1964-06-15

Mr. Real Caouelle (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to protest strongly against what the C.B.C. did over the week end.
Last Friday several hon. members from both sides of the house were invited to take part in interviews so they could voice their opinions on the Canadian flag.
Now, the hon. member for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), who is a member of our group, took part in an interview which was recorded Saturday evening at ten thirty. All political parties were represented and their views were aired on the public television network, except that those people forgot to present the opinions of the hon. member for Shefford.
Mr. Speaker, I strongly protest against the arbitrary manner in which the C.B.C. eliminated a member of any group in the House of Commons.
I have no objection to all parties having the opportunity of expressing their views, but I strongly object because members of our group were denied the same opportunity as others.
I would ask the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne) to inquire into the reasons why the hon. member for Shefford was prevented from making his views known on the C.B.C. television network last Saturday night.



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Second report of standing committee on privileges and elections-Mr. Pennell.


Mr. Robert Temple (Hastings South) moved: that the second report of the standing committee on standing orders, presented to the house on Wednesday, June 10, 1964, be now concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

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

[Stage Direction]
Question No. 879
Mr. Lambert:: 1.	Has the government of Canada received any representations or communications from the government of either Quebec or Newfoundland with respect to presenting a petition to the parliament of Britain, so as to pave the way for an exchange of lands between the two provinces in Labrador and Ungava and, if so, what is the nature of such representations or communications?
2.	What has been the reply by the government of Canada?


Mr. Davis:: 1. No.
2.	Not applicable.


CANADIAN MEMBERSHIP IN FAO
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	Is Canada a member of the world food and agriculture organization and, if so (a) since what date (b) how much does membership cost this country (c) what have been the main Canadian contributions to this organization?
2.	What government department is responsible for Canadian participation in this organization?

Answer: 1. Canada is a member of the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization.
(a)	Since the organization was founded, following the first conference of F.A.O., in Quebec in 1945.
(b)	Canada's contribution was $645,679.11 for 1963 and $796,687.54 for 1964.
(c)	Canada being one of the main producing and exporting countries in the agricultural field, and with regard to the fishing and forest industries, is giving support to F.A.O. and its various activities. Canada is a member of the F.A.O. council, of the products committee and other subsidiary agencies and branches of the food and agricultural organization.
2.	Under the food and agriculture organization of the United Nations Act of 1945, the Secretary of State has to report every year to parliament on Canada's participation in F.A.O. Canada's share concerns several departments, which are represented at the interdepartmental committee of F.A.O. under the chairmanship of a senior official of the Department of Agriculture.
Questions


* CONSTRUCTION OF PENITENTIARY, DRUMHELLER, ALTA.
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	When will the construction of the Drumheller penitentiary (institution for young offenders) commence?
2.	Will this institution be especially designed in every regard for the purpose of rehabilitating young offenders and, if so (a) what is the plan in this regard, and (b) what program will be followed?
3.	From what provinces will young offenders be placed in the institution?
4.	How many young offenders, under 21 years of age, are now incarcerated in penitentiaries in Canada?
5.	How many are incarcerated under 15 years of age?
6.	What age is the youngest prisoner in Canada?


Mr. Macdonald:: 1. The construction of the Drumheller institution is expected to commence in October 1964.
2.	The Drumheller institution has been designed specifically in every regard for the purpose of rehabilitating young offenders.
(a)	The plan is to construct an institution of medium security based on the principles of the most up to date concepts of the correctional process, which will incorporate the required facilities for young offenders from western provinces and certain selected adult first offenders.
(b)	The program will be based on the principle of individual attention, using diagnostic processes from social, medical and psychological points of view; and will include the following elements; education, vocational training, religious observance and spiritual guidance, social education (citizenship training), physical education and recreation, cultural activities and hobbycrafts, guidance and counselling.
3.	From Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba.
4.	1,091 inmates under 21 years of age are now incarcerated in penitentiaries in Canada.
5.	One inmate is under 15 years of age.
6.	The youngest prisoner in a federal penal institution in Canada is of 14 years and eight months of age.


NEW CANADIAN FLAGS FOR NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Mr. Leboe: Has any department, agency, or commission of the federal government ordered new Canadian flags for Canadian government property or institutions in the Northwest Territories and, if so (a) did boxes or cartons labelled "new Canadian flag,
[Mr. Latulippe.l
made in U.S.A." shipped to northern points, actually contain new flags (b) what are the prime features of these flags?


