufhier: 1. What are the names of the municipalities where the following projects are being carried out: 5028-1963 re: Belanger river; 5042-1963 re: Bleu-tiere; 5049-1963 re: Bieutiore; 5053-1963 re: forest area; 5054-1964 re: Bleutidre; 5055-1963 re: Bleu-tiere; 5084-1963 re:	Labrecque waterway; 5097-
1963 re: forest area; 5100-1963 re: forest area; 5101-1963 re: forest area; 5103-1963 re: Bouchard waterway; 5105-1963 re: Grand Brfile waterway; 5106-1963 re: Quinze waterway; 5107-1963 re: Cor-riveau waterway; 5108-1963 re: Thibeault waterway; 5109-1963 re: Branches des Vingt waterway; 5110-1963 re: Normand waterway; 5112-1963 re: Menard waterway; 5113-1963 re:	Deschambault
waterway; 5114-1963 re: Meunier waterway; 51151963 re:	Nepvu waterway; 5116-1963 re:	Guay

Henry waterway; 5121-1963 re:	Bleuti&re; 5122-
1963 re: Bleutiere; 5123-1963 re: forest restoration; 5124-1963 re: Bleutiere; 5125-1963 re: Bleutiere; 5126-1963 re: Bleutiere; 5128-1963 re: Bleuttere?
2. What amounts have been spent by the federal government for the following number of projects approved in each province: Newfoundland, 33; Prince Edward Island, 18; Nova Scotia, 37; New Brunswick, 26; Quebec, 116, Ontario, 28; Manitoba, 49; Saskatchewan, 89; Alberta, 25; British Columbia, 16?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: 1.	The names of the municipalities where projects are being carried out are listed below opposite the project numbers involved. (See list 1).
List 1
5028, Normandin; 5042, Lavergne-Abitibi West; 5049, Pelletier; 5053, Cherbourg et de St. Denis-Matane; 5054, Proulx and Dalmas; 5055, Racine; 5084, Ste Jeanne-d'Arc; 5097, D'Assemetquagan; 5100, Ste-Marguerite-Marie; 5101, Milnikek and Jette; 5103, Granby; 5105, Varennes; 5106, St. Philippe and St. Jacques-le-Mineur; 5107, Dunham; 5108, Notre-Dame-de-Secours-de-l'Islet; 5109, St. Emond-de-Grantham, St-Majorique-de-Grantham; 5110, Ste-Marguerite; 5112, St-Joseph-de-Chambly; 5113, St. Scholastique; 5114, St. Scholastique; 5115, St. Scholastique; 5116, Sainte-Clothilde; 5121, Senneville; 5122, Beaudet; 5123, Auclair; 5124, D'Albanel; 5125, Ste Elisabeth; 5126, Normandin; 5128, Milot.
2.	The amount of moneys claimed by the provinces to June 30, 1964 for projects approved is as follows: (See list 2).
	List	2	
Nfld.	P.E.I.	N.S.$	$	$1962-63	14,984.43	29,861.591963-64	96,365.49	52,003.73	90,876.521964-65	173,176.38	1,884.59	16,460.25269,541.87	68,872.75	137,198.36N.B.	Quebec	Ontario$	$	$1962-63	62,100.66	216,649.82	1963-64	155,877.90	1,090,622.80	75,200.891964-65	12,301.05	217,978.56	1,319,573.67	75,200.89Manitoba Saskatchewan	$	$1962-63	56,530.89 161,672.72	1963-64	787,649.70 1,105,063.34	1964-65	844,180.59 1,266,736.06	
Questions
Alberta British Columbia

1962-63		
1963-	64 1964-	65	241,996.15	103,416.99[Text]	241,996.15	103,416.99AIRPORT PARKING	RATES


Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	What Is the daily rate for parking at airports in Ottawa, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg and Edmonton?
2.	Who sets the charge and is the charge the same at each airport?
3.	If charges at various airports are variated, what is the reason for this?


John Whitney Pickersgill: 1. (a) Daily rates for manned parking facilities: Ottawa, Winnipeg and Edmonton international airports (surface parking): 10 cents for the first half hour or portion thereof; 15 cents for the next one and one half hours or portion thereof; 25 cents for each additional four hours or portion thereof; $1.50, daily maximum rate.
Note: At the Edmonton international airport a weekly rate of $7 was recently introduced.
Montreal international airport (surface parking): 25 cents for the first two hours or portion thereof; 25 cents for each additional four hours or portion thereof; $1.50, daily maximum rate.
Toronto international airport (structure parking): 25 cents for the first two hours or portion thereof; 15 cents for the second two hours or portion thereof; 25 cents for the third two hours or portion thereof; 25 cents for each additional three hours or portion thereof; $2, daily maximum rate.
(b) Metered parking rates: Ottawa, Winnipeg, Edmonton international airports: 10 cents for one half hour with a maximum metered parking of one hour.
Montreal and Toronto international airports; 25 cents for one half hour with a maximum metered parking of one hour.
2	and 3. The charge is set by the concessionaire, subject to the approval of the department, and may vary from airport to airport according to local conditions and local requirements.


DUTCH ELM DISEASE
Mr. Slenson: Has the Department of Forestry any way of combatting Dutch elm disease which is killing many elm trees in Ontario and Quebec, and, if so,

Questions
would the department consider giving aid to municipalities to fight this disease?


Maurice Sauvé: No cure is yet known for the Dutch elm disease. However, definite steps can be taken to reduce the destructiveness of the disease by removing diseased and dead trees and by the timely application of insecticides such as D.D.T. to prevent the feeding and breeding of the bark beetles that spread the causal fungus.
In these control procedures, the Department of Forestry provides technical assistance including diagnostic services to municipalities and others undertaking control, and maintains continuing surveys to define the limits and seriousness of the disease.


DOMINION-PROVINCIAL ROADS TO RESOURCES AGREEMENTS
Mr. Korchinski: 1.	How many provinces have had agreements signed with the federal government under the roads to resources program?
2.	How many provinces have completed these programs?
3.	What amount of money has the federal government contributed to date to each of the provinces?
4.	What is the estimated date of completion of the projects agreed to under present arrangements?


Hon. Arihur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: 1. Ten.
2. None.
3	and 4.
	Federal government	Date that
	contribution as of	agreement
	Aug. 6, 1964, to	with the
	each of the	provinces
Province	provinces	expiresNewfoundland	$4,153,519	31 March, 1969Prince Edward Island	5,544,889	31 March, 1966New Brunswick	5,249,999	31 March, 1968Nova Scotia	6,922,994	31 March, 1966Quebec	4,837,037	31 March, 1965Ontario	5,162,925	31 March, 1967Manitoba	6,375,746	31 March, 1966Saskatchewan	5,355,962	31 March, 1966Alberta	6,880,596	31 March, 1965British Columbia	6,215,052	31 March, 1968
The estimated date of completion of each individual project within the province under the roads to resources program is a responsibility of the provincial government.


ADVERTISING REVENUE, STATION CJBC, TORONTO
Mr. Cowan: What was the division of the advertising revenue of radio station CJBC, Toronto, in the month of July, 1964, between advertising in the French language and advertising in the English language?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that all advertising revenue of station CJBC for the month of July, 1964 was from advertising in the English language.


INDIAN AFFAIRS EMPLOYEES, CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. Basford: 1. At the end of the last fiscal year, how many employees were employed in the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?

2.	Of those employees, how many had university training up to and including, but not beyond (a) baccalaureate level (b) master's level (c) doctorate level?
3.	Of those in each of groups 2(a). 2(b) and 2(c), how many in each group were stationed in British Columbia?
4.	What is the maximum number of appointments hoped to be made under civil service commission competition 64-758 for community development specialists?
5.	How many of such appointments to be made under part 4 above will be made for British Columbia?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. At the end of the last fiscal year there were 2,416 employees employed in the Indian affairs branch of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration.
2. Of these employees; (a) 237 had university training up to and including, but not beyond the baccalaureate level; (b) 31 had university training up to and including, but not beyond the master's level; (c) 7 had university training up to and including the doctorate level.

3.	01 those in group 2(a), 55 were stationed in British Columbia; in group 2(b), three were stationed in British Columbia; in group 2(c), three were stationed in British Columbia.
4.	The maximum number of appointments hoped to be made under civil service commission competition 64-758 for community development specialists is 25 in the current year.
5.	Of such appointments to be made under part 4 above, 4 will be made for British Columbia and the Yukon which constitute an administrative region.


WINTER WORKS PROGRAM, P.E.I.
Mr. Mullally: 1.	How many projects were approved In the province of Prince Edward Island under the winter works incentive program for 1963-64?
2.	How many municipalities participated in these projects?
3.	What was the total number of man hours of
labour required for all projects?
4.	What was the total federal share of the labour costs of the approved projects?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1. Eighty three projects were approved in the province of Prince Edward Island under the municipal winter works incentive program 1963-64.
2.	Twenty municipalities and 23 unorganized communities participated in these projects.
3.	An estimated 289,424 man hours work were required for these projects.
4.	The total estimated federal share of labour costs was $280,000.


PREMIUM ON CLASS B HOGS
Mr. Choquette: 1.	Does the government intend to grant a premium of $1 on class B hogs?
2.	What would be the total cost of paying such a premium?


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: 1. No.
2. Based on the average hog carcasses graded in Canada in the last five years qualifying for the B grade, the estimated cost of paying a $1 premium on each B grade hog would be approximately $3,205,000 annually.


MARINA CONSTRUCTION, RIDING MOUNTAIN PARK
Mr. Dinsdale: Does the recent lay-off of 14 employees at Riding Mountain national park mean that the government has decided against the construction of the urgently needed marina there and, if not, when will this project which was scheduled for last year get under way?
Inquiries of the Ministry


Arthur Laing: No. Construction of a marina in Riding Mountain national park has not yet been scheduled.


* INTERDEPARTMENTAL COMMITTEE ON PESTICIDES
Mr. Harley: What action does the government contemplate regarding the recommendations of the special committee on food and drugs on setting up an interdepartmental committee on pesticides?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: In accordance with the recommendation of the special committee on food and drugs, an interdepartmental committee, with representation from the departments of agriculture, national health and welfare, fisheries, forestry, northern affairs and national resources, defence, and the national research council, has been established to deal generally with the use and effects of pesticides. The committee will be under the chairmanship of the assistant deputy minister of research, Department of Agriculture, and will report to the Minister of Agriculture.


MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, motion No. 155 is acceptable subject to the usual reservation concerning the consent of the province. I ask that motion 134 be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SASKATCHEWAN PROPOSAL OF WORK FOR SOCIAL AID RECIPIENTS
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 155-Mr. Douglas:
That an humble address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this house a copy of all correspondence exchanged between the minister of social welfare, government of Saskatchewan and the Minister of National Health and Welfare regarding the former's proposal that work be provided for social aid recipients.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a posi-

Inquiries of the Ministry tion to inform the house as to recent developments in connection with the Cyprus situation, and in particular the reaction of the Canadian government to the statesmanlike stand being taken by the prime minister of Greece in his warning to President Maka-rios as to the need of restraint on his part? Have there been any communications by the Canadian government with the prime ministers or foreign ministers of Turkey and Greece? What is the present position regarding the Canadian ambassador to Greece, who has performed his responsibilities so admirably? According to the press he is returning to Greece at once. What in general will be his actions in this connection on arriving in Greece?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian ambassador to Greece was here for a few days and has returned today to his post in Athens. He will be seeing members of the government of Greece regarding some matters we have been discussing with him here in Ottawa. The foreign minister of Greece has responded to the appeal made to him over the week end by calling in one of the officers of our mission in Athens. He took the opportunity on that occasion to express his satisfaction with the contribution that was being made by the United Nations force in which Canada is participating.
Last night there was a meeting of the security council. Some measures were taken to set in motion the terms under which the cease fire will be effected and the terms under which the United Nations force under General Thimayya will be called upon to help in the enforcement of the cease fire. The secretary general is calling a meeting tomorrow of the representatives of the countries participating in the force, and it may be that after that meeting there will be something more to be said.
I would simply say that the security council meeting last night did take note of the flights that were undertaken by Turkey and which, according to the government of that country, were pursued for the purpose of verifying the extent to which the Greek community on the island was living up to the undertaking given on Sunday by the government of Cyprus.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been a favourable reaction on the part of the secretary general to the general agreement in this house a few days ago that additional powers should be made available to the United Na-


tions force so as to enable it to discharge its responsibilities properly?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The secretary general has had put before him the debate which took place in this parliament. He has before him the representations that were made by the Canadian government a number of weeks ago with regard to the extension of the powers of the force. He has pointed out, as I pointed out on Monday last, that the extension of the powers of the force depends upon two factors that we cannot overlook. The first is that an agreement for the extension of these powers by the security council is dependant upon the attitude that might be taken by way of veto by any one of a certain number of powers on the council. He likewise pointed out, as the Prime Minister and I pointed out, that in any event if the security council should agree to the extension of powers, this extension in turn would have to be concurred in by the government on the island of Cyprus.
These are not the kind of limitations I am anxious to see perpetuated, but they are there. In any event, it would be interesting to see whether, as a result of tomorrow's meeting, some further progress in this matter can take place. In preparation for tomorrow's meeting the Canadian ambassador at the United Nations is coming to Ottawa this afternoon, and he will return for the meeting tomorrow morning.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: May I ask a
supplementary question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In regard to the efforts being made by the Canadian government to have the powers of the United Nations peace keeping force widened to try to remove the objections by the archbishop to patrols being carried on in all parts of the island, has the Canadian government made diplomatic representations to countries other than Cyprus, Greece and Turkey or the secretary general of the United Nations to try to persuade the archbishop to be more agreeable on this matter?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Is the minister in a position to tell us to what other countries he has made representation? I realize there may be limitations on what he is able to tell us in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: We have, through various missions here in Ottawa, communicated with a number of countries in addition to the governments of the countries partici-

pating in the force. We have communicated with certain countries which we feel share our view and which may be in a position to bring this point of view before the government of Cyprus.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquillam):: The
minister has mentioned a meeting tomorrow with the secretary general of the United Nations and the representatives of those nations who are participating in the peace keeping operations in Cyprus. May I ask who will represent Canada at this meeting? In spite of the difficulties the minister has outlined, will the Canadian representative press for proceeding with every possible attempt to enlarge the powers of the United Nations peace keeping force, particularly with regard to freedom of movement and the right to disarm civilians?


Paul Joseph James Martin: It had been thought at one time that the foreign ministers of the participating countries might meet in New York with the secretary general tomorrow. This suggestion was made by Canada, but it was thought it might not be possible for some of the foreign ministers to attend. The ambassadors of the various countries will attend the meeting. Not only will the Canadian representative do everything he can to see that the powers of the UN force are extended but, as I have indicated, he has done this now for many weeks.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the apparent policy of Greece of taking a firmer attitude toward the Cyprus government, and in view of the statement of Archbishop Makarios who has said he will fight on alone, or with others, is the minister aware of whether or not Cyprus has received military aid from any other countries in the area, such as the United Arab Republic, Yugoslavia or Syria?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add to what I have already said on the question of importations.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: May I put
a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker?
The Secretary of State for External Affairs had discussions for two days, I believe, with the Canadian ambassador to Greece, Hon. Antonio Barrette. Is our ambassador playing a part at present, as peace-maker or otherwise, in an attempt to ease the tension be-
Inquiries of the Ministry tween Greece, Turkey and Cyprus? What is exactly the part played by our ambassador to Greece at present?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has properly described the attempts made by our ambassador to Athens in order to find a solution, and I can assure him that Mr. Barrette is performing his duty with dignity and efficiency.


PENSIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Are the provinces being consulted with reference to the pension plan legislation presently being drafted?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the provinces have been consulted all along on the framework of the plan. They are not being consulted on the actual physical preparation of the legislation, at the moment at least.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: As a supplementary, I take it there is no firm consultation with reference to the actual drafting?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, at the moment most civil servants in the 11 levels of government, unlike members of the House of Commons, are on vacation during the month of August.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Would the minister tell us whether the government is giving any consideration to equalizing the remuneration for prevailing rate employees and thus eliminate that measure of discrimination presently in effect?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, I shall take that question as notice.


REPAIRS TO NAVAL SHIP SOLD TO TORONTO GROUP
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I want to ask the Minister of Defence Production a

Inquiries of the Ministry question which arises out of the sale of the naval ship Haida to a group, I believe in Toronto, for $20,000. This is a move I think everyone will welcome, but I should like to ask the minister the authority for the refurbishing and repairs that are taking place in respect of this ship at the dockyards in Halifax?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: I shall take that question as notice. More particularly, I will refer it to the Minister of National Defence who, rather than myself, has control over the dockyards.


OBJECTION TO INCREASE IN HANDLING AND STORAGE CHARGES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tis-dale):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture under whose jurisdiction is the board of grain commissioners, but since the minister is not in his seat may I direct it to his parliamentary secretary. Can he inform the house whether any decision has been reached by the board of grain commissioners to have the handling and storage charges on grain increased, as has been requested by the trade? There is strong opposition to this from farm organizations, and would the minister take this matter into consideration when he holds his sessions with the board?


Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question and also for having provided notice of his intention to ask it. I am informed that the board of grain commissioners have held public hearings but as yet no decision has been taken.


AGRICULTURE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Bruce Silas Beer: Mr. Speaker, while I am on my feet may I refer to the question addressed by the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tis-dale to the Minister of Trade and Commerce yesterday, with respect to a request by the farmers' union for a meeting with the Minister of Agriculture regarding the moisture content
[Mr. Fisher.)
of spring and Durum wheat. I may say for the information of the hon. member that the minister and the board of grain commissioners met and discussed this matter with representatives of the farmers' union on Monday last.


CONSIDERATION BY HOUSE COMMITTEE OF REPORT ON P.F.A.A.
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question
to the right hon. Prime Minister because it possibly involves more than one department. Due to the barrage of unfavourable comment across the country levelled at the P.F.A.A. since Commissioner Pope's report has come out, I wonder whether the government has considered referring this report either to the standing committee on agriculture and colonization or the standing committee on privileges and elections so that additional information can be made available and debate can take place on it?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I will be glad to give consideration to that matter, Mr. Speaker.


PAYMENT OF SUBSIDY ON GRAIN TRANSPORTED BY FARMERS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Forestry?
Would the minister tell us whether grain transport subsidies are paid only to transport companies, or whether a farmer looking after his own transport could take advantage of that measure?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the policy has not changed in that regard.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. L. Chatterton (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Minister of Finance when the announcement will be made as to the adjustment of the salaries of civil servants in group B?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I shall consult with the President of the Privy Council and give an answer tomorrow.



HIGHWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Will the minister please advise the house when he will be in a position to announce the government's intention regarding participation in the announced program of the B.C. government to construct a highway through the mountains by the Yellowhead route?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I am not in a position to answer this question today, but I shall do so as soon as possible.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry and Defence Production based on newspaper reports of the minister's recent statements to delegations from Prince Edward Island. In view of the early closing of the Enamel and Heating aircraft repair and overhaul plant in Charlottetown, is the minister now in a position to advise whether he has been able to arrange for any alternative employment for the men of this plant so soon to become unemployed?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, aware of the difficult situation in Charlottetown, the Department of Defence Production is directing its energies to exploring all possible avenues of additional work.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Labour whether he can give me any information regarding the question I asked yesterday. In view of the fact a number of municipal winter works incentive projects which have been approved may have to be dropped, this matter is of considerable importance and urgency.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that a
Inquiries of the Ministry copy of the circular letter to which he referred yesterday was received in the Department of Labour. I should mention also that in the past the province of British Columbia has added a 25 per cent payment as its contribution to municipal winter works programs. In addition, I understand the province has also made a further, additional 25 per cent contribution, bringing the total governmental participation, federal and provincial, up to 100 per cent on approved projects in respect of persons who have been previously in receipt of unemployment assistance for a stated period.
This is the situation as I understand it. I am not clear from the letter I read this morning whether there is a fundamental change proposed in this procedure from what was followed in the past. No projects have been approved for the forthcoming municipal works program, so that whatever proposals come forward will be examined for approval here in Ottawa.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Georges Valade (St. Mary):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Prime Minister a question about the Canadian flag.
Would the Prime Minister agree to a meeting of the leaders of the five political parties represented in the House of Commons to discuss the Canadian flag?
That meeting would be called to reach a unanimous decision on the choice of a distinctive Canadian flag, other than the three maple leaves, which would then be submitted to the house by the Speaker, in order to dissociate that matter from any political partisanship-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Georges-J. Valade: -and that, within a set period. [Text]


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, we have already had useful meetings with the party leaders, and I hope this procedure can be continued.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There was no question raised at this one meeting or at any meeting regarding the nature, kind and design of a flag. I am sure the Prime Minister, in

Inquiries of the Ministry answering as he did, did not intend to leave that impression.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister tell us whether his nonacceptance means that he refuses to accept any other suggestion but his own?



HEALTH AND WELFARE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. I wonder whether the hon. lady, either today or at an early date, will make a statement to the house on the steps her department is actually taking to get ready to implement the recommendations of the Hall commission report. In particular, could she in that statement tell us whether the government is doing any of the things that the Hall commission report recommended should be done pending the holding of a conference?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I can say at this moment, as I have already said publicly, that immediately upon receipt of the Hall commission report a committee of experts of my department was set up to break down the report, go into various sections of it, bring together various recommendations, attempt to cost them and get some idea of the recommendations. I was informed yesterday that there are now 14 subcommittees dealing with various aspects of this report in order to get a report for me at the earliest possible date. I am afraid I cannot say anything more than that, because that is the only step that has been taken so far with respect to the Hall commission report.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the minister would endeavour to make a statement at an early date with respect to the second part of my question, namely what is being done with regard to those things that the Hall commission recommended should be done pending the holding of a conference. I refer her to page 92 of the report.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: I shall be glad to take this suggestion into consideration, Mr. Speaker.


If it is decided that it would be appropriate to make such a statement in the next few days during the debate I shall be pleased to do so.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieile-L'Assompiion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance based on information from d.b.s.
Could the minister tell us if it is true that the cost of living index rose 2.8 per cent from last year and if it is true that the rise is due to higher housing costs?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not correct. The cost of living index has gone up by 2 per cent in the past 12 months, which is less than the increase in the countries of western Europe, or in Japan or South America. Of this, I think one fiftieth would be due to changes in the cost of housing.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
Since the members of the Conservative party appear to have a lot of things to say on the flag issue and since every opportunity must be afforded the members of the Conservative party to speak as much as they want on the matter, being in a democracy, is the right hon. Prime Minister considering extending sitting hours to 15 hours a day for as long as the flag debate will last?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think, Mr. Speaker, we ought to see how we proceed in accordance with the hours already agreed on.


Georges-J. Valade: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker.

Does the Prime Minister not feel that if he had accepted the suggestion I just made, that would have shortened the flag debate since we could thus have reached a unanimous decision on the choice of the Canadian flag?
I think he should have accepted my suggestion.


John George Diefenbaker: Arising out of the question asked a moment ago, Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister say what happened to the brainstorm of the hon. member for Lapointe, when he suggested in a motion which appeared in Votes and Proceedings that this house should start to sit at nine o'clock in the morning and run to, I think it was, midnight? What happened to that motion of the hon. gentleman? In other words, what happened to the motion that would have provided limitation of debate by exhaustion?



PRIVILEGE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which has to do with tampering with Hansard. A remark made by the Minister of Finance yesterday on page 6659 of Hansard has been amended and altered in the printed version of yesterday's report. As reported in the shorthand transcript last night, the Minister of Finance said:
What is one hundred million?
As printed in Hansard this remark is:
What is the one hundred million?
In other words "the" has been injected into the sentence. This may seem to be a very trivial editorial amendment, but it changes the purport of the remark and skilfully obscures the meaning that was intended. What the minister on second thought regarded as a damaging remark has been made into a confusing one. I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is tampering with the official record of parliament, and it should not be indulged in by anyone.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I am sure my hon. friend and all other hon. members of the house will agree with me when I say that twisting the words of anybody is a form of
Inquiries of the Ministry intellectual dishonesty-I almost said intellectual blackmail-which is despicable and repellent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: To answer the hon. gentleman's question, when I received the blue copy of my remarks the section to which my hon. friend refers was rubbed out in the copy that I saw.


An hon. Member:: What a laugh.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I do not know what the interjection from the hon. member over there, who has not been in the house for the last few weeks, means. As I said, the copy that I received was not clear. I asked the parliamentary secretary, as I was in the house and unable to inquire about it myself, to see the Hansard reporters to find out what they intended to put in. I have not seen him since about this, and I did not see the report of what was recorded until I got a copy of Hansard this morning. It seems to me that unless anybody is trying to twist the remarks that I made, or anybody else made, the Hansard report as it is recorded here is eminently correct.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, when one removes from what the hon. gentleman has said the remarks which were entirely unjustified -the references to "despicable" and "twisting"-I can only say that when using those expressions he speaks with an authority that none of the rest of us would endeavour to emulate. However, this change was made and the word "the" has been inserted. The blues indicate that the actual words taken down by the reporter were "What is one hundred million?" That that is so is further shown by the interpolation of the hon. member for Ontario, when he said "The minister says What's a hundred million?' " At no time was the article "the" used.
I would ask you to look into this matter, sir, because it is very obvious that the alteration was made. Whether it was made by the hon. gentleman or by somebody under his direction, by a parliamentary secretary or an executive assistant, what was said in this house was altered, and the reason for the alteration is apparent. For the rest of the afternoon there were references to "What's a hundred million?" The words "What is the one hundred million?" do not make any sense now, but they do indicate the degree to which care was taken to try to find some way to get around the damaging effect of the

Inquiries of the Ministry statement made by the hon. gentleman. I would ask Your Honour, as custodian of the rights of parliament, to examine the record, and having done so to make the appropriate decision.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I said a few minutes ago what I think about people who twist words, and if the Leader of the Opposition wants to put himself in that position he knows what I think of him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to enter into any controversy, but subterfuge such as that is no answer to tinkering with the record on a material matter, I therefore ask you, sir, in your position as Speaker to look into this and to report to the house tomorrow. Certainly the alteration is a material one and is designed to conceal a remark which should not have been made.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on the question which the hon. member for Ontario has raised, he quoted from what are customarily referred to as the "blues", and the Leader of the Opposition also referred to the "blues". You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that when we were sitting on the other side of the house your immediate predecessors, and I believe even those before that, made a ruling that the "blues" are not to be quoted from or used in discussions of Hansard in this house. That ruling has always been observed up to this time, and I would ask Your Honour, when you are considering this question, to rule whether it is in order to bring the blues into the house and quote from them as evidence of changes.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, on the point
of order, the rule which was made is this; that in the course of debate you cannot have sent in to you the blues and use them. This is not in the course of debate; this is an argument based on an alteration which, unless the blues were available, could not be brought before the house.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege, I happened to be one of those fortunate enough to be present in the house when the minister made the remark yesterday, and the hon. member for Ontario was correct, I believe, when he interpolated "The minister says 'What's a hundred million?' " But I might add that cold print does not give the feeling or the tone of

what was said, and I understood the Minister of Finance in this sense to be saying "What's a hundred million to the Leader of the Opposition?"


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Douglas Mason Fisher: I do not suggest that this is right or that an intervention should come from a member in his seat and be so satirical or cynical about other members of the house; but as one objective observer I think this was the gist of the remark. I suggest, Mr. Speaker that this is a tempest in a teapot and that we forget about it.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, in view of the interpretation and the interpolation of the hon. member, I suggest that he restrict his interpretation of intonations to his column in the press.


Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, on the matter which is before the house I should like to bring the attention of the house to the fact that the Globe and Mail in its column "Commons Debate", which is taken, I am sure, from the blues or otherwise it could not get into the morning paper, reports the Minister of Finance as saying: "What is one hundred million?"


Mr. Jean-Pierre Cole (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker on the same point of privilege, I was in the house when this discussion took place, and I do not know how the Leader of the Opposition can be sure of the words the Minister of Finance used, because he did not hear the phrase himself; it was brought to his attention by the hon. member for Ontario.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me that we have had ample discussion of this point and it is the responsibility of the Chair to do its best to try and settle it, which we will.


Hon. Paul Marlineau (Ponfiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. I wonder whether, after all this discussion, the Minister of Finance will tell us what is $100 million?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to describe what happened. The Leader of the Opposition, as I remember it, was quoting figures of $150 million and $250 million, I think it was. Anyway, it is all in Hansard and the hon. member can refer to it himself.


John George Diefenbaker: I was quoting the Liberal
party's promises.


Georges-J. Valade: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of personal privilege. A while ago the Minister of Finance in his reply

Canadian Flag INDUSTRY
to the Leader of the Opposition made a remark and pointed at me and accused me of passing remarks, which is entirely false. I did not say a word. Perhaps the minister is mad at somebody and wants to blame anybody, but I did not say a word and I do want to take objection to that.
A second point I should like to raise is that he said I was not here in the House of Commons for a couple of weeks. I think that remark is quite unfair and unwarranted. Everybody knows that I underwent a surgical operation to my knee, as did the hon. member for Longueuil and the Minister of Forestry, who went to spend a holiday in Capri. I think the minister should withdraw his remark in this regard.


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to, and in doing so I apologize to my hon. friend.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. No doubt this has occurred to the Chair but perhaps it should be cleared up. When the hon. member for Ontario raised this matter, he did so on a point of privilege. Therefore I suggest that it should not be regarded as a question within the terms of the thirty minute question period to which we are limited today. I have kept my timing of it, and it has taken about twelve minutes so far. I suggest that this should not cut off questions that are within the meaning of the thirty minute rule.


Mr. Speaker:: According to the information given me by the Clerk Assistant the question period should have ended at 2.48 p.m., having begun at 2.18 p.m., it being limited under our provisional standing order to thirty minutes. Now, I am in the hands of the house, but I suggest that as we have serious business before the house we should get on with that business.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that if Your Honour is going to hold the house to the time provided, then Your Honour ought to insist that questions of privilege such as that raised by the hon. member for Ontario should be raised prior to the question period, or after it, or the time ought to be subtracted.