Mr. Lamonlagne:: In so far as the Department of Public Works is concerned; yes, newly manufactured Canadian red ensigns have recently been sent to the Northwest Territories.
(a)	No. The flags in question were contained in boxes marked Canadiana Textile Print Works Ltd., Port Credit, Ontario.
(b)	Canadian red ensigns of light weight silk screen nylon, complete with ropes and toggles to commercial standards.
The Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources has purchased flags from Canadian suppliers for direct shipment to various settlements in the north. Departmental records do not indicate the specific labelling which may have appeared on cartons provided by the suppliers, and contain no other information bearing on this question. Where flags are purchased for, or used on departmental installations, the design is in accordance with the established practice respecting official flags.


PENITENTIARY CONSTRUCTION, ST. PIE DE BAGOT, QUE.
Mr. Ricard: In connection with the proposed construction of a penitentiary at Grand Rang St. Francois in the parish of St. Pie de Bagot, what was the amount of money spent for the services of personnel from the departments of public works and justice, and for the services of outside professional people in connection with each of the following items (a) land appraisal (b) search for water (c) farm appraisal (d) various engineering jobs (e) various architectural jobs (f) various notarial tasks?

Answer:	(a) and (c)-$1,161.10;	(b)-
$14,346.10; (d)-$3,145; (e)-$354.09; (f) - $1,062.42.


*H.M.C.S. &quot;PROVIDER&quot;
Mr. Fisher: 1.	What was the total cost of putting H.M.C.S. Provider into service?
2.	Has the R.C.N. any distinction between the accounts to put the ship into service and the expenditures needed to correct any deficiencies and, if so, what is the estimated total of the latter costs?
3.	Is H.M.C.S. Provider on a working up trip across the Atlantic and, if so, what purposes other than the general one of training have caused this exercise?


Mr. Cardin:: 1. $16,850,000.
2. Yes. Trials have determined that some equipment was either deficient in perform-

ance or in need of some adjustment to provide for greater efficiency. As Provider is still conducting trials, the total amount to be spent on these deficiencies and adjustments is not yet completely known, but it is expected that a proportion of such costs will be borne by the shipbuilder under the terms of the warranty agreement.
3.	Yes. In company with H.M.C.S. Yukon, Provider is carrying out trials to bring her replenishment system to a fully operational and worked up state, as well as carrying out fleet exercises. In addition, Provider will visit Newcastle-on-Tyne to instal certain items of replenishment equipment which are being replaced under warranty by the equipment manufacturer.


WORLD FAIR REGIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	How many regional representatives of the 1967 world exhibition have been appointed to date?
2.	What are the names of those representatives?
3.	What regions do they represent?
4.	What are their general functions?
5.	How many offices will be opened for those representatives?
6.	Where and when will those offices be opened?
7.	What amounts are provided toward the administration of those offices?
8.	Is a special system of representation provided for with municipal councils by those regional offices for the purpose of municipalities participating to any program concerning the exhibition?
9.	Have any Canadian embassies assigned personnel to promote the exhibition abroad?
10.	Have the directors of the 1967 world exhibition corporation examined, or are they examining, the possibility of creating regional committees, for instance, one for the eastern townships, one for the northwest district of Quebec, in all provinces, in order that the whole of the Canadian population may participate?

Answer: 1. Three.
2.	Allan A. Rowan-Legg, Squadron Leader T. J. MacKinnon and Major General Edward Chester Plow.
3.	They do not represent any region in particular but rather the 1967 world exhibition in the following regions: Rowan-Legg: Ontario, Major General Plow: Atlantic provinces, MacKinnon: British Columbia.
4.	In their respective regions, they will help the world exhibition by keeping in touch with exhibitors, looking after public relations and, during the exhibition, visitors to the exhibition on tour in Canada, especially important people and foreign businessmen.
5.	Three for the abovementioned representatives and a fourth one in Winnipeg, for the prairies, in 1964. The opening of other offices is also contemplated.
Questions
6.	Vancouver on June 15, 1964, Toronto on June 1, 1964, Halifax on June 15, 1964, Winnipeg has not been opened yet.
7.	$173,000.
8.	Proposals concerning the participation of municipalities as exhibitors are submitted to the provinces concerned. The corporation deals directly with local groups with regard to public relations.
9.	Canada's embassies abroad have no personnel specially responsible for promoting the 1967 world exhibition, but all our ambassadors and high commissioners as well as their staff receive documentation about the exhibition and do their best to promote it in the countries where they are posted.
10.	Yes, but only where the initiative is taken at the local level.


WINTER HOME CONSTRUCTION BONUS
Mr. Starr: 1.	How many qualified for the $500 bonus under the winter home construction program as of April 15, 1964, when this program ended?
2.	What is the total cost of this program, including the $500 bonus?


Mr. MacEachen:: 1. 28,000 dwelling units qualified under the winter house building incentive program.
2. The total cost of the program is estimated at $14,500,000. This covers the incentive payment and administration, including advertising costs and the cost of inspections carried out by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


NATIONAL REVENUE EMPLOYEES, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY, QUE.
Mr. Latulippe: 1.	How many customs officers or other employees of the department were dismissed or replaced in Compton-Frontenac since June 18, 1962, and (a) what was the name of each (b) what was the reason in each case?
2.	How many persons have been newly employed in Compton-Frontenac by the Department of National Revenue since June 18, 1962 and, (a) what is the name of each such employee (b) what is the nature of each position, and (c) what is the salary paid to each?

Answer: 1. Strictly speaking, there were no dismissals, but an employee, Mr. Leo Lambert, part-time cleaner, was dismissed during his training period, because he was found unable to hold a job with the Department of National Revenue, customs and excise division.

Questions
Mr. J. A. F. Morin, customs and excise officer 3, died on August 18, 1963, and his position has been filled by the promotion of another employee.
2. Since June 18, 1962, the civil service commission appointed the following employees: Leo Lambert (see above), cleaner (part-time), $874; J. M. F. Rancourt, customs and excise officer 2 (seasonal), $3,150; K. P. Flanders, customs and excise officer 2 (seasonal), $4,230; J. A. C. Lessard, customs and excise officer 3 (transferred), $5,100.


* ACTION TO REPLENISH UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE FUND
Mr. Ricard: What action does the government intend to take to replenish the unemployment insurance fund, which had a deficit of nearly $26,000,000 in April, 1964?


Mr. Byrne:: This has been taken care of in the supplementary estimates, which provided for the unemployment insurance fund to obtain loans not exceeding $55 million.


USE OF PESTICIDES IN CANADA
Mr. Orlikow: Are the pesticides aldrin, dieldrin and endrin, still being used in Canada and, if so, is the government giving consideration to reports that their use has caused the death of millions of fish in the Mississippi river in the United States?


Maurice Lamontagne: Aldrin, dieldrin and endrin insecticides are registered and are being used in Canada on a declining scale. Other
insecticides that have advantages in use are tending to replace them. Information on the Mississippi river incident is carefully assessed, as it becomes available, for any possible implication in relation to Canadian conditions. Consideration is being given on a continuous basis to the effects on fish life of pesticides used on land and in forests.


CRANBERRY PORTAGE, MAN.    ASSISTANCE WITH MUNICIPAL DEBT
Mr. Simpson: 1.	Is the government considering financial assistance to the residents of Cranberry Portage, Manitoba, in relation to the very heavy debts with which they have been saddled in the matter of school debentures, which were negotiated in good faith on the continuance of the mid-Canada radar site at that location?
2.	If not, will the government ensure that full consideration will be given to this matter at an early date?


Mr. Drury:: 1 and 2. The whole question of the future of the mid-Canada radar site is presently being discussed with the Manitoba government. Such discussions, however, do not contemplate any payments.


HIGHWAY PAVING, GUYSBOROUGH COUNTY, N.S.
Mr. Armstrong: 1.	What contracts have been approved at any time by the federal government in connection with the construction and the paving of highways in Guysborough county, Nova Scotia, under the roads to resources program?
2.	In the case of each contract, what has been, or is anticipated to be, the federal contribution?


Mr. Laing:: 1 and 2.
Contractor	Amount	Type of work	Miles	Federal contribution paid	Anticipated federal contribution remaining$	s	$Tidewater Construction	245,587.00	Grading	29.0	122,793.50	NilArmco Drainage & Metal Products	8,661.00	Bridge (Howlett)	-	4,330.50	NilPioneer Construction Co	353,319.00	Grading	12.0	176,659.50	NilGravelling	12.0	Municipal Spraying Co	449,177.00	Grading	29.4	224,588.50	NilGravel	29.4	Paving	29.4	Provincial Day Labour	31,768.00	Preliminary engineering.	23.0	15,884.00	NilMcCully & Ray Ltd	39,728.00	Bridge (Isaac's Harbour)	-	19,864.00	NilWaverley Construction Co	360,468.00	Grading	9.8	180,234.00	NilGravel	9.8	Martell's Construction Co	367,000.00	Grading	13.2	183,500.00	NilGravel	13.2	Warren Maritimes Ltd	271,000.00	Grading	15.0	59,217.50	76,282.50Paving	15.0	Total	2,126,708.00	987,071.50	76,282.50


WORLD FAIR
Mr. Madill: 1.	Were tenders called for the supply of sod for the site of the 1967 world exhibition and, if so
(a)	were they open to producers of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec (b) were any tenders received from producers of high quality sod in the province of Ontario (c) were tenders from producers in the province of Ontario competitive?
2.	Has a decision been reached to award contracts to one or more British Columbia producers and, if so, has it been demonstrated that sod of a quality comparable to that available in the province of Ontario can be shipped from the province of British Columbia to the Montreal site at a competitive price?
Answer: 1. (a), (b), (c) Yes.
2. No.