Mr. Speaker:: As a compromise solution, is it agreed that we devote five minutes more to the question period and then get on with business of the house?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



PETERBOROUGH, ONT.-REPORTED REMOVAL OP PLANT TO U.S.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance. Because of the announcement today that C. W. Fisher, precision manufacturers of Peterborough, Ontario, are now moving their plant to the United States as a direct result of the 11 per cent tax on production machinery, would the minister advise the house what steps are being taken to prevent further movement of such industries to other countries and protect skilled labour in Canada?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, I saw the article in this morning's paper. As I read the article it was suggested that one of the reasons for this move, and only one and certainly not the main reason, was some increased costs including increased taxation. My opinion is that the main and principal reason for the move is the level of the United States tariff. The United States duty on at least a large proportion of the parts which the company produces is about 35 per cent, and the company, as I understand it, has decided that it can open a branch or subsidiary company in the United States and compete in that country successfully. I commend them for their initiative.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. Would the minister not agree that over the past few months the hon. member for Peterborough has been making representation after representation, and that petitions and briefs have been sent to the minister to the effect that the company is awaiting some decision by the government so it can maintain its plant in Canada and thereby export this machinery to 11 or 13 foreign countries?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the company is maintaining its plant in Canada and expects to expand it.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Friday, July 3, 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
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
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.
Mr. Herman Laverdiere (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, l do not wish to prolong the debate on this resolution which is, in my opinion, of the utmost importance for national unity.
I fully support the resolution and I hope it will soon be put to a vote. If the minority intends to delay the flag debate so as to prevent hon. members from taking holidays, then I would suggest that the question be put to a vote as soon as possible and that afterwards we continue, without any adjournment, with the other legislation on the order paper.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, initially I should like to say to the house that on the basis of the invitation the Prime Minister extended to members of the House of Commons to participate in this debate, and contrary to the brief words by the previous speaker, it is my intention, as well as the intention of my colleagues who so desire, to express our views and the views of the people of our ridings in regard to this important matter.
I have before me a communication from the local council of the town in which I reside. This communication was prepared without any previous discussion or organization. It is addressed to me personally and sets forth the subject matter in this way:
The following motion was endorsed by Hanover town council meeting Monday, June 8th, 1964.
"Moved by Albert Seip, seconded by T.G. Fyfe that we again endorse the red ensign as the Canada national flag and petition the M.P. for Grey-Bruce to support our stand."
Carried.
Yours truly,
Duncan McCallum,
Clerk.
I am not going to go into the significance of the names contained in this communication but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, and members of the house that this is extremely significant to me. I am sure some of the names would be recognized by members on the other side.
Mr. Speaker, I think I mentioned that the date of that communication was June 10. On

June 26, again without any degree of prior communication, I received the consensus of the county of Grey, province of Ontario, which is many miles removed from my home town:
Dear Sir:
The following resolution was passed by Grey county council at its session last week:
"Moved by Reeve Hargest, seconded by Deputy Reeve Davenport, that Grey county council endorse the resolution of Hanover town council whereby the red ensign be retained as the national flag of Canada and the members of parliament for this riding, Mr. Eric Winkler and Mr. Percy Noble, be notified of action taken."
Your consideration and co-operation in this regard would be appreciated.
That is signed by Mr. H. Henderson, -county clerk-treasurer. In addition, Mr. Speaker, I have had over 2,000 communications expressing similar support and only three to the contrary. So I doubt very much that there will be any question in the mind of anyone as to where the residents of the county of Grey in the province of Ontario stand generally on this matter.
When the hon. member for Bellechasse speaks about the intention of other people in the house to delay, I refer him once again to the invitation of the Prime Minister in regard to this debate. I also express, as he did, my concern respecting the importance of this debate in relation to the unity of the country, the people of the country and particularly minority groups. I shall elaborate on that in due course. I believe that the balance of the debate will be very serious for Canadians, and I implore all members of the house who participate in the ensuing debate to use extreme moderation in their approach to this very important question even although I do not believe such consideration was extended when the Prime Minister presented this motion to the house. I do not believe there was very much, if any, consultation. Indeed, it appears to be the fact that there was little or no consultation so far as the cabinet was concerned, and certainly no consultation so far as the supporters of the government were concerned.
As witness to public reaction in this connection I refer to an editorial in the Toronto Globe and Mail of Tuesday, June 16, 1964, in which the following appeared:
Prime Minister Lester Pearson's claim that he has pressed the issue of a national flag at this time to promote national unity is now no more than a bad joke-a sick joke. It is painfully apparent that he has succeeded only in encouraging disunity.
I am sure the hon. member for Bellechasse meant to impress not only the house but the

people of his constituency by the brevity of his remarks, but I assure him that his views are not shared by everybody throughout the land. In that connection I quote further from the editorial:
-large sections of the population will be left aggrieved and rebellious.
I believe that will be so, largely because of the lack of consultation and the method of presentation. The article goes on to say:
They have every reason-
The people of Canada.
-to be resentful of Mr. Pearson's tactics in threatening them with an election unless they accept the design he has chosen, and plenty of ammunition with which to discredit him.
As I have said, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come when we must exercise extreme moderation in our approach to this matter, and if need be I hope that the right to move amendments will be made use of before the conclusion of debate so that, if possible, a solution will be reached.
With regard to the remarks of the hon. member for Bellechasse, I would point out that all one has to do is refer to the order paper, which shows that 41 pieces of legislation have been passed by the house. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, and to the people of Canada that this does not indicate obstruction. I suggest that if the debate is lengthy because members choose to express themselves on the basis of the Prime Minister's invitation, neither does this indicate obstruction.
I believe that the question of the establishment of a flag was not mentioned in the throne speech. I may be wrong in this regard, but I do not think it was there even though it was an election promise. This is not our fault. It becomes the fault of the government if the business of the country and those things that Canadians want are obstructed. It is not the fault of the opposition.
I refer to the record again. We have been put in the position where there is no other legislative program before us at the moment. If obstruction is alleged by the Canadian press and parliament is denigrated by some newspapers putting such a view of the situation before the Canadian people, then I say they are doing parliament a disservice. If they allege that the opposition is obstructing parliament or the government, then I state categorically that they are wrong. Many references have been made in the past to indicate they are wrong.
I ask the Prime Minister to bear in mind the words of Sir Winston Churchill and apply
Canadian Flag
them in the present circumstances. I believe these words were spoken by him at the time of the debate on Indian independence. I may not have them exactly right, but I believe he said "I will not be the Queen's first minister to preside over the dissolution of the empire". I believe those words should be considered most seriously as applied to the situation confronting us today.
I believe there is enough common sense left in the two founding races of this great country to find a solution to our problems. Notwithstanding the words of politicians or anyone else seeking to divide us, I believe we can and will seek out the virtues of both the great founding races that complement one another rather than listen to the voices of dissension that are raised from time to time in an endeavour to divide us. Certainly this is a much better course to follow than to indulge in bitter words such as we hear from time to time. That is why I have asked today for that degree of moderation which we expect from elected representatives of the people in this house to be applied during the course of this debate.
Although I am young as a member of the House of Commons, I am sufficiently old fashioned to think and believe that as we all belong to our own communities in our own provinces, so we believe that as we contribute to the life in our communities we will derive benefit. I believe too, Mr. Speaker, that when we contribute to our nationality we receive benefits accordingly.
I believe that the areas of patience in Canada today are much larger than the areas of impatience. One of the reasons I have called for moderation in the course of the debate is that I would not care to see the larger areas of patience disintegrate and result in the destruction of what might finally be the unity that we all desire. One incident which has transpired since the present situation arose and which, in my humble opinion, might result in the disintegration of this area of patience was a speech delivered in Toronto and reported in the Toronto Telegram. I regret that I do not have the date, but I think it was June 15 of this year. I should like to read it into the record because I think it is an example of precisely what I have been saying. The article is entitled "Double Talk of P.C.'s Hit". I quote:
State Secretary Lamontagne has accused the Conservatives of hindering Canadian unity by making double talk on the flag issue.
''The Conservative party has two different voices, one from Quebec and one from the rest of.

Canadian Flag
Canada," he told 200 members of the York West Liberal association last night.
"One Conservative voice expresses its opposition to the union jack, the other to a distinctive Canadian flag. Such double talk is certainly not going to reduce tension in our country."
Mr. Lamontagne urged Liberals to work for English-French co-operation.
I am sure there are many members sitting on the other side who will agree with me when I say this is not the sort of talk that will eventually unite this country. In my opinion this is another example of the Liberal party's attempt to retain political power within our country.
My ensuing words will be the last I will say in regard to the design that has been placed before us for consideration. I do this because I believe the pattern that has been followed, the method of presentation that has been used, was entirely unauthorized; that it was organized in a political way. I believe Canadians across the country resent this type of activity. I say again that I believe if the Prime Minister had been sufficiently democratic in his view, sufficiently democratic in his presentation, we might not be standing on the brink of this debate as we are today. I think that by and large, in consideration of everything that has happened, the method that has been used-I will not say that the blame is entirely his-is most deplorable to Canadians.
' We must examine what happened initially in connection with this proposal. First of all we had a stamp issued. Then we had some very valuable leaks to the press gallery. There were some profound if conflicting statements from the treasury benches. I bring to the attention of hon. members the fact it was said this design was to stand for the unity of Canada. Ministers went across the country for a very short time-and I believe they were told to stop-stating that one maple leaf stood for English speaking Canada, another maple leaf for French speaking Canada and a third maple leaf for the other ethnic groups in Canada. I will make it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that I belong to another group, and I do not know which one of the leaves stands for that group. I do not belong to either of the two founding races of this country because of the way my family arrived here many years ago.
Then there was another interesting development. We had the presentation of a card game by another department of government, and this card game was laden with the same type of symbols. Hon. members may recall that we had some very interesting displays

in some of the major cities across this country. I recall seeing some very interesting pictures. I do not believe the people want the flag they choose used in this way or referred to in this way at any time in the future. In my humble opinion this was not complimentary in any way to the design. I recall the use the Liberal party has made in the past of splinter groups in the House of Commons. One example occurred back in 1924, I believe, when positions were jockeyed to curry the support of those groups, and I believe that is the case today. I do not believe anyone can deny it. I refer, therefore, to the presentation of this design as the Liberal party's political dichotomy. I do not believe it is anything else.
When I return to my constituency and I am asked what is wrong with the House of Commons today, what is the trouble with our parliament, I think I can say that the answer is obvious. This parliament started out to be a two party house, and so far as I am concerned on this issue today it is still a two party house when the other parties bow the knee to the weight of authority. It has been pointed out to me by people in my constituency that the leaves on the design have 13 points. This is not extremely important to me, but it must have been important to somebody else. It has been pointed out to me also that three maple leaves on one stem is very uncommon, as a matter of fact it is unknown. This form of leaf design, as a matter of fact, is known only to another form of Canadian vegetation.
In this regard I must bring to the attention of the house an expression of opinion by a constituent of mine who wishes to remain anonymous. She has expressed her view in this way, referring to the design:
Mutation
Oh, tiddledy-dum and tiddledy-dee,
What is this scarlet "trilogy"?
Some kindergarten art, perchance?
Poinsettias or ivy plants?
Or does this stark and metred line Portray a modem art design?
No self-respecting maple tree Produced this freak of botany...
...Oh, maple leaf! Our emblem dear!
We didn't recognize you here!
That is one expression. I do not know if it will be well accepted or not, but nevertheless that is the way it is. There are other aspects to be considered, and in my view they are fundamental ones.
I know there are people in different areas of the country who would like to shed any resemblance, or connection with the British

crown, from the design of our flag. I know there are also other areas in the country which do not support the Prime Minister in the presentation of his design, for other and varying reasons. I also know, and let us not be naive about this, that the people in Quebec, not totally but almost so, want to relieve the Canadian flag of any association with the union jack, and by the same token they have suggested that they do not want any association on the flag with their mother country, in the form of the fleur-de-lis. I may be wrong here, but this is what I find in my consultations with Canadians from Quebec. They have expressed this view that they want no association with their mother country, and want no sign of the fleur-de-lis on the Canadian flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Eric Alfred Winkler: I have an area of support there and I am going to try to prove this point. This is precisely the reason I am speaking this afternoon and I ask that we be careful in our approach so that greater division may not occur.
I have a number of excerpts before me, and the one I have in my hand is from the book "Canadians in the Making" by Professor Lower of Queen's University. It refers to conditions in Canada when it was a colony of France. One of the leaders of that day, according to this book, said:
Canada produces nothing that can ever possibly make a colony flourish.
It goes on to say:
In France, few tears were shed for the loss of Canada. The king had fortified both Louisburg and Quebec at vast expense and to fight the seven years war he had sent some good officers and some thousands of troops. But the heart of France had never been in colonizing ventures. Louis XIV himself had explained that "to people Canada, it would be necessary to depopulate France," and thereby he had made the great refusal, deciding to keep his subjects at home.
It goes on to say this, referring to the foreign service of the French government of that day:
In such circles, what was chiefly known about it was that it was costing the government about 500,000 livres a year; if we take the livre as equal to about a dollar of our money, half a million a year seems a small price to pay for a foothold in America. But it seemed large to the French government, too large. No wonder that when an appeal for more force came from Canada, at the height of her agony, the French minister, mindful of his country's perils on the battlegrounds of Europe, could answer: "When the house is on fire, we cannot bother about the stable.''
Canadian Flag
It continues:
The greatest of the voices was that of Voltaire and that sharp-tongued man did not spare poor Canada. "In truth you should drive home with the Duke de Choiseul (the chief minister of the time) my taste for Louisiana. I have never been able to understand how they came to choose the most detestable country in the north, only to be kept by ruinous wars, and abandon the finest climate on earth." "We had the inclination to establish ourselves in Canada upon the snows, between the bears and the beavers." And again, in his Candide, the well-known: "You know that these two nations are at war for a few acres of snow and that they are spending for that war far more than Canada is worth." Finally, after he had heard of the loss of Canada: "In one day ...1,500 leagues of land had been lost. These 1,500 leagues, being glacial deserts, were not, perhaps, really a loss. Canada cost much and brought in very little...." Voltaire was only the most extreme of many. Just as a century later many "little Englanders" tried to throw away the British Empire-
This is one of the reasons why the descendants of the French are no longer interested in having an emblem of that country on Canada's flag.
Then we have that part of Canadian history which is never talked about. I feel Canadians have always learned the history of the United States in more detail and at greater length than their own, because of the situation that exists between our two races. I do not consider myself an authority on history because I have had to research these things myself, but I know Canadians in Quebec are not proud of part of their history and this is one of the reasons they detest symbolic association with their mother country.
Quoting from "The Fight for Canada" by W. Wood, with reference to the time Canada was a colony of France, we find that Vau-dreuil was:
-a liar, a backbiter, and a pettifogger, utterly unfit for his great position; and the best excuse that can be made for him is that he was almost as great a fool as a knave.
Dealing with Bigot it says:
He deliberately set to work to create universal destitution in order that he might requisition help from France and make his commission on it.
In other words, he was a commissioner of the day. He bought from the government of France and sold to the people of New France. That is a pretty good deal even today, Mr. Speaker. This book goes on to say:
Bigot's object was to get the farmers completely at his mercy, by keeping all transportation in the hands of his own contractors.
It goes on to say that he was not alone in this, and that all the businessmen of that day were in a hurry to make their fortunes before the French lost the colony to the British.

Canadian Flag
That is a very brief summary, but with it in the background I think I can agree with the Canadians in the province of Quebec on their present attitude. This story is not well known, but we do know that at one time had it not been for the Canadians in the province of Quebec we would have lost Canada to the American powers. The parish priests in Quebec, recognizing the rights and liberties they had acquired from the British authorities, supported them and fought with them against the Americans in order to retain this country as we have it today. They showed their loyalty and I do not think that loyalty is much different today.
Another excerpt I have in my hand is from a work by Barlow Cumberland:
-and on this continent of America the impetuous Brock, facing enormous odds, gave up his life for it on the cedar-clad slopes of Queenston Heights, and beneath it-
-that is, the union jack-
-the French Canadians of Beauhamois knelt on the battle field and, rising, won with De Salaberry and his Voltigeurs the victory of glorious Cha-teauguay.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that puts it in pretty good perspective. When I think of the method of presentation of the design we have before us I go to Funk and Wagnalls new practical standard dictionary where the meaning of the word heraldry is given as-
-the science that treats of blazoning or describing armorial bearings.
I am not a great student of history, as I have said, but I can see none of this heraldry apparent in the particular design submitted to us. As I understand the value of heraldry it recalls our past and the conflicts in which we were involved. It recalls our religious background-and I see none of this in the new design. How important to us is this? I know-I heard it only this morning-* that the functions of church and state should be separated. This may be so; this may be the desire of some people, but I do not think any one of us regrets the advance of Christianity westward onto this particular continent. When we consider the people who are here today and the religions practised in this country, I do not believe for one minute that Christians would deny their own religion and the rights that are theirs and were brought with them with that advancing age.
I should like to refer further to the art of heraldry and quote from a recent article by a gentleman by the name of Jack Doupe, in which he says:
Deep in antiquity, the origins of today's flags were sacred symbols-

Then he says:
The mystic powers of these ancient standards, their call upon divine support for victory in battle, was certainly more important than their function of identifying forces in the field...
After Constantine, Rome's first Christian emperor, the labarum-a banner of richest purple silk borne at the head of armies-carried the monogram of Christ. So the divine significance of flags has been carried even into our era.
I would like to dwell for a few more moments on this particular subject because * I believe it is extremely important to us.
I have taken articles published by the National geographic society and from the Encyclopedia Canadiana. One article states it thus:
The cross of St. George-
-as contained within the union jack-
-was worn as a badge over the armour by every English soldier in the fourteenth century, if indeed not in earlier times. It was the flag under which the great seamen of Elizabeth's reign traded, explored, and fought; it was the flag that Drake bore around the world; and to this day it is the flag of the British admiral.
Some people have derided the union jack, but let us look a little further into the matter.
I believe that about 79 countries of the world -I have the information but it is not immediately before me-adopted the flags of their navies simply because it was an outward symbol of communication with the world and also indicated this to the areas of the world to which they travelled and with which they did business. I do not think we need be anything but proud of our record in this particular regard. Again I go on to the choosing of symbols, and particularly the crosses contained in the union jack, which appears on our Canadian red ensign:
The object displayed was a sacred symbol; of the four standards carried before the kings of ancient Egypt, for example, one is claimed to have represented-
-the king of that particular day. This is what the warriors of the Crusades displayed when they proceeded into battle. I believe the important part of this is that not only the two founding races of this country but other countries of the world participated in the use of the crosses that are inherent in the union jack and are still, of course, on the Canadian red ensign. This dates back as far as the year 1200. This article continues:
In assuming it, the crusader at once proclaimed his vow and demanded the aid of all Christians toward its fulfilment.
In other words, the fulfilment of the particular faith they followed:

The knights who followed the emperor Frederick I Barbarossa, Philip II Augustus of France and Richard I of England copied the flag and the pennon from their opponents and the cross from each other, but they saw to it, in some instances, that their crosses should differ in shape and colour. Thus, the French adopted a scarlet flag with a white cross, the English and Germans a white flag with a scarlet cross. It is not clear to what extent other variants were adopted by other national groups; but it is known that the returning crusaders retained their uniform after their return to Europe and with it their "national" flag, associated with their respective patron saints. This was certainly the case in England, where the cross of St. George was firmly established in the 13th century.
Here of course we must recognize that the cross of St. George was a variant between the crosses adopted by the people of those three countries at that time. I continue reading this article:
It contrasted with the flags used by the king and the nobility to symbolize more personal and local loyalties. It was not entirely peculiar to England and was known as the cross of St. George in 13th-century Germany. The French cross in white on scarlet also remained in use and was revived on a national basis by Louis XI in 1479. In general, these flags rose or fell in esteem with the idea of nationalism which they symbolized.
With regard to the proposed flag, if it is adopted what other deduction can we make than that we are not proud of our Christian heritage, that we are not prepared to say that these things were in our past, that we are not prepared to accept the terms contained within the general meaning of heraldry and emblazon them on a flag which we intend to use for all time? I hope we will not have people turning on this flag and saying it is a flag of agnosticism. Certainly this should not be the case. However I implore the Prime Minister to make this change in regard to the flag, because I know that people of the Roman Catholic faith of the province of Quebec, whose Christian heritage is as near and dear to them as mine is to me- and it may be I am the poorest of the practitioners of religion, but nevertheless these things are equally near and dear to me- would wish such a change to be made. These things are dear to me because so it was that my forefathers came here from under the cloud of subjection of the United States in those dark days. They settled here in Canada, as today do immigrants to this country, to practise the religion of their choice. Let us not lose sight of the fact that even an agnostic can do as he chooses under the system we have established and under the advance Christianity has made into the western world through the years of history.
Canadian Flag


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


Eric Alfred Winkler: Mr. Speaker, may I ask for a few more moments in which to conclude.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to allowing the hon. member to complete his remarks?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. gentleman should be allowed to finish the particular argument he is now making.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The
hon. member for Grey-Bruce.


Eric Alfred Winkler: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister and all those who have seen fit to extend this courtesy to me. I will conclude in the way I determined to conclude and make my final remarks. I want to become very serious in the presentation of my final words. I believe we in this house would wish to deport ourselves in the proper manner. If I could look ahead and see that there will be-and I do not see this-a free vote in this house, in the way in which a free vote is understood, I would accept such a proposal at any time. But I fear there will not be a free vote, having regard to the words that have been spoken on the government side; and because of this I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to members of the house that for this very reason I believe the members of this party constitute today what the party constituted in 1867, namely the party of confederation. One of the basic tenets of this party is national sovereignty, and inherent in national sovereignty is personal sovereignty. This is the reason that we feel, all things considered, that the people might well be consulted in this matter.
Therefore I say now, on a very personal note, that if the Prime Minister will consult parliament by placing this issue before a joint committee of both houses, before which committee all parties might assist in making a determination of this matter, I feel that it is not too late for all to participate in something which the Canadian people will desire. I feel very determined in this regard and am certain that a good result would occur. Some people do not feel this way but I am

Canadian Flag
convinced that a very desirable result would stem from the deliberations of such a committee. Then no one could point the finger at the Prime Minister or at the government and say that this was done without consultation or without the consultation of everyone in parliament. Then people could not say that this was a political flag. They would say that we have returned to a democratic procedure in the House of Commons. Therefore I make this plea to the Prime Minister this afternoon. There would be no difficulty in bringing this committee about-I can assure him of my full co-operation in this regard- at the earliest possible moment. This committee could sit while the house was not sitting, if that were desired. I believe that in this way the matter could be approached with calmness and reason, and people from all parties and races could be represented on such a committee.
As I said before, and as I say again in concluding, I am, as is the Prime Minister, a Canadian. I am, as he is, a free Canadian within the terms of the Canadian Bill of Rights. I ask him in all seriousness this afternoon to form this committee of both houses and to give the matter to them so that all Canadians will feel that they have participated.


Mr. P. V. Noble (Grey North):: Mr. Speaker, in speaking in support of the amendment to the flag resolution I just want to say that my participation in this debate is for the purpose of expressing my own firm convictions and exercising my duty to the good people I represent. They have indicated to me during recent weeks, and are still doing so, their strong feelings on this matter and that they wish to retain the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag. My hope has been as this debate has progressed that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would see the light and in the hour of his wisdom withdraw this resolution before it completely divides our people and inflicts wounds on this country which centuries may not heal. It is hard for sound-thinking Canadians to think that the Prime Minister of Canada, a reputed diplomat, a Nobel peace prize winner, a man held in high esteem in the commonwealth and now holding the fate of the Canadian red ensign in the palm of his hand, would bend these great principles attributed to him and consider breaking faith with millions of Canadians who have been loyal to this nation. The very least he could do is to ask for their individual expression on the matter
[Mr. Winkler.)
by way of a referendum at an opportune time.
He has intimated to members of the house that those who wished to speak would be given ample time to do so. This too could be interpreted as a camouflage to cover the dictatorial method by which the new flag can be forced on the majority of the people of this country by a minority group. There has never been an issue brought before the Canadian parliament that has been more instrumental than this in stirring up the wrath of our people right across the country. Never before has a prime minister of Canada put himself in such an outrageously vulnerable position when there were several sound and unquestionably fair ways of bringing about a satisfactory solution.
I owe a debt of gratitude, Mr. Speaker, to all those who have made their concern known to me. Their representations have been almost unanimous in support of the Canadian red ensign. I will not take the time of the house to list all 23 associations and organizations that indicated their support by letter or telegram; all the Legions in my riding were in the group and the others cover a wide field-from a young people's club and the council of women, to the county council, as mentioned by the hon. member for Grey-Bruce (Mr. Winkler). Of all the many hundreds of letters, cards, telegrams and petitions I received, only one was in support of the Pearson flag. Two others said they would support a new flag, not necessarily the proposed flag.
Now, in view of the fact that many of these people, Liberals and Conservatives alike, have put a lot of thought and wisdom into their expressions to me, I feel I am obligated to put a few excerpts from these letters on the record. But before doing so perhaps some consideration should be given to why people take this emphatic stand.
Now, Mr. Speaker, most Canadians are asking, why is this flag necessary? Which part of the country is requesting it? Who selected this flag? Why is it given priority over more pressing legislation? Why the dictatorial method of trying to force it on the country? Others say this does not look like a flag. Many products use the maple leaf as a brand name; many corporations use the words "maple leaf" in their company name; it is used as a trade mark and in many other ways. Toronto's professional hockey team has been known as the Maple Leafs for many years, yet Con Smythe the man who chose the name and who has been a key man in that organiza-

tion for many years, is strongly opposed to hauling down the Canadian red ensign and replacing it with a flag carrying a political label.
Americans proudly and reverently refer to their flag as "old glory". If we are forced to hoist this political pennant, Mr. Speaker, I will leave it to the imagination of this house as to how it will be referred to by millions of disappointed and indignant Canadians.
I will now read to you some of the thoughts of my constituents as expressed in letters to me. This is part of a letter from a businessman:
I have talked with many people and have had several phone calls urging me to use any Influence I might have to further encourage your stand which you have already taken... If people do not write you concerning the flag issue, it does not mean they are not up in arms. I have never experienced an issue that has roused the people as much as the present flag issue has.
This comment was written on a red ensign postcard; I will not mention the person's name. I am sure he would be recognized on the other side of the house:
I feel sure that the majority of our Meaford people prefer this flag. Hope you are "with us" in this matter.
This one is from a leading industrialist in my riding:
I entreat you to use your influence at this time with utmost urging for the retention of our red ensign as the true Canadian flag.
Here is one from a leading executive:
In my humble opinion there is nothing whatsoever wrong with our present flag. It embodies our ties with Great Britain and at the same time constantly reminds us through the crest of the peoples who settled this nation.
I have always considered myself as a democratic person, but I will never submit to a flag obviously designed to appease a minority group in this country. On the other hand if the Prime Minister will hold a national referendum I will, as a law abiding citizen, bow to the majority vote.
This letter is from a former school teacher, now retired.
A Canadian flag without the union jack wouldn't mean a thing to me. If the French people in Canada don't appreciate what Britain tried to do for them when she left them their language and laws and customs, they are an ungrateful bunch. Maybe it would have been better for all concerned if English had been made the only official language and if there had been no religion allowed in schools.
This letter is from an insurance broker:
May I commend you on your loyal and common sense stand on the flag issue.
Unfortunately, it would seem that Mr. Pearson and his cabinet are not men of true integrity like 20220-426
Canadian Flag
yourself, but are intent on having their way by whatever means possible without regard to the wishes of the people of Canada as a whole. It would appear that they are trading on the intense loyalty of those who prefer the red ensign (or at least a flag with the union jack in the quarter).
...Mr. Pearson in his short term in office has done more to disunite our country than any subversive element could hope to do. In the first place when he promised a "distinctive" flag for Canada I would venture to say that most Canadians (outside of Quebec) thought he referred to finalizing the order in council which proclaimed the red ensign as the "distinctive" flag of Canada.
A vote by members of parliament is not a vote of the people as a whole. I know for a fact that two Liberal members wrote to some of their constituents, in reply to requests to support the red ensign, to the effect that they would vote with the party regardless of the wishes of their constituents. The past performance of the Liberal party and members thereof confirms that this will be the case with all members of that party.
Mr. Pearson should also remember that while his party has more members in the house, they were not voted in by a majority of the people of Canada. Even a vote on the issue of the flag would not necessarily mean that the will of the majority of the people would be implemented. It would seem to me that the sane and proper way to establish a symbol for our country would be to have a referendum at a time when there would be no additional cost except for printing and paper for the ballot...Let parliament get on with necessary business: let the flag issue be decided quietly with every Canadian being allowed to indicate his or her preference without any clashes with other loyalties.
This talk of Canada being a mature nation now and should therefore not show (by using the union jack) any subservience to any other power, is so childish-does a man on reaching maturity change his name (or symbole)? No. He looks forward to having sons and grandsons who will carry on the name (or symbol) he proudly bears. No symbol of Canada is distinctive of Canada unless it includes the union jack. For Canada to drop the union jack from its symbol would be like a man, on reaching maturity, dropping his surname and becoming just any Tom, Dick or Harry.
Another man says this:
If Canadians change their flag at the whim of every extremist or even every government, people in other countries may get the impression that Canadians may change their ideas and ideals the same way. The way I see it, Canada has an enviable reputation to uphold in most countries of the world. Anything which may jeopardize this position should be carefully scrutinized...
...However, if they definitely decide there has to be an entirely new flag, I still believe the union jack and the fleur-de-lis should be part of it. Leaving these two symbols out seems a little like discarding your grandparents or parents picture as soon as we become of age or they have passed on to their reward. We need to keep these symbols to remind us and especially succeeding generations that it was these two great countries who actually gave birth to this great country of ours. .. .Does this government not intend to please the majority of its citizens?