IRON ORE PRODUCTION
Mr. Tucker: What was the total production of iron ore, in dollar value and in tons, in each province of Canada, from January 1 to December 31, 1963, inclusive?
Answer:
Province Newfoundland Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia New Brunswick Quebec Ontario Manitoba Saskatchewan Alberta
British Columbia Canada
Iron Ore, 1963 Quantity (short tons) 9,407,100
11,811,000
6,844,660
2,071,838
30,134,598
Value
83,620,025
123,525,340
65,368,600
19,846,836
292,360,801


RECIPIENTS OF UNEMPLOYMENT ASSISTANCE
Mr. Orlikow: As of May 1, 1964, how many people classified as employable unemployed were receiving assistance in each province under the provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act?


Miss LaMarsh:: Figures are not available on the number of employable unemployed covered by the sharing provisions of the Unemployment Assistance Act on May 1, 1964. The act does not require the provinces to provide data on this basis.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION SHIPBUILDING CONTRACTS
Mr. MacEwan: 1. What was the total amount of contracts awarded by the shipbuilding branch of the Department of Defence Production from January 1, 1964, to May 31, 1964?
Questions
2. To what companies were these contracts awarded and what was the amount of same to each company?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: 1. The total amount of contracts awarded by the shipbuilding branch of defence production from January 1, 1964 to May 31, 1964 was $3,470,982.71.
2. Hereunder is a list of the names of the companies to whom these contracts were awarded and the amount.
Company	Amount
Pate Development & Prototypes $ Forster Instruments Ltd.
Dominion Steel & Coal Corp. Ltd. Cutler-Hammer Co. Ltd.
Peacock Brothers Limited Peacock Brothers Limited Lucas-Rotax Limited Dominion Engineering Works Limited
Black Clawson-Kennedy Limited Fleet Manufacturing Limited S. F. Bowser Limited Aircraft Appliances & Equipment Limited
Electric Tachometer Corp.
Bailey Meter Co. Ltd.
Woodward Governor Company Yarrows Ltd.
Yarrows Ltd.
Halifax Shipyards Limited Yarrows Ltd.
Halifax Shipyards Limited Yarrows Ltd.
U.S. Navy Yard, California Halifax Shipyards Limited Traveler Mfg. Co. Ltd.
Yarrows Ltd.
Halifax Shipyards Limited Halifax Shipyards Limited Halifax Shipyards Limited Steel & Engineering Products Steel & Engineering Products Davie Shipbuilding Limited Sydney Engineering Ltd.
Purdy Brothers Limited Halifax Shipyards Limited Yarrows Ltd.
Halifax Shipyards Limited Halifax Shipyards Limited Victoria Machinery Depot Co. Ltd.
Canadian Vickers Limited Geo. T. Davie & Sons Ltd. Halifax Shipyards Limited Halifax Shipyards Limited
5,000.00
3,282.72
32.335.00 9,164.20
40.477.00 32,705.25
5.192.00
52,616.02
2,199.78
9,072.32
2,308.81
3,928.08
3,650.40
10,000.00
7,262.13
108.095.00
16.996.00
15.023.00
3.790.00
16.852.00
295.000.	00
4.860.00
9.201.00
21.504.00
100.000.	00
9.141.00
103.757.00
12.476.00
45.189.00
12.972.00 100,000.00
75.000.	00
14.000.	00
5.278.00 468.00
4.817.00
12.650.00
5.051.00
12.312.00
158.125.00
6.310.00
10.305.00

Orders far Returns Company	Amount
Halifax Shipyards Limited Burrard Dry Dock Co. Ltd. Dominion Engineering Works Limited
Halifax Shipyards Limited Ferguson Industries Canadian Vickers Limited Peacock Brothers Limited Halifax Shipyards Limited Lunenburg Foundry & Engineering
Halifax Shipyards Limited
7,494.00
20.941.00
3,000.00
24.846.00
14.000.	00 1,110,017.00
634,220.00
18.648.00
30.000.	00
80.000.	00
Company	Amount
Canadian Vickers Limited	117,676.00
Peacock Brothers Limited	11,775.00