Canadian Flag
This is what a mechanic has to say:
I know if the new proposal of a white and blue flag with red maple leaves is adopted that it will not be the Canadian flag, but the Pearson flag. Now it's bad enough to think about this ghastly design hanging out, but to have a one-man flag is (to me) not too democratic.
This communication is from a machinist:
If a few well placed sticks of dynamite and treacherous acts of vandalism can scare Mr. Pearson into quickly hauling down our flag, then it could well be that the threat of invasion or aerial bombing would scare him into handing over our country.
The union jack and the Canadian ensign have represented to the world our belief in justice, freedom and democracy. If this flag falls without a vote of the people on this issue, then the enemies of democracy world-wide will receive a great moral boost and our diplomatic position shall be weakened.
A lady who lost a son in the last war said:
What was good enough then for them to fight for is still good enough for us all. I'll not vote for the Grits anymore.
A housewife said:
At last the Prime Minister's choice of flag has been made public. What does it signify? Canadian foliage to be sure, but what about our Canadian heritage?
A district representative for a large company has this to say:
_I was in Sudbury on the week end and I
never saw so many red ensigns and union jacks flying in my life. Every one in our riding, including Liberals, are very upset of Pearson trying to force it down the people's throats, and I have yet to talk to anyone that favours a new flag other than the red ensign.
.. .My own personal opinion is that our Prime Minister is a traitor to his country and people on this issue.
This is a letter from a fruit grower:
-If Mr. Pearson and his colleagues are sincere in keeping Canada united, they will by all means keep the union jack on the flag.
I received this letter by air mail from England:
As a 1914 1st division veteran now revisiting Flanders and the British Isles, I most strenuously protest the proposal of Mr. Pearson to change our flag and national emblem. Please make every effort to prevent.
This one in reference to Mr. Pearson states:
His image of himself as omnipotent (on the matter of his very own choice of flag particularly) is frightful. It smacks of Hitler in his heyday, positive of his rightness while he was pulling his country down to ruin.
This letter is from an Indian chief:
The Indians were native to this land-surely they should not be ignored or overlooked in this whole flag issue. We have learned to respect our allegiance to the British crown. Now Mr. Pearson is trying to force us to respect the flag that has

no meaning for us at all. The flag is a symbol of many things, not just a cloth flying with three maple leaves. It must signify many things as every flag stands for an ideal for which men are willing to live and die for.
The following is written by a Canadian citizen living in Holland:
I am a Canadian whose work has necessitated living away from Canada but I have always been proud of our flag-the red ensign. The proposed flag has neither beauty nor meaning.
A retired merchant has stated:
I do not agree with those who say that a flag symbol is of little consequence and that any old rag will do.
A housewife writes:
Who started this thing anyway, and why should we have such a ridiculous looking piece of bunting shoved on us as a national flag? Get busy and put it to an all-Canadian vote and see what happens.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to read a letter addressed to the editor from the Ottawa Citizen of August 6, 1964 as follows:
The lack of teaching in our schools the meaning of our great flag; how it came to us, the democracy it brought and still stands for, and of the great union of free men and free nations written in its colour. The Canadian red ensign... not only speaks of the great struggle to win freedom; it proclaims to the rest of the world that free men will be free at any cost, and so long as free nations stand together.
The political and individual disregard for our country's future; disunity and separatism not only within our boundaries, but more seriously so, the eventual separation from the great union of free nations.
The indifference of Canadians on the whole; the lack of dignity and respect of their heritage, and the present lack of interest in protecting that heritage...
Mr. Speaker, perhaps the best endorsement I can put on the record in respect of a national flag is that during the last election campaign my Liberal opponent stood solidly for the Canadian red ensign, and made announcements to that effect during radio addresses.
These are samples of the observations coming from the grass roots of my riding of Grey North. If the facts were all known, this is a typical consensus of the vast majority of Ontario ridings. This is a strong and influential voice and 1 would caution the Prime Minister not to treat it lightly, for here lies the real fibre and backbone of the nation. Speeches by Ontario members sitting on the government benches are in large part conspicuous by their absence. I would challenge them to get on their feet and speak out honestly for the people they represent. If they decline to do this and try to hide under

the cover of a controlled party vote, I predict it will be a vote for their enforced retirement from politics. Of the Ontario members opposite who have spoken in this debate, some surely must be ashamed to face their constituents. There are some who have already sealed their political fate. I have here a clipping. If any of those members from Ontario who have spoken would like to verify this I suggest that they read this editorial and they will realize what I am talking about.
There are some really conscientious people sitting over there and I know their hearts must ache when they think of the intolerable and unfair position in which they find themselves. I entreat these members to rid themselves of this yoke and to take a stand that is honourable. Keep faith with the people who put their confidence in you. Do not turn your backs on your own people.
This Pearson flag is the most exploited political football this country has seen in a long time. It was used in one particular part of Canada during the last election campaign as a bribe for support. Now the supposedly finished product is being dangled before the same people's eyes to entice them in an election, now being planned, to give all their support to the Liberal camp. In the House of Commons it has been used freely as the proverbial red herring. Every time the government gets bogged down through poorly designed legislation the flag is dragged in until they can get their program back on the rails. These tactics leave the impression that the flag debate is holding up parliament which, of course, is the impression they hope to create in order to get themselves off the hook.
Many Canadians are concerned about the washing out of all ancestral symbols on the flag. Many others do not like the suggested replacement and still many others cannot stomach the cunning political and personal intrigue involved.
Why all the brainwashing, the introduction of a three leaf postage stamp and the effort to leave the impression that it had no motive, the kite flying of a personal flag for a select group of the press, an expert way to have propaganda exploited? Why was the Royal Canadian Legion imposed upon at their dominion convention with a flag speech and on a Sunday night set aside for devotional matters? The Prime Minister must have known that upon introducing his three leaf monstrosity he would be about as welcome as a skunk at a garden party. Could it be that he hoped it would be the means of making him a martyr? Why was the three leaf flag flown 20220-4261
Canadian Flag
at the Prime Minister's summer home at Harrington lake and in front of the parliament buildings? It was all part of the brainwashing campaign.
To finalize the whole dictatorial splurge the House of Commons is threatened with an election unless the Pearson flag is accepted. This is the way the communists decide issues. The results are determined beforehand and made known. Then it is only a matter of going through the motions of taking a vote. Such procedure would be one of the most damaging blows ever delivered against any country in a democratic world. I am sure the communists go along with this thinking because in the August 6 edition of the Ottawa Citizen the following endorsement of the Pearson flag appeared:
From the communist national executive: "The communist party supports you.''
To the embarrassment of all Canadians it is our own Prime Minister who is threatening to commit this offence. None of our prime ministers of the past had the temerity to select personally a flag for Canada. None of them in their wisdom would meddle with the flag even under circumstances very much more favourable than those in which we find this nation today. If any change in our flag had taken place in the past, I am sure it would have been the choice of the majority.
A change in the flag at this time bears all the earmarks of appeasement. Could this government be so naive as to think that the far reaching aspirations of the French Canadians are going to be satisfied by handing them a new piece of bunting to wave? Perhaps the Prime Minister is again being led down the garden path by those who advised him on the merits of a truth squad, carrier pigeons, colouring books and the like.
He must surely realize that this is a most inopportune time to press this flag change. We have seen enough and heard enough to indicate that there is actually a revolution taking place in Quebec. Violence has been resorted to on quite a number of occasions as a result of the intense emotional situation. Quebec has several radicals who are given wide publicity in their speeches which foment trouble in that province and offend Canadians in other parts of the country. These regrettable circumstances have built up prejudices across Canada and a difficult situation has been created. The whole political atmosphere is such that this precipitate flag action should have been deferred until at least a semblance of normalcy was restored.

Canadian Flag
The smouldering embers, created from other dissatisfactions, have now been fanned into a strong flame by the flag issue. The Prime Minister has chosen to plunge the nation into an emotional crisis that will be disastrous to our unity. He is ignoring our history and dealing a death blow to the future we had hoped for.
A prime minister who had the best interests of his country at heart would not try to build from the top but would begin by constructing a firm foundation. In my opinion the Prime Minister could have shown real leadership and statesmanship if he had gotten to the bottom of this country's problems, sorted out those that were vital to bringing about unity and harmony and then concentrated on these until all provinces had one and the same objective, the building of a great, free nation, in other words, a "one Canada". Follow then with a flag selected by all the people of this nation as a crowning achievement.


Hon. D. S. Harkness (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, the flag issue now before us is from the very nature of things an emotional issue. Unless a country's flag does provoke emotions of loyalty, affection and respect, it fails as a symbol of the nation. I submit that the Canadian red ensign has not failed in this regard so far as the majority of the people of Canada are concerned and that its retention, possibly with some modifications, will provide Canada with a more satisfactory symbol of our nation than anything artificially produced to take its place.
Long before this debate started, Mr. Speaker, and throughout the few days it has proceeded so far, statements have been made that Canada has no flag of its own and that it is time Canada had a flag of its own, as well as other similar statements. I think all such statements are demonstrably untrue. From my own point of view, certainly ever since I can remember, and that goes back to before 1910, the red ensign has been the Canadian flag as far as I was concerned and as far as all the people with whom I was associated were concerned. As far as I am aware, over the years there was no question that it was not the Canadian flag until the matter was brought up in parliament in 1945, subsequently in the debate with regard to the setting up of a flag committee and in the proceedings of that committee in 1946. As I say, as far as most Canadians were concerned it was accepted up to that time that the

red ensign was the Canadian flag and there was no question in their minds on this point.
I think this was due to the fact that the ensign had been used and accepted as our flag at least since the time of confederation, and I believe before confederation. It flew from the tower of this very building in which we are conducting this debate from the time of confederation up until 1904.
There is a very interesting reference to the red ensign flying from the tower of this building in Hansard for March 17, 1904, page 219. I quote:


Mr. Henri  Bourassa@Labelle: Mr. Speaker, before the orders of the day are called I would like to have an explanation from the government in regard to a small incident to which some newspapers and people have attached some importance. I noticed on the day of the opening of parliament as well as today, which is St. Patrick's day, that the Canadian flag which used to be put upon the tower of the parliament building has been replaced by a union jack. I would like to know why the old flag that has been used in Canada ever since confederation should be laid aside.
Now, this was the situation. The red ensign had been accepted as the Canadian flag and had been flown from this building from the time of confederation to the opening of parliament in 1904 when it was replaced by the union jack. It is interesting to note that Sir Wilfrid Laurier replied as follows:
I am sorry to say that I cannot satisfy to-day the rather fastidious curiosity of my hon. friend, but I will make inquiry and try to give him an explanation upon another day.
Mr. Bourassa goes on to complain that the flag had always been used on this building. Hon. James Sutherland, minister of public works, gave him an explanation to the effect that there had never been any official authorization for its use and that the official flag should be the union jack. I believe this incident, in itself, indicates the fact that the Canadian red ensign was Canada's flag. It had been used for a long period of time and had flown from this building as the symbol of Canada. The fact that it was replaced in 1904 by a Liberal government under Sir Wilfrid Laurier, I feel, was a great pity. If that action had not been taken in 1904, I doubt very much if we would be having this flag debate at the moment. It is an interesting speculation. If this action had not been taken in replacing the red ensign with the union jack in 1904, the flag issue would never have arisen. Nobody would have brought the matter up or questioned the use of this flag.
It is rather interesting to note that an almost similar type of complaint as that made

by Mr. Bourassa in 1904 about the replacement of the red ensign with the union jack was made in 1945 by Mr. Church, a member from Toronto, because at that time the union jack was replaced by the red ensign.
I have another interesting proof here, Mr. Speaker, of the fact that the red ensign was used and accepted as our flag. It is in the form of an original election poster of Sir John A. Macdonald during the 1880's. You will see that it depicts Sir John A. Macdonald with a farmer on one side of him, a mechanic on the other, and in the background we have not the union jack but the red ensign. At the bottom, of course, is the slogan which everybody remembers: "The old flag, the old party, the old leader." I had always thought, Mr. Speaker, never having looked into the matter before, that the old flag referred to in this slogan was the union jack. This poster demonstrates the fact that the old flag referred to was not the union jack but the Canadian red ensign which evidently at that period of time was accepted as Canada's national flag. I think it has been accepted since that time by most Canadians as our national flag.
I believe there is no question about the fact that it is use and tradition and the love that people have for a flag which makes it meaningful as a national symbol, not a statute of parliament. In actual fact, very few countries have a flag as a result of legislation or statute. In nearly all cases, excluding the new nations of Africa and Asia which have just arisen in the last three or four years, flags have come into use through tradition and acceptance by the people, just in exactly the same way as our Canadian red ensign has come to be accepted through use.
In addition to the fact that the Canadian red ensign has become our flag through use and acceptance, there has been official recognition of it on at least three occasions of which I am aware. First there was an admiralty warrant of 1892 which authorized its use on Canadian merchant ships. It had been used on them before that, but this was an official authorization for its use for that purpose. Then there was the order in council of 1924 when the government of Mr. Mackenzie King prescribed the use of the Canadian red ensign for Canadian government offices and buildings abroad. You will note that they were "Canadian" and it was used at that time for that purpose. Finally there was the the order in council of 1945 to which frequent reference has been made, which authorized the Canadian red ensign for general use in Canada. It was on that occasion that
Canadian Flag
it was used on the peace tower of this building in place of the union jack to which I have already referred.
All I have said with regard to the use and acceptance of the Canadian red ensign during the past 100 years makes it clear that it is quite incorrect to say we have no flag or we have had no flag. Definitely, we have had a flag and we still have that flag until it is modified or changed in some way.
I regret very much, as I am sure most Canadians do, that the flag question has now become a partisan issue. Apparently this was not the Prime Minister's intention in the beginning. If we consult Hansard for May 12, 1964, page 3164, we find that the hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) asked the following question:
Will the right hon. gentleman give an assurance that when the design for the proposed new national flag is presented to parliament all members of this house will have a free vote, and that the defeat of the design would not be considered a vote of non-confidence in the government?
The Prime Minister replied as follows:
When the time comes to submit the decision of the government in this matter to the House of Commons I would hope every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictates, and that there would be no question of confidence or non-confidence in a party sense.
I believe nothing could be clearer than that. What the Prime Minister intended at that time was a free vote on this question. I submit that this is a question, above all others probably, upon which there should be a free vote. This is not a question which should be a partisan one. It is too divisive and, so far as the country generally is concerned, it packs too much potential dynamite to be converted into a partisan matter. This is particularly true in a House of Commons which, as has been pointed out many times before, is a house of minorities. However during the course of the next week the Prime Minister apparently changed his mind.
A week later, on May 19, the Prime Minister stated that the government would stand or fall on the flag question. He went on to intimate that it would be a free vote because each member would vote according to his conscience. That is merely playing with words, Mr. Speaker. A vote such as is now proposed on this question is the very opposite of a free vote. By definition a free vote is one which does not involve the fate of the government. I know of no other definition.
The vote we are going to have will be a regular vote of the house, and in view of the developments that have taken place indications show that to a large extent, though

Canadian Flag
not entirely, it will be on a partisan basis. Such a vote destroys the very essence of anything approaching a free vote, particularly when the fate of the government depends on its outcome.
To get the question of the flag back on a reasonable basis I suggest the government should first revert to the Prime Minister's original position. This would put each member in the position of being free to vote on the amendment before us, and on others which I understand will be introduced, according to his own conscience, free from the threat of precipitating an election on the issue, an election nobody wants on such an issue. I believe there is unanimous agreement that holding an election on this issue would be bad for the country, would be divisive, and would destroy rather than help national unity.
When introducing this resolution the Prime Minister said the intention was to promote unity in the country. I think he and all other members must recognize that instead of promoting unity it has done the exact reverse. This flag issue has exacerbated French-English feelings and stirred up resentments where none existed previously.
Throughout my life in western Canada, and I think my experience has been pretty representative, I have never found any expression of anti-French feeling or anti-French sentiment, except perhaps for some rumblings during the conscription crisis in the first world war. I found none of these until one or two years ago. Then some of the separatist statements from Quebec naturally led to counter statements concerning the feelings of English people in western Canada. This was greatly added to by the sittings of the bilingual and bicultural commission out there, but what brought the matter into sharp focus was the flag issue.
Any attempt to settle the flag question on the basis of the present resolution is going to leave lasting wounds which it will take a very long time to heal. I know all members of the house regret that fact as much as I do, but I would appeal to those supporting the resolution to look at the situation as it actually exists. There is no use in the world shutting our eyes to the real situation. We must recognize it and we must try to find an acceptable solution for it. The situation is one of a great deal of confusion, a great deal of disunity and a very much poorer general feeling of nationhood than existed before the flag issue was introduced.

I appeal to the government to take a reasonable position in regard to this whole matter. This is something in which compromise is a necessity in the interests of the country, not a so-called compromise on the time to be taken for debate, but a real compromise, which holds the hope of arriving at a flag which the great majority of Canadians will accept. Anyone who looks at the matter in a fair way knows that the design submitted by the Prime Minister is not one which the majority of the people of Canada will willingly accept, one for which they will hold the proper feelings of respect and loyalty.
In that respect the majority of the public opinions polls which have been held on this question show a great similarity in their results, and I believe they have given a fairly accurate picture of public opinion on the flag. I do not propose to go into any of the individual polls and give the figures they announced, there were three or four held in my own city of Calgary and they were decisive, but the great majority of the polls held across the country can be summed up in this way.
First, an overwhelming majority of the people in Quebec who answered the pollsters' questions are in favour of a new flag. There is no question about that whatsoever. Second, in each of the other provinces there is a majority in favour of the Canadian ensign, or some modification of it. That majority in some provinces is quite small, but nevertheless a majority of the people answering the questions in each of the other provinces expressed themselves in favour of the red ensign.
The third result shows that of those people who favour a new flag a very large proportion want a design different from the three maple leaves which is proposed. The net result shows that feeling is fairly evenly split between those who would favour retention of the red ensign and those who would like to have a new flag, but of those who would like to have a new flag a very large proportion do not want the flag which has been proposed, but some other type of design.
There are various organizations in Quebec interested in this matter, such as the Ligue Pour Le Drapeau Canadien, which has worked on this matter for years, and has a design it is still anxious to have adopted. Various other organizations in that and other provinces also have designs which they would much prefer to the one which has been presented to us.

We must recognize that there is only a very small minority of the Canadian people in favour of the proposed flag. Under these circumstances, with a great majority of the people opposed to this particular design for one reason or another, surely the government is not going to hold on to an adamant position that the flag which it has produced must be accepted. Surely that is not democracy. Surely it is not reasonable. I would hope very much that the government will be prepared to modify the position it has taken so far.
One of the arguments made against doing anything other than what the government has proposed, is the time argument, that this whole thing has gone on long enough, in fact has gone on too long and that it is time now to make an end to it. I suggest that argument is neither compelling nor convincing. We have talked about a new flag ever since 1945, and probably before that. In view of that long intervening period, and in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has still a considerable length of time to implement his election promise 1 feel the time argument is not an important one. We still have plenty of time to get this whole matter settled in a reasonable way and in a way that the majority of the people of the country would approve of. In any event, Mr. Speaker, it is surely much better to take more time in order to reach a solution that is satisfactory than to push one through that is extremely unsatisfactory.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Douglas Scott Harkness: I believe that the flag issue could be settled reasonably on somewhat the following lines. They have been indicated by other hon. members at various times and in various ways, but I would like to put them forward again. I think the first step should be to appoint a committee of the house or a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons to recommend a design for the flag, or possibly two or three alternative designs. I am not going to put forward the arguments in connection with that; the hon. member for Waterloo indicated some of them a short time ago. I think this is the reasonable way to go about deciding on a design at the present time.
The second step should be to submit the design recommended, or it and one of the alternatives perhaps, together with the red ensign and the government's proposed flag to the people themselves in the form of a plebiscite or referendum. Surely this is a matter which affects every Canadian emo-
Canadian Flag
tionally to such an extent that he should have the right to express his own views in regard to it. I think only by that means will you ever really get a solution of this problem which the majority of people will accept.
The third step, of course, would be for the House of Commons to adopt by resolution the flag which had been selected as a result of the plebiscite or referendum. I do not think there is any doubt that the division of opinion is such-and these opinions are very strongly held-that there is no other way in which the majority of Canadians can be persuaded to accept a new flag, whatever flag may finally be arrived at. However, I believe that the democratic process is so firmly rooted in Canada and accepted to such an extent that once the people of the country as a whole have expressed their wish, their will, in connection with the flag, the remainder of the people, no matter how strongly they may personally have been opposed to the flag recommended, will accept it. Certainly this is the case as far as I am concerned. I am a strong believer in the red ensign, but if the majority of the people of this country expressed a preference for the design the government has proposed, or for any other design, I would be quite prepared to accept it. I cannot, however- and I think I represent most Canadians in this point of view-accept the design the government has proposed simply on a partisan vote in this house. Such a vote is essentially a vote of confidence in a minority government, rather than a vote on the basis of people's individual feelings on the flag issue itself. I think it is the worst possible way in which to attempt to settle this issue in a parliament of this kind, a parliament which was not given any mandate to produce a new flag. Certainly the Liberal party did not put this issue forward as one of their main election planks, and people did not vote for them on that basis. Even if that had been the case, they did not win anything like the majority of the votes of the country, and therefore they have not a mandate from the majority of the people of this country to introduce a new flag of this kind.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would appeal to the Prime Minister and the government to follow a compromise course along the line I have suggested, or along any other line which will produce a settlement of this question, which will heal the bitterness which has been evoked so far and which will produce a flag which the majority of Canadians will accept.

Canadian Flag


Mr.   Boulin@: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?
In his remarks, the hon. member maintained that the flag design should be submitted to the people in a referendum. If the flag proposed in that referendum were the union jack and if 95 per cent of the people of Quebec voted against it while 95 per cent of the people in the other provinces were for it, would the hon. member impose such a flag on Quebec even though it does not want it?


Douglas Scott Harkness: To begin with, Mr. Speaker, the union jack is not to be one of the alternatives proposed in the referendum as the Canadian flag. I think that is a sufficient answer.


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonton-Straihcona):: Mr. Speaker, I thought the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) did a very good job of illustrating the aspect of the flag question which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in his speech practically ignored. It is not just a question of whether we are now going to change our flag, and it is not just a question of whether a flag can unify this country: It is a question of how best a flag can unify the country, if you want to change it. I suggest that the method of change is going to attach itself to the flag; the feelings aroused at the time are going to attach themselves to the flag. I will read just a paragraph or so of the Prime Minister's speech on this subject, and I think these words are typical. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a national flag of the kind described in this resolution, that will be exclusively Canadian, will bring us closer together; give us a greater feeling of national identity and unity. Today especially, as Mr. Massey has reminded us, we need faith and confidence in ourselves as Canadians, with pride in Canada, devotion to our country. I believe that the adoption of this resolution will help to produce that result. If I did not deeply and sincerely so believe, I would not be introducing it into this House of Commons.
The Prime Minister went on and described at great length how important it was for a country to have a flag, how much a flag should stand for, what it would do for the country. But I suggest that an examination of his words does not reveal any special flag that is necessary to do this. All you have to do is have a national flag that is so accepted. I suggest he has completely ignored the

method of bringing it about. He has not given a single explanation to the house as to the rush, or why he is handling it in this way. He made a very long speech on this subject, and I cannot for the life of me understand how he could have ignored the question of the method of changing our flag.
I spoke once before in this house, two years ago, on a private member's resolution, and I am sure I was not the only one to whom this type of question had occurred. As reported at page 327 of Hansard for January 29, 1962, I said:
I feel that one purpose of a flag Is to help achieve unity in this country. If there are going to be so many different views, and so many of them so strongly held, on what sort of a flag we should have, I suggest the process of choosing that flag could today cause more disunity than any other single action for years, with the possible exception of how the Liberals handled the conscription issue, or something like that.
Certainly I can understand the hon. member for Essex East wanting us to rush blindly into this. They have demonstrated, on more than one occasion, I will not say their anxiety but their carelessness about whether or not they disrupt the unity of this country.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the main theme which I wanted to make today, that there has been no explanation from the government, and that the method of choosing this flag is what is disrupting the country today. I think that even the most violent adherents to the red ensign, those who perhaps are not for the red ensign but are against the Pearson pennant, do not really care so much about the design of the flag as the method by which the government is attempting to introduce it. Certainly no explanation has been made in this house as to why the flag issue has to be settled this summer. No explanation has been made in this house as to why the flag debate should have priority over other important business.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the furthest thing from the Prime Minister's mind when this matter started was to make it a political issue. I suggest it has become a political issue and that the Prime Minister would really like now to withdraw from the position he has taken of staking the government's life on it. I am sure that no one in this country could more easily get away with changing his position than the Prime Minister. As the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) pointed out, it is apparent that at the start it was not going to be a political flag. I am not sure where the pressure came from to make the Prime Minister change his stand, but I have a feeling that it was from that

small group who are so anxious to get rid of the red ensign; who had a feeling that perhaps there would not be a majority in this house who would have a free vote to change our national flag. I suggest that to satisfy that element the Prime Minister changed his position. All I can say is that if the Prime Minister would look at his own words on the importance of a flag to the unity of this country he should also take a look at his own methods and at what he is doing to unity across the rest of the country.
I am sure that like myself all hon. members of this house have received numerous letters, but I have been very shocked by the tone of some of the letters which I have received from people in my constituency. I know I can truthfully say that a couple of years ago the question of the flag was one which aroused very little interest. You would hear the matter mentioned now and again. I thought people seemed generally to be in favour of the red ensign, but no one was excited about a flag. That situation now seems to have changed, and frankly the extent to which feelings now run makes it more and more necessary that we should pause at this stage.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, why the rush? Personally I think that if we had taken a month or two off or dropped this debate until all hon. members had had the chance to go home for a couple of months and talk to people in their constituencies, they would then have been able to come back here and report to the house just how the feeling in the country is running. I do not care whether this house can, by getting a majority of members to vote in favour, bring in a new flag design. I do not think any of us will feel very good if we bring in a new flag design and then find that the majority of the people across the country do not like it, are annoyed at the method by which it was achieved, that it was generally unacceptable to people, and that they would not fly it or respect it.
Just to give an example of the type of feelings which are aroused, Mr. Speaker, this is a quotation from a letter I received on May 21:
No wonder thousands of us are so mad, that if the rumours be true, that there is a movement for the separation of western Canada from the east, we will all be only too glad to join it.
This is part of a letter to the editor of the Edmonton Journal, headed "Let Quebec go":
The time has come for all of Canada to vote on whether Quebec should separate. I believe the rest of Canada is more in favour of Quebec's independence than Quebec itself.
Canadian Flag
I shudder when I get correspondence like-this because I cannot remember any such feeling before in my lifetime as that now apparent in western Canada. And I have received a lot of that type of mail. There is only one explanation for it at the present time, and it is the flag.
I will admit that the method used by the present government in dealing with the provinces and with the agitation from the province of Quebec has caused considerable worry in the west. Many questions have been asked, but they were not angry questions. There was puzzlement. We in this house are aware that there was a stirring in Quebec, but there was puzzlement in the west. There has been no articulate voice from the province of Quebec to tell us exactly what they want. There is a feeling of restlessness, a new movement, and we can understand that. The only question western Canada is asking is: What do they want? Never was an answer given, so there was never any chance clearly to understand Quebec's problem or the solution which this government has attempted-When we see the flag issue being handled in this manner it brings to mind every unanswered question these people had about the problem, and every bit of frustration they felt at not being able to understand. What you do not understand you do not sympathize with; and when you hear it more and more but have no sympathy with it, you soon resent it. I would suggest that if this flag, issue had not been brought forward and if it were not being handled-


Mr. Prud'homme:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he tell me if he has ever tried as a member of this house to understand Quebec, and as a member of his province explain the point of view of the Quebecker, as I for instance try to understand his problems and explain them to the people in my province?


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that in a second; I just want to finish making the point I was on. If the flag issue had not been raised and was not being handled in this present manner by the government, that feeling of puzzlement and bewilderment over Quebec would not have turned into the deep-resentment shown in so many letters I am now receiving.
In answer to the hon. member's question, I have attempted many times to get from members in this house just what it is that Quebec wants. I have heard many hon. members from Quebec say that they themselves

Canadian Flag
are not sure what Quebec wants. I think I heard the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) say that the other day, that Quebec is not sure what it wants. Therefore I would make this suggestion to the hon. member. I think it is a little unfair to suggest that I should explain the attitude of Quebec to my constituents, in view of the fact that members from Quebec cannot explain that attitude to me in this house. Be that as it may, I think the remarks I have used in reference to that attitude have been fair.
I was treated very nicely while on a visit to Quebec city. I returned and described my treatment and visit there to my colleagues as being, except for the language difficulty, very hospitable and friendly. I said the people there were more western than westerners. Certainly I have said nothing in describing Quebec that would aggravate the situation. In fact on many occasions I have said that the economic ills and complaints of Quebec are similar to those voiced on the prairies during the hungry thirties, at which time the blame was placed on the Bay street boys. All the economic ills of those years were thought to have been caused by the financiers in Toronto. That was the general feeling throughout the west.
The only explanation I can discover in respect of the present feeling in Quebec is that some politicians have twisted the blame in some manner, aiming it at the rest of Canada.
I suggest instead of attempting to change the symbol of what this country is, has been and is hoped to be in the future, the government should initiate legislation to cure the economic ills of the province of Quebec. If that could be accomplished by the government should initiate legislation to cure the in Quebec would disappear. I am sure there would not be an intensive drive to rid ourselves of our national flag.


Mr. Boutin:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?
I appreciate his feelings for the province of Quebec, but could he tell the house whether he agrees with the opinion expressed in 1957 by his leader, the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), when he said that he did not need the province of Quebec to come into office in Ottawa?


Mr. Graffiey:: He never said that.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise immediately to speak to a question of privilege. That is an unadulterated falsehood.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I should like to state that the question is out of order.


Mr. Crouse:: Withdraw your remark.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Terence James (Terry) Nugent: Mr. Speaker, I am always willing to entertain questions, but I do hope they will be sensible and based on something factual, relevant and truthful.
I have only referred to one or two letters I have received. I am not anxious to read more of them into the record, although I should like to mention that I have received so many that I am concerned. Most of them contain the suggestion that the people of Quebec desire a change in everything; that our symbol, which indicates that we have been a nation for quite some time, must be destroyed and that there must be a new Canada. The suggestions indicate a feeling that the people of Quebec desire to rid this country of its ties to the commonwealth. I am not sure how far this feeling goes, or how far these reformists wish to move in this direction. I am sure this feeling could be alleviated or relieved to some extent if a spokesman from Quebec could clearly state the intention in this regard. Certainly the unknown is feared more than anything else.
We do know that many extreme expressions have been made in Quebec. We do know there is a genuine widespread dissatisfaction at this time on the part of the people of that province. Certainly it is understandable why there is so much feeling of uneasiness in the rest of Canada, in view of these many expressions of dissatisfaction and unknown intention.
At the present time there is no explanation why the government is commencing to deal with the national flag issue, or as to the immediate need for such action. There is no explanation of the method to be followed. No reply has been made to the suggestion that the method of choice is contrary to common sense. I submit the lack of explanation in respect of these various things has heaped fuel on what could only be an embarrassing situation.
I should like to know how the Prime Minister can rightly refuse to initiate a referendum. I suggest it is the duty of the members of this house to represent their constituents in

decisions of this kind, and that when the issue is such that people feel very strongly about it, they should be given the opportunity of publicly expressing their views. There are many divergent views in respect of this flag issue, as evidenced by the number of letters members have received. I suggest the only proper way of obtaining an honest view, in order to make a proper decision, is to hold a referendum. I do not think the decision should be made in an atmosphere which suggests that we must now accept the government's choice or hold an election. I feel each member should be able to properly report the facts to the people of his constituency, and I cannot understand how the members can do this in respect of the present feeling of the people of Quebec. Mr. Speaker, I suggest the government should give some explanation of its method of handling this situation.
As I have said earlier, a flag should be a symbol of a country. I favour the red ensign because it is historical and traditional, standing for our democratic heritage, system of law and relationship to the commonwealth. What will a new flag stand for? It will stand for the method by which the government is pushing it down our throats. A new flag will not be familiar to the people, but will be associated with the method of obtaining it, with the feeling of uneasiness in Quebec, and the feeling of resentment towards Quebec generated by this issue. The flag will be associated with a domineering Liberal government which talks about a national symbol at a time when more pressing economic needs should be considered.
Mr. Speaker, how can a national flag stand for that which the Prime Minister says it should when his method of obtaining it can only be associated in the minds of the people of this country with those things to which we have referred? I suggest it can only be associated with an unreasonable approach to this issue, and a complete ignoring of the rights of the other citizens of this country. The voice of the ordinary citizen cannot be heard, and cannot be heard through representation in the House of Commons. Those are the things with which a national flag will be associated after it is obtained in the suggested manner.
I suggest the government take another look at the situation. I suggested earlier that the flag debate should be deferred until the fall. I did not make that suggestion because of any fear that we could not deal with this question. We are losing sight of the feelings of our constituents. The number of letters
Canadian Flag
I have received containing violent expressions of opinion cause me concern. We have been here too long and do not know what the atmosphere is in our constituencies. I should like to go home and walk the streets of Edmonton for a month or two, talking to the people. We should defer this issue for some time so that we can return to our homes, find out the views of the people, and return to the debate with a better perspective. That is the responsible manner of handling this national flag issue.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate for the first time I should like to pose a question to the Prime Minister. It is a question I have posed to me every time I return to my riding and I think it is one the Prime Minister should answer. The question is: Who asked him to bring in a new flag?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