VOCATIONAL TRAINING PAYMENTS TO PROVINCES
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,245
Mr. Balcer:: 1.	Since 1960, what amount was received for each year, by province, under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act?
2.	Did any amendment or agreement made in 1963 permit the province of Quebec to recover, under the Technical and Vocational Training Assistance Act, amounts more closely related to those received by the province of Ontario?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1.
Province
Newfoundland


P.E.I. N.S. N.B.
[Stage Direction]
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta

[Stage Direction]
Totals
1961-62 $ 2,975,268 200,063 1,150,420 1,562,607 8,829,731 11,929,970 1,144,808 1,454,445 3,595,710 2,824,984 36,786 24,831
[Stage Direction]
2. Yes. An amendment to the agreement effective April 1, 1961 permits payment by the federal government of 75 per cent of provincial expenditures incurred on training facilities up to a specified maximum and 50 per cent thereafter to March 31, 1967. This specified maximum federal contribution of 75 per cent was determined by applying a per capita cost of $480 per person in the 15 to 19, inclusive, age group residing in each province as determined by the 1961 census. Under this formula the province of Quebec will be eligible to receive payments on a 75 per cent basis for training facilities up to $224,364,400. Ontario under the same formula is eligible to receive $209,703,800.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 868
Mr. Howard:: What action, in detail, has been taken with respect to each of the following recommendations 
of the joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons on Indian affairs:
"(a) The question of transferring health services for Indians to the provinces should be discussed at a dominion-provincial conference, but the present health program should be continued and extended until such time as this can be accomplished.
(b)	Provincial welfare legislation and services should be used for the benefit of the Indian population.
(c)	Social welfare should be placed on the agenda of a dominion-provincial conference with a view to transferring jurisdiction to the provinces.
(d)	A substantially increased public investment should be made in Indian housing and sanitation facilities.
(e)	A revolving loan fund for housing purposes should be established."?
Return tabled.


MOTOR VEHICLE PURCHASES, CAPE BRETON NORTH AND VICTORIA CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria): 1.	Since April 8, 1963, what government departments have purchased motor vehicles for use in the constituency of Cape Breton North and Victoria?
2.	In regard to each purchase, what firms were invited to tender, what were the names of the firms

that did tender, who was the successful tenderer and what was the amount, and what were the amounts of the tenders of all others who tendered?
Return tabled.


LEVEL CROSSINGS, COMPTON-FRONTENAC CONSTITUENCY
Mr. Laiulippe: 1.	How many level crossings are there in Comp-ton-Frontenac?
2.	How many accidents have occurred at these crossings in the last five years?
3.	Where did each such accident occur?
4.	In each case, what was the number of persons killed, seriously injured, slightly injured, and what was the amount of material damage?
5.	How many signal lights have been installed in Compton-Frontenac in the last five years?
6.	What is the number of signal lights in Compton-Frontenac, and where is each located?
Return tabled.


* H.M.C.S. &quot;BONAVENTURE&quot;
Mr. Fisher: 1.	Does the government plan to modernize the aircraft carrier H.M.C.S. Bonaventure within the next two years and, if so, what is the estimated cost of the modernization?
2.	In the time interval before a complete modernization, is there any intention to spend any money in rectifying present defects in the ship or to reduce the maintenance backlog or to prepare specifications for the modernization and, if so, what is the estimate for these expenditures?
3.	How long will the Bonaventure be out of service in the interval before modernization begins?
4.	Has there been any shortage in personnel on the H.M.C.S. Bonaventure in the past two years in so far as the establishment for technicians is concerned and, if so, what are the details?
5.	What has been the repair and maintenance cost of the Bonaventure, year by year, since its acquisition by the R.C.N.?
6.	What is the estimated service life of the Bonaventure?
Return tabled.


POSSIBLE REDUCTION IN SALES TO RUSSIA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. It is related to a news dispatch in today's New York Times from the correspondent in Moscow to the effect that prospects of a normal wheat crop in the Soviet union will result in no further purchases being made, except for nominal amounts, of Canadian wheat in the coming year. Can the minister say whether he has any information in this regard and whether there is any 20220-272J
Inquiries of the Ministry basis, which I hope there is not, for the article in question?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, my understanding of the position is that the Russian government are not at all clear, so early in the season, as to their ultimate supply position and are awaiting clarification before deciding whether they will buy wheat from any part of the world.


John George Diefenbaker: Can the minister say whether there has been any indication to Canada that there now is uncertainty in this regard on the part of the Russian government?


Mitchell William Sharp: Well, Mr. Speaker, I would just say that there has never been anything but uncertainty in this regard, and no one has said anything else. The Russian government have made it quite clear that they would declare their intention to purchase next year after they had seen what crop prospects were like for the coming year.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any indication to the Canadian government from the Russian government to the effect that, on the basis of anticipated returns at the present time, there is a possibility of a great reduction in the amount of Canadian purchases?


Mitchell William Sharp: The Canadian wheat board have been in constant communication with the Soviet government in connection with possible wheat purchases, and when the Russian government makes its decision it will communicate with the wheat board.


REQUEST FOR REPORT ON NEGOTIATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I may direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, of which I have not given him notice. I understand the conference in Geneva is breaking up tomorrow. Could the minister give us any information as to the reconciliation of the viewpoints of the have-not countries and the have countries, which is so important to trade negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I had an oral
report from my officials this morning, which was rather incomplete. I would prefer to await the written report, and then I think

Inquiries of the Ministry I would be able to satisfy my hon. friend as to what has come out of the conference.


George Clyde Nowlan: I thank the minister.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: I should like to address a question to the Minister of Labour and ask him if there is any truth in the report that there is a wildcat walkout of longshoremen in the Montreal area. If so, what is being done to bring about a resumption of work?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, there is a walkout in Montreal having to do with the adjustment in the pension fund. The commissioner appointed to settle the strike last fall is now undertaking to provide as quickly as possible an interim report that might be used as a basis for the resumption of work.



THE MINISTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister a question regarding the two orders in council passed appointing staff for two cabinet ministers to serve in the constituencies of the cabinet ministers in question. I ask the Prime Minister, is it the intention of the government to continue these orders in council in effect, and is it the intention of the government to extend this policy to cover other cabinet ministers?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council has already indicated that he is to make a full statement on this matter, and I hope he will be able to do so very shortly.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?

Has the government reached a decision about continuing Canada's participation in the U.N. force now on Cyprus?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, there will be a meeting of the United Nations' security council next Wednesday, I think after which I will be in a position to make a statement about that matter.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Has the minister received a request from employees of the Besserer street post office, Ottawa, for an immediate X-ray of all local employees to end the grave concern that a tuberculosis outbreak is imminent? If so, what is the minister's intention with respect to this request; and would she give consideration to arranging for X-rays of post office employees working under similar conditions in some of the larger post offices in Canada?


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. friend for giving me notice of this question, but I do not as yet have the information. I would be glad to obtain it and reply to my hon. friend later.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice?
Can the minister tell us if his department has investigated the possibility of allowing the F.L.Q. members now serving time in St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary to keep up their studies while they are confined there? [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is no particular urgency to this question. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper.


Gilles Grégoire: In view of the fact that the prisoners started a hunger strike this morning

to ensure the success of their request, I feel that the situation has become urgent and, considering the urgency of the situation at the St. Vincent de Paul penitentiary and especially the fact that the other prisoners have expressed their sympathy, I would ask the Minister of Justice to have an investigation carried out.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I have given a ruling, and the hon. member has the privilege of debating this at 10 o'clock if he wishes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I ask this matter be taken up at ten o'clock, at which time we will not be deprived of our right to raise this issue.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister set aside the flag debate in view of the growing demand among Canadians for a national plebiscite, as evidenced by the 18,000 signatures affixed to a petition delivered to his office this forenoon?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I hope the debate will proceed in a few moments, when this will be one of the matters I will talk about.


Robert Carman Coates: As a supplementary question, is not this an indication that the Prime Minister does not care-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. That question is
strictly out of order.


Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldi-Melfort-Tisdale):: I have a question for the Minister of Justice, just a point of clarification. Is the flag which flies over the parliament buildings while parliament is in session recognized as the flag of the nation?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minisier of Justice):: This calls for a legal opinion and therefore goes against a rule of this house.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
Inquiries of the Ministry



ELIMINATION OF REFERENCE IN RESOLUTION TO UNION JACK

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolieite-L'Assomplion-Montcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Does he propose to remove the last part of the resolution concerning the union jack, so as not to induce members to scuttle the debate by making lengthy speeches?


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


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I rise simply to ask Your Honour this. What is wrong with that question? The hon. member is asking whether the Prime Minister intends to break the resolution into two. I know we want to do everything we can to assist, but I do not understand the reason for that ruling. I am sure it is a very good reason, but it is not apparent.