George Robson Muir: You will hear from me later, young man. We know there are certain elements in this country that are prepared to divide the nation just as they have been prepared to do so since confederation.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, you and I have been in politics long enough to have seen and heard a lot of things but this is the first time I have ever heard a bilingual jackass. As I say, ever since confederation there have been people who have tried to change our symbols. So I wonder who the Prime Minister is trying to appease by bringing this matter forward at this time, and what plausible reason is there for the introduction of this subject at this particular stage in our history when certain divisive elements are aggravating the nation to the point of exasperation. By his timing of the flag issue and the manner of its introduction the Prime Minister has, in the words of a recent Globe and Mail editorial, "set the nation on a collision course". I quote one paragraph from this editorial:
In his haste to give Canada a distinctive national flag Prime Minister Lester Pearson has set his government and the nation itself on a collision course. There is still time for him to alter it. But there is not very much time.
As a basis for this statement the paper goes on to list certain errors committed by the Prime Minister in his involvement with the flag issue. The first was when he told a group of foreign language newspaper editors in Winnipeg that within two years of assum-



$742 HOUSE OF COMMONS

[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
ing office a Liberal government would adopt a new flag. The second was when he announced, before he had even made a final decision on what kind of flag he was going to bring forward, that the government would stand or fall on the result. This was only a week after he had said that there would be a free vote. As everyone knows, of course, that effectively stopped any free vote in the House of Commons. His third error was when he told the House of Commons that there would be a full scale debate on the flag with this issue taking absolute precedence over everything else on the agenda. His fourth error was when in bringing down the resolution he split it so that he presented the house, not with one official flag but two.
The newspaper sums up the matter this way:
These four errors are likely to make the most serious kind of trouble for the Pearson government, for parliament and for the nation.
In forcing parliament to deal with his political flag, a flag born in haste with no room for compromise, I think he has committed one of the most provocative acts ever perpetrated by a Canadian prime minister. Whether or not the issue is pressed to its ultimate conclusion, Canadian unity will suffer as a result.
The only explanation for this unseemly haste is that it furnishes the government with a diversionary tactic to cover up the failures and inadequacies in the organizational ability of the ministry to plan and execute properly a sound legislative program. Since assuming office their record in this regard has been one of absolute, dismal failure. We have had a series of hasty, ill conceived and badly planned legislative measures introduced with great fanfare and publicity but because they could not stand up to the critical scrutiny of an alert opposition they were either withdrawn, dropped or redrafted.
We do not need to go back to the fiasco created by the so-called Gordon budget which is now completely washed up as far as a budget is concerned. We only need to go back to the Canada pension plan. I am glad to see that the minister is in the house listening this afternoon because we are now on the third revision of the Canada pension plan, I believe.
Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Three more than the Tories had.


George Robson Muir: Well, perhaps we will have three more yet if the government continues to act as it has been acting. Then of

course we had the redistribution bill. What has happened to the redistribution bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I hestitate to interrupt the hon. member but I am wondering whether by discussing the order and conduct of the business of the house he is really dealing with the specific matter before the house at the moment, the flag issue. I should like him to take that into account in continuing his remarks.


George Robson Muir: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I am pointing out these things as proof of my point that the government is deliberately sabotaging its own legislation and is doing so by putting the flag issue before the house when we should be dealing with other matters. If I may continue briefly on this subject, I would point out that the redistribution bill was withdrawn for the same reason that other legislation was withdrawn, and perhaps even the flag legislation could be withdrawn in that it has not been properly presented to the house.
The official opposition had agreed that certain things in the redistribution bill were acceptable to them, but the government made a deal with one of the smaller groups and accepted an amendment moved by that group which was most unacceptable to the official opposition. We have heard nothing of the redistribution bill since.


Mr. Byrne:: Filibuster.


George Robson Muir: I will come to the point
about a filibuster before I am through. It is a filibuster on the part of the government, not the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Mandziuk:: A filibuster of silence.


George Robson Muir: These are just some indications of the desperate need of this government to make the public forget what, were it not for the serious consequences to the nation's well-being, could be described under other circumstances as a comedy of errors. I should like to quote what an Ottawa columnist, who was sitting in the press gallery a few minutes ago, had to say in this regard. Under the subheading "Grits Want Election" there appears the following:
The explanation of the present situation, I believe, lies in the wish of Liberal strategists to call yet another election this fall. But they know that this would be so unjustified and so unpopular in the country that they are trying to make it appear that the Conservative opposition is forcing an election.

The Liberals will find it impossible to make this lie stick, since it is well known and very obvious here-
This is in Ottawa.
-that the overwhelming majority of Tory M.P.'s, as well as the smaller parties, consider another election neither necessary nor desirable.
The Pearson government is now frankly making no attempt to get urgent legislation-


James Allen (Jim) Byrne: Will the hon. member please identify the source of this article?


George Robson Muir: I will when I have finished reading it.
The Pearson government is now frankly making no attempt to get urgent legislation passed by parliament-this is the farcical climax of its vaunted "60 days of decision" and its subsequent 390 days of dancing.
Now, the mayor of Ottawa describes "dancing" as the Ottawa three step: one step forward, one shufHe woofling sideways and one retreat shamefacedly backwards.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Would the hon. member permit a question?


George Robson Muir: By all means.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Perhaps for the education of the house the hon. member would be good enough to compare the quotation he is making from the mayor of Ottawa with certain published quotations from a mayor in his own constituency who, I understand, resigned from his constituency organization over the member's stand on the flag?


George Robson Muir: There is so much noise from these little trained seals over there that I could hardly hear what the minister said. If the minister is referring to the resignation of a minor official in my organization, I would be only too glad to explain that.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Go ahead.


George Robson Muir: This chap was a very good Liberal two years ago. I thought he was showing very sound judgment when he left the Liberal party. Now, I am beginning to wonder whether or not he had that sound judgment.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Wait until they read that at home.


George Robson Muir: An hon. member asked me to identify this columnist and I may say it is Patrick Nicholson. I continue quoting from the article:
Obviously a flag won't provide a single new job or improve any Canadian's welfare; and it is too late to reunify Canada without more concrete steps.
Canadian Flag
But the flag certainly is, in the Liberals' view, a honey of an issue on which to precipitate an election; why, it should put every French Canadian seat securely in the Liberal bag.
Now, it may be useful-and perhaps, Mr. Speaker, you might muzzle the noises coming from across the floor-for the purpose of getting the flag issue in proper perspective to list the series of events leading up to the introduction of this most divisive subject into the arena of political affairs. In 1961 the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) told a Halifax radio commentator that he favoured a new flag. He said he would poll the people on the question in a general election and they would let us know in no uncertain terms. I am referring to an interview with the Prime Minister by a Halifax radio commentator which was reported in the Amherst Daily News of Friday, September 9, 1961. At that time he would not discuss the design of the flag he intended to introduce. The reporter said that, perhaps in that case he would not vote for him and the Prime Minister replied, "Perhaps you would not." I should like to add that perhaps a lot of other people will not either, if he continues to harass parliament and the country with the flag issue instead of giving consideration to other more pressing problems.
This interview took place in 1961 and there seems to be no record of any mention of a flag by the Prime Minister or anyone connected with the Liberal party during the subsequent 1962 election campaign. Of course, they were too busy telling the people that the 92.5 cent dollar would ruin the nation. Subsequent action on their part showed they knew this statement to be untrue. Aside from the sale of wheat to China and the U.S.S.R., it has proven to be one of the most important factors in Canada's continuing prosperity. I notice the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) smiling over there when I mention the sale of wheat to China and the U.S.S.R. I would say it was a happy day when the former government introduced a measure to extend credit to those countries so they could buy our wheat.
The Prime Minister first became publicly involved in the flag issue when in 1963, more or less out of the blue-"the blue" meaning political expediency-he promised a group of foreign language newspaper editors that a Liberal government would produce a flag within two years or by the spring of 1965. At that moment he not only surprised his audience, but I am sure he must have surprised himself. He just dug it out of his pocket,

Canadian Flag
so to speak, and that was it. He did not mention then, nor did he tell anyone during the 1963 election campaign, that he intended to remove the union jack from our official flag.
It is the measure of this government that they press this flag issue so arrogantly, and so conveniently forget their promise to the farmers to provide better price supports, to labour for higher minimum wages, to business and management for a national development corporation, and all the other promises they have so neatly pigeonholed to bring out and dust off for the next election.
The next step in the Prime Minister's campaign to foist this flag on the nation involved a meeting of a selected group of newspapermen in his official residence.
This little lamb over here needs some milk, Mr. Speaker.


William Heward Grafftey: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It is becoming very apparent to the members on this side of the house who have come here to listen seriously to this debate, that our ability to listen to the debate is being hampered by the continuous and unnecessary interruptions from that corner of the house over there. I would ask, Mr. Speaker, in the interest of good debate and serious debate that they be made to stop. I think the members to whom I am referring know very well what I am talking about.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I may say that if noises have been made from the end of the chamber, they have not reached the Chair. If they do, I certainly will bring to the attention of all members that whoever has the floor should not be interrupted.


George Robson Muir: When I was so rudely interrupted by one of those trained seals who is just learning to suck the bottle, because that is the noise he was making, I was going to say that the next step in the Prime Minister's campaign was to bring a selected group of newspapermen to his official residence on what one of the guests later described as an exercise in news management. The Prime Minister broke the news regarding the flag design to these gentlemen. He told them he had sent a message to the Queen and that the red ensign would not be part of the new design. He said he was going to lay the whole matter before the Canadian Legion convention in Winnipeg the following Sunday.
In Winnipeg on that Sunday, the first day of the conference, which is traditionally reserved as a period of remembrance for fallen comrades, the Prime Minister chose to make a political speech in furtherance of his per-

sonal choice of a new flag. He indicated the government would stand or fall on the issue, and by inference he told this group of men, who had offered their lives for the protection of Canada, that anyone who wished to retain the red ensign could go fly a kite.
His advisers had apparently gambled on the fact that because of the solemnity of the occasion no serious objection would be raised. That the Legion was outraged is understandable and had it not been but for his privileged position as the guest speaker, and particularly as the Prime Minister of Canada, the meeting might well have been less constrained than it was. The Dauphin Herald and Press, a Manitoba paper in the constituency of Dauphin, took account of it this way:
Talk of Canada's crying need for a new flag, at this point being promoted almost solely by Prime Minister Pearson, is wearing thin the public's patience with political leadership in our country. Ask the average man-on-the-street what he thinks about Sunday's hullabaloo in Winnipeg, at the national Legion convention, and the most frequent reply should give Mr. Pearson cause for second thoughts about his self-imposed CampaignLooking back on the past week's news coverage of Canadian happenings, it's small wonder that the Legion convention opened in an atmosphere of tension. Stories out of Ottawa had played up the Prime Minister's determination to bring the flag issue to a head at this convention, from his privileged position as guest speaker. Supposing there had been a quiet acceptance of Mr. Pearson's rejection of the red ensign. Imagine how quickly the word would be rushed back to all members of parliament that their "free vote" could assume that the Legion had surrendered all the gains earned in recent years for red ensign support.
There was launched another one of the government's fearful comedy of errors, errors that have turned the Prime Minister's flag issue into farce. The greatest farce was when the Prime Minister said that parliament would decide the matter by a free vote, but subsequently made quite clear that his government would stand or fall on the decision. In other words he was telling parliament and the public, "You don't have to swallow my flag; I am just going to ram it right down your throats."
The Prime Minister's approach to this problem denies any compromise whatever, and he is presenting parliament with a political flag for which he will accept no alternative. Compromise has always been part of our national fabric and has held confederation together for 97 years. That is a long time and that is the way we have done it, with compromise. If we are going to continue as one nation, a great Canada, it will be because we accept that fact as part of our political life, but if we submit now to the dictates of a

minority, within the government or without, who will not listen to any alternative solutions to our problems, we destroy the very basis of our democratic processes and Canada as a nation will be poorer as a result.
It makes one wonder why it is so necessary at this time that the flag be dumped in parliament's lap as a political issue. A simple question on a referendum could be, "Do you as a Canadian want a new flag?" If the answer is yes then it will be up to parliament to produce one, either through a committee of all parties, a dominion-provincial conference on symbols, or any of the examples that have been suggested this afternoon. But to force a political flag on a nation, a flag chosen by the leader of a group that does not enjoy the confidence of the majority of Canadians, particularly when a free vote of the members of the House of Commons is denied, is absolutely wrong and it will be bitterly resented by hundreds of thousands of our citizens.
The Toronto Telegram, discussing this very thing, says:
Prime Minister Pearson is quite wrong in introducing this issue at this time. He is quite wrong in making the issue a matter of confidence...
The Prime Minister is badly advised as he pilots his mischievous piece of divisive legislation through parliament at this time.
Whatever the outcome-and the outcome is quite predictable-he will succeed simply in accenting differences that exist in our national complex.
The date of that issue was June 17 and the editorial was headed "Meaningless Emblem", meaning the Prime Minister's personal choice of flag.
Surely there are more important matters to occupy parliament's time. If we put first things first, why are we not giving consideration to being able to amend the British North America Act in Canada? It seems strange to me that the very people who are screaming for a new flag still want the nation to go hat in hand to Westminster to ask for an amendment to our constitution.
Why are we not dealing with one of the prime objectives of parliament, which is to examine the estimates of the various departments and approve the government's spending program? To date we have approved the estimates of the Department of Agriculture and of the Post Office Department, and I believe we have sent the estimates of the Department of External Affairs to a committee. We have spent something like ten days considering the estimates of the various departments, ordinarily a job which takes a minimum of 45 days. Instead of attending to this basic job we are frittering our time away
Canadian Flag
in the heat of summer discussing the flag, and when we come back in the fall we will be expected to hurry these estimates through, making parliament seem like a rubber stamp.
I do not know who is responsible within the government for setting up the business of the house, but after 97 years of confederation surely we should get some semblance of order so that parliament can get the business of the session done, thus allowing members to go home to their families in summer and enjoy a holiday the same as any other Canadians do. Then when we come back in the fall refreshed we can get down to the country's business. The government, as I say, has given us very little opportunity to do even this basic job.
There are still items on the order paper that the Prime Minister declared urgent some weeks ago-and the flag was not one of them. The flag was not in the throne speech; it was not even included in the 35 items listed in what we have come to consider to be the Prime Minister's second throne speech. It was not until some time in May that the flag was suddenly considered important, even though the house had been sitting since February; and its importance has been blown up out of all proportion.
However-and this is a strange thing-now that we are back to debating the issue, the government is trying to minimize its importance. Their supporters are calling this a filibuster, and one of them said this just a few minutes ago. Their intention is to create an impression with the Canadian people that those of us who oppose the Pearson flag are wasting parliament's time. However, if this issue is of such minor importance that it does not deserve debate, why does the Prime Minister give it priority over all this other important legislation that is still on the order paper?
With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to list some of this important legislation that we are being denied the right to discuss because we are talking about the Prime Minister's flag. I am just going to mention the important ones. There is the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions; there is an act to amend the Post Office Act in regard to delivery rates for first class mail, and so on; there is an act to establish a comprehensive program of old age pensions; there is a resolution that a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons be appointed to consider the Canada pension plan; there is an act in respect of the rationalization of