Mr. Speaker:: The initial and apparent reason is that the same question was asked on Friday, I think, or if not Friday on Thursday. It is a repetitive question or a repetitive statement.


John George Diefenbaker: But I think we are entitled to an answer, are we not, on a matter so important as this? Repetitive questions sometimes arise from the failure of a government to give answers of any kind.



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and ask the hon. lady whether she has conferred with the Minister of Industry concerning the loss of an industry in Niagara Falls, namely, the Dow Corning silicones industry, which has decided to locate in the designated area of Brantford?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It seems to me this is a question for the order paper.

Inquiries of the Ministry



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN FISCAL AND MONETARY POLICIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice  Coie@Chicoutimi: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Secretary of State.
Could the minister inform the house as to whether the government proposed to establish jointly with the provinces permanent offices to deal with taxation, currency and trade?


Maurice Lamontagne: 

CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Could the right hon. gentleman tell us whether he has received word from Quebec as to when the government of that province may be able to give its approval to the proposed amendment to the Canadian constitution, having to do with survivors' benefits?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The legislature is debating that matter this afternoon. I hope the debate will be a short one, and that we can get ahead with our resolution here.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a
question to the minister of immigration. It has to do with a man by the name of Josif Vergakis, a 20 year old seaman who was apprehended on April 27, having been taken into custody at the request of the hon. gentleman's department. Bail was granted to him in the sum of $1,000. He put up the money, yet he is still in custody. Is it because he refuses to answer questions which are placed before him, or for what reason is he being held in this country?


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I am

not aware of that particular case, but I will be pleased to make the necessary inquiries and provide the information.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: In the absence of the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources I wonder if I could direct a question either to the Postmaster General, as the other cabinet minister from British Columbia, or to the acting minister of northern affairs with respect to the flood situation in British Columbia. News reports indicate that the floods have abated somewhat, but perhaps one of the members of the cabinet could give the house a reasonably up to date indication of the situation.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Poslmaster General):: I am sure that the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources is in a position to deal with that.


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The minister is in British Columbia at the moment looking into the gravity of the situation on the Fraser and Skeena rivers. I might say that at his request I was in Dawson City and Mayo last Thursday and Friday to look at the situation on the Yukon and Stewart rivers. I am glad to report with regard to these particular waters that the levels seem to have dropped. At Mayo the flood waters are one and a half feet below the five feet above normal which they once were, and at Dawson City, for the first time, the waters have begun to recede and were six inches lower than the previous mark of ten feet above normal.


Frank Howard: May I ask the parliamentary secretary whether the minister has any plans now to make an offer of assistance, to work with the provincial government in this situation?


John Napier Turner: I am sure that once the minister has had an opportunity to view the situation he will be in a better position to answer that question himself on his return.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Can he tell us whether the federal government will be represented at the meeting to be held on June 30 next to study the critical situation of the water level in the port of Montreal?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would have to look into that question.



CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. A. MacLean (Queens):: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Transport and ask him whether he is now in a position to answer a question I put to him on May 25 regarding the sale of Canadian National Railways hotels, with special reference to the one in Charlottetown.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: I imagine the hon. gentleman knows the answer to that question already. I was advised some days ago that the hotel had been sold.


John Angus MacLean: A supplementary question to the umquhile government house leader. Are the opposition or all hon. members to assume, when a question is taken as notice and an answer promised, that the answer will not be given unless they ask the question again at a later date?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege might I say a word about that. All I undertook to do was to bring the question to the attention of the railway authorities. The announcement of the sale of this hotel, which was an administrative matter, was made at a time when the house was not sitting. It was made by a political friend of the hon. gentleman, the premier of Prince Edward Island. I thought it would be rather redundant to take up the scarce time of the house by repeating that announcement.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege, I should say that I for one assume that the minister makes himself aware of his responsibilities and of
Inquiries of the Ministry what is happening under the jurisdiction of his department at all times and as soon as he can. When he tells the house that he will seek the answer to a question I think we always assume that he is seeking the answer so as to make the house aware of what is the answer. I find now that we have to be more careful.



AIR CANADA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Alberi):: Mr. Speaker, I have another question for the Minister of Transport about a maritime matter on which I hope he will be better informed. Will the minister investigate and report on the many protests which have been made regarding the cancellation of certain Saint John-Halifax connecting Air Canada flights; and will the minister guarantee their restoration or give an opportunity for other regional carriers to move in?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad indeed to make the fullest possible inquiry to get the information the hon. gentleman asks, but I know the hon. gentleman is not seriously suggesting that I should take over the operation of T.C.A. myself.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. R. Souiham (Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of the most urgent importance to direct to the Prime Minister. From what appears to be a deliberate government policy of rooting out little by little our distinctive terms and designations which remind this nation of its past, is the Liberal party dedicated to turning this country into a republic?