Canadian Flag
railway branch lines, which is something that is hanging over the heads of the western farmers like the sword of Damocles; there is an act to reform the Senate, which is something that is long overdue; there is a measure to amend the Crop Insurance Act, which is another thing that cannot be made operative on the prairies unless the federal government takes the stand that they are going to assist in this regard; there is an act to amend the Coal Production Assistance Act; an act to set up the department of forestry and rural development; there is an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act; to increase the maximum amount which can be lent to an individual farmer; and there is another very important resolution, to refer the subject matter of the water levels of the great lakes system to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters.
These are some of the things the Prime Minister is holding up. In other words, he is scuttling his own legislative program; and he can pin it on no one but himself.
Parliament is to be dragooned into approving Mr. Pearson's flag which a recent, independent survey, the results of which were published in a recent issue of a French Canadian newspaper, showed 30 per cent of the people in Quebec and 70 per cent of the people in the other provinces do not want. They do not even want the flag. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I believe that the flag should represent a nation's history, its struggles, its sacrifices, and even its differences-because all nations have differences-and certainly its beginnings. In my humble opinion, a nation not interested in its past is just like an individual who will not recognize his mother on the street, and such a nation has little hope for the future. In this I agree with Bruce West, a Toronto columnist. I am going to quote very briefly from his article:
I believe that the impatient efforts of many to discard a banner which symbolizes almost a century of our history may be a symptom of something gravely unhealthy in the affairs of Canada.
I believe such an action might be one more large step toward the day when, stripped of our ancient background and heritage, we may stand as hardly more than another banana republic against the already powerful magnetic pull of our huge neighbour to the south. I hope I'm wrong. But I can't help feeling it, just the same. I feel that upon the day the red ensign is discarded, some vitally important threads are going to be removed from the already strained fabric of this country.
He goes on in the same vein, telling how the country is not going to be united through this divisive issue. To me, Mr. Speaker, the

shield on the red ensign represents our original settlers, who were prepared to submerge their differences in those days-they were different races of people, but particularly our two races of people-to build a nation. The maple leaves on the shield are merely our geographical symbol. The union jack represents our association with the British commonwealth of nations, one of the greatest organizations in the cause of world peace. Even the crosses on the union jack pre-date any nation and represent our Christian background as far back as the crusades and the search for the Holy Grail. I would like to read a letter from a French Canadian to the editor of the Citizen in Ottawa. He says:
Those who imagine that all Canadians of French extraction are averse to the red ensign as a distinctive national flag are mistaken. The combination of Christian crosses in the union jack express for many of us a faith that is world wide, and they ante-date any particular national entity or epoch in the history of the past 2,000 years...
As I have said, I think most Canadians are prepared to accept a compromise on our national symbols, and this is Canadian tradition. But if changes are to be forced under other circumstances, such as those the government are employing in this flag resolution, they will find them wholly unacceptable to the great majority of our people. The Prime Minister still has time to alter his collision course. If he does not, in the face of the bitter opposition encountered, he is ignoring the views of a great segment of our population and is causing sorrow in the hearts of many loyal Canadians. He may live to regret his haste in this regard, for he is sowing the wind of dismay and he may reap the whirlwind of bitterness. I am going to read a very short portion from the editorial of a local newspaper because I do not want to put too many quotations in my speech.
It says:
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.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I apologize for interrupting the hon. member but his time his expired.

Canadian Flag


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, I wonder I am proud to say I am a better Canadian whether the house would give me time to than he is for being able to speak both conclude my remarks?	languages.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to continue beyond his allotted time?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sorry; there are dissenting voices.


Mr. Churchill:: The Liberals have objected.


George Robson Muir: Mr. Speaker, because the Liberals have objected I am not going to conclude my speech-


Mr. Habel:: You have said enough.


George Robson Muir: -but I will conclude it some other day.


Mr. Mcllraiih:: Mr. Speaker, may I be permitted to point out that it is not in order for an hon. member to try to represent that he is denied the right to speak when he has taken his full time, has asked for unanimous consent to continue and it is not given to him. I do not know why it is not given him, but it is surely not in order for him to abuse rules which have been on the books of this house for a long time by saying for the record that some party in the house has objected to his finishing or cut him off.


Mr. Danforth:: That is the fact.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I doubt very much whether there is a point of order in what has been said by the minister. In any event the hon. member's time has expired. We all appreciate that unanimous consent is required before he can continue, and it was not forthcoming. Therefore I have no alternative but to recognize the next speaker.
The hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafieche (Mr. Chretien).


Mr. Jean Chretien (St. Maurice-Lafieche):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) referred to the member for St. Maurice-Lafieche as a young man. I am proud to be a young man and I will tell him that I am a member of parliament, just like him, and that in my riding 37,000 votes were cast against 19,000 in his.
A second point, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member made a disparaging remark about bilingualism because I pointed out a fact that I deemed important, namely that the matter was included in the platform of the Liberal party in 1962-63.


Mr. Vincent:: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege I am of the opinion that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) did not make any allusion to the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafieche. If the latter feels that the shoe fits, let him wear it but he should not say that the hon. member for Lisgar was referring to him, because that is not so.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I think I should be given an opportunity to express an opinion whether there is a question of privilege here. In my opinion there is not. There were no unparliamentary expressions used by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Muir) and I do not think that the point raised by the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafieche (Mr. Chretien) is well taken.


Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a privilege to speak in this house, but it is not one I appreciate at this time because I feel we are doing a disservice to the nation. I feel this very deeply, and as a member representing a constituency I can express personal feelings as well as some of the feelings of my constituents. I think that this debate should never have taken place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Hon. members may laugh but let me tell them this. I am going to vote against the amendment for a plebiscite. I do so for one reason only. I am a Canadian. I know the bitterness which has resulted from former plebiscites. I do not care whether one comes from Vancouver island or Saskatchewan, we are all Canadians.
I cannot understand the way in which the government has introduced the flag resolution. It is not of so much national importance; a great deal more business remains to be done. Sitting in the opposition I can frankly say that I think it is a political gimmick. I have been looking through the guide to see where each member of the house comes from. I do not think this is the type of matter which should be made a political issue.
I am as proud as any man in this house. I am proud of my ancestors and I am proud of my background. I give every other member of the house the same right to have pride. But I do not think we should take our time having something-I was going to use an unparliamentary expression, but I will say

Canadian Flag
rammed down our throats. We have a great deal more business to do in the country, and I say that this house as a whole, including myself, is receiving a very bad black eye from the public. They say: "What are you wasting your time about?" If the flag is so important to the members from Quebec then let us have the vote right now.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Yorkton.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Let us face the facts. If they split this country in this way Quebec will be left as an isolated area amid 300 million English speaking people. Let me say that my loyalty only goes so far. I can go north and south in western Canada and say they are my people. We do not want a Cyprus in Canada. In Cyprus the Greeks are trying to murder the Turks. I think it is time we all got together and forgot there were minorities or majorities. The whole argument is stupid.
If the people of this country want a new flag then let us find out what they want. Are we to sell all our traditions? I have read the history books and let me tell you that Wolfe won the battle on the plains of Abraham by a fluke; Montcalm lost it because he was asleep, and that is a fact. When this country was settled, all through the Ottawa valley and along the north shore the country was settled by Irishmen, Scotsmen and Englishmen, and they moved on further west. The same opportunity was given to every immigrant. I well remember an educated gentleman telling me 20 years ago that they were very glad to get rid of the Anglais. They were pleased the Anglais had moved west, and are very proud of having done so. The people of Quebec are now complaining about something for which they were responsible many years ago. I should just like to remind them that one might just as well starve on the prairies as starve in Quebec.


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: It does not matter where you starve.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: You people are now complaining because we have the land. I appreciate the remark made by the minister because it is typical of present Liberal thinking. I should like to point out that the people who moved west in the early days did so through a freedom of choice. This freedom of choice 
can also be associated with those individuals who remained in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to prolong this debate, but I feel I must say that if the government wishes to force a vote on this issue we will have to accept the proposed flag. We on this side of the house are as capable of counting members as those who sit on the other side. As I look at the benches I realize that the party whips will go out and bring in the members for any division. I also realize that the splinter parties are loyal to nothing in this country. I well remember the speeches made in favour of staying out of the war. I also remember that those people who made the speeches turned around the next day and voted that Canada go to war, but voted against the one thing that would have made Canada's effort effective. I refer to the old Mackenzie King idea about conscription: "Conscription if necessary but not necessarily conscription". This flag issue is of the same type as the conscription issue.


Pierre-André Boutin: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. The hon. member who has the floor has just said that if the matter of the flag is so important for Quebec, it should be put to a vote immediately. Well, I can say on behalf of the members of our party, who are from Quebec, that we are ready to adopt the flag right away, without any debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I wish to point out to the hon. member for Dorchester that his point of order is not well taken. Again I recognize the hon. member for Yorkton. [Text]
Order, please.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Why do you not speak in English? You know I am not bilingual and do not pretend to be. I suggested this flag debate is absolutely unnecessary at this time.


An hon. Member:: It is six o'clock.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I think every member in this house should be given the opportunity of voting as he feels he should vote. I can assure all members, in spite of press reports, that I am going to vote the way I feel 1 should, and that a great many other members of this party are going to do the same thing. I would like to see a free vote on this issue. At the time of division I will be interested to note the number of absentees. It will be interesting to see how many members stand behind the curtains. When a vote on an issue of this kind is taken every man should stand and be counted.

I think there is something more basic to the flag issue than a national flag. My family have been Canadians for a great number of generations. Canadians were in Canada in 1776. I can assure you that if you push us too far we will move north and south. In fact I would move south tomorrow under certain circumstances.
We have been paying for those many miles of railroad through wilderness. If you do not like westerners, we will get out. We will move north and south, and I am sure it would be economically favourable to us to do so. That is something that the members of the Liberal party should consider, because we can jump right into the middle of this issue. You may think that is not possible, but I remind you anything is possible. We are tired of being pushed around by a minority. Let us be practical about this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: There is nothing shameful about that suggestion at all. The English have been in this country for a long time and we will be here for a long time yet.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Sit down. I know the names of those individuals who have already come to a conclusion in respect of this issue. I remind members that I have a right to say in this
Internal Economy Commission house what I think. I state definitely that you had better beware of any attempt to drive the citizens of the western portion of Canada too far.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?



CONCURRENCE IN INTERNAL ECONOMY COMMISSION REPORT RESPECTING MEMBERS' TRAVELLING EXPENSES

George James McIlraith: Mr. Speaker, it being six o'clock may I be allowed to revert to motions? I believe there has been an agreement in this regard among the house leaders of all the parties.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the house agree?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will revert to motions.


George James McIlraith: That the report of the commissioners of the internal economy commission, made on June 23, 1964, and printed in Votes and Proceedings of July 27, 1964, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre wish to speak?


Gordon Minto Churchill: I have nothing to ask, sir.


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


[Stage Direction]
BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE MARITIME TRANSPORTATION UNIONS Montreal 2, P.Q.
July 31, 1964.
The Honourable Allan J. MacEachen,
Minister of Labour,
Confederation Building,
Ottawa Ontario.
Dear Mr. MacEachen:
I have now had an opportunity to discuss with the other trustees the matters raised in our conversation on Tuesday about our appearance before a parliamentary committee. As I pointed out at that time we were disturbed at the suggestion that we were defying parliament as that was not the situation. We have never denied that parliament had the right to summon us to appear before it and that if it did so we would be obliged to appear.
We do, however, feel that there are sound reasons why parliament should not require us to appear. We are trustees for the unions named in the schedule to the act, and those unions, unlike government departments or crown corporations, belong to the members and not to the government or the nation. This fact makes the situation facing the trustees very delicate since much of the information which we obtain as trustees belongs to those unions and those members and not to ourselves or to anyone else.
In addition to considerations arising from the fiduciary nature of our position, much of our work and that of our staff must be carried on in some degree of privacy. The very fact that we represent, and inquire into the activities of, unions with conflicting interests, would make it wrong for us to make all our actions public. Some indication of the nature of the inquiry contemplated may be obtained from the questions put to you in the house. It is perhaps understandable that most of those questions relate to the S.I.U. of Canada, but it must be remembered that if we are to be called upon to reveal the activities of, and information relating to, the
S.I.U. of Canada, we can also be required to reveal the activities of, and information relating to, the other unions under trusteeship.
It would be prejudicial to the interests of any union to have any and all of its activities subject to examination and exposure to the public, including particularly employers and rival unions. We do not read the statute under which we were appointed as intending such a result and we feel it is our duty to endeavour to avoid it.
This objection is as valid as it would have been if we had been appointed trustees of one or more of the shipping companies. It would not then have been proper to expose to parliament and therefore to the public, including competing employers, the activities of such companies in financial, commercial, and other fields, or their relationships with their shareholders and employees. A closed session of the industrial relations committee would be just as objectionable so far as the breach of our fiduciary responsibility is concerned.
As a result of our position as trustees, we have available to us information as to the day to day activities of the unions, much as if we were in the position of the union leaders themselves. We believe parliament would not wish to inquire into the private activities of unions and we, as trustees, should not be required to answer questions relative to our activities in this sphere any more than if we were indeed leaders of unions.
We understand the interest of parliament in the progress we are making with the task assigned to us, but it is our opinion that to reveal plans, experimental projects and studies of the situation, will only be injurious to its successful completion.
However, as recognized above, it is for parliament to say, and as you have now joined your request to those of other groups in the house, I will, if it is still the wish of parliament, appear before a parliamentary committee. I suggest that this appearance take place sometime later in the session. At the hearing, however, I, on behalf of the trustees, will raise the issues mentioned above and suggest to the committee that we should

not be called upon to answer questions, the answers to which should be protected. We hope that parliament will appreciate our situation and accord to the trustees the right to discriminate between those topics into which the inquiry might be injurious to our work or improper and those which can be freely discussed.
There is, however, one matter we wish to deal with now. One or more members of parliament have stated that there is a "suspicion" that the trustees have made a "deal" with Mr. Paul Hall regarding the presidency of the S.I.U. of Canada. We made it clear by public announcement on April 3, 1963, that we had made an agreement with Mr. Hall and equally publicly we stated the obligations we thereby incurred. The text was, we understand, tabled in the house by you. We have made no other arrangement or "deal" with Mr. Hall.
Further, we believe that in order to carry out this task we need, and, as long as we hold this position, are entitled to, the confidence of the government and of parliament.
VLD/jbd
Yours truly,
Victor L. Dryer, Chairman.
Ottawa 4, August 7th, 1964. Dear Mr. Justice Dryer:
Your letter dated July 31 arrived in the department yesterday. I want to thank you for the observations you have made regarding the proposal that the trustees appear
before a parliamentary committee. You have set out the views of yourself and your colleagues regarding this proposal both clearly and thoughtfully.
I am pleased to note your readiness to meet with a parliamentary committee. While I understand the concern you express, I am still of the opinion that a discussion with a parliamentary committee would prove valuable both to the members of the House of Commons and to the trustees.
The government appreciates your point of view that an appearance before a parliamentary committee should be arranged later in the session.
We have also considered the reasons you have set forth for distinguishing between those topics which might be freely discussed and those concerning which the disclosure of information would in your view be improper or detrimental to carrying out your responsibilities under the legislation. This distinction is a valid one and is fully supported by the government.
With reference to the last paragraph of your letter may I assure you, as I stated in the House of Commons on Tuesday of this week, that the board of trustees has the full confidence of the government of Canada.
Yours sincerely,
Allan J. MacEachen.
The Honourable Mr. Justice V. L. Dryer,
Chairman, Board of Trustees of the Maritime Transportation Unions,
P.O. Box 368,
Postal Station "B",
Montreal, Quebec.