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



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gérard Laprise: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. Has he heard

Inquiries of the Ministry about the appeal made on Saturday and Sunday near the base of La Macaza against the storing of nuclear arms?


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that this question requires a little research. Would the hon. member put it on the order paper.



ADMISSION FEE TO WATCH CHANGING OF GUARD

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Could he tell the house whether in some places in Canada army officials require an admission fee from spectators in order to attend the daily changing of the guard?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Associate Minister of National Defence take some action so that the senior army officers at the Quebec citadel abolish the amount of 75 cents which is required from every tourist who wants to see the changing of the guard?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I shall check whether this statement is accurate.



REPORT OF COMMITTEE ON REORGANIZATION OF MILITIA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Frank Howard: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Ten days ago he told the house that one part or the first part of the Suttie committee report would perhaps be available within a week. I wonder whether he can now tell us if that report is available.


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, the first part of the Suttie commission report has been made available. I am now studying it. The second part will be made available toward the end of the month, I think. However, before making it public and before sending it to the special committee on defence it would be preferable to have both reports made public simultaneously.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Pori Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State whether he has yet had a reply from the C.B.C. as to any reconsideration it is giving
either to showing the controversial film called "Mr. Pearson" or releasing it to other agencies who will demonstrate it to a national audience.
Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of
State): No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, last Thursday the Secretary of State told me he would answer today my question about which members of the privy council saw the restricted film; on how many occasions the Prime Minister saw it; why the C.B.C. did not broadcast the film; and whether members of parliament will have a chance to see the film. May I now have an answer, please?


Maurice Lamontagne: Mr. Speaker, this is exactly the same question as that asked by the hon. member for Port Arthur. I have not yet received an answer from the C.B.C. When I do receive it I will be very glad to give that answer to the House of Commons.


Douglas Mason Fisher: A supplementary question. 1 should like to ask the minister whether the question put by the hon. member and other questions which have been put could not be answered to a considerable extent without resort to the C.B.C., since they involve his associates in the cabinet. We have never had a clear answer to that, and the Secretary of State does not need to go to the C.B.C. to get it.

REPORTED LOWEST PRICE SINCE JANUARY, 1963 On the orders of the day:


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. Could he tell the house whether he read a report published in L'Action on June 13, 1964, to the effect that the price of sugar is at its lowest level since January 24, 1963?


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



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government orders:
May 28-the following proposed resolution:-
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a Held of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag and also to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and our allegiance to the crown-The Prime Minister.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, before you put to the house the question which is contained in government order No. 44, I wish to raise a point of order. My point of order relates to the form in which this motion is laid before us. Initially may I draw your attention to standing order 50, which reads as follows:
Whenever Mr. Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the standing order or authority applicable to the case.
This standing order is spelled out a little more fully in Bourinot's fourth edition at page 297-of course it is an old standing order-where he says:
If a motion be out of order, the Speaker will call attention to the irregularity, and refuse to put it to the house under the forty sixth rule. "Whenever the Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon, and quote the rule or authority applicable to the case."
Consequently, if on reading the motion, he detects an irregularity, he will at once apprise the house of the fact without waiting to have a point of order raised.
It is not my contention that the resolution offered in the name of the Prime Minister is contrary to the rules of this house, but it is my contention that the form of it is contrary to the privileges of parliament; indeed, that the form of it denies an ancient right and privilege of parliament. I raise this point of order now before the debate starts at all, not insisting that there be a
Canadian Flag
ruling today but because I feel that if we do not raise the point of order now we might be told later on in the debate that we were too late. As I say, it will not be a matter of concern to me if a ruling is delayed, provided such a delay does not prejudice our right to have the point considered which I wish to lay before the house.
I have said that in my view the form in which the motion is presented to us offends against an ancient right and privilege of parliament. I find this ancient right and privilege spelled out in at least six authorities, Redlich, May, Campion, Todd, Bourinot and Beauchesne. Three of these are authorities who wrote on the practices of the parliament of the United Kingdom, and the latter three are Canadian. May I, Mr. Speaker, without reading all of them draw attention to two or three of these authorities and to the way they put the point. I drew this sentence to the attention of the Prime Minister a week ago last Friday on orders of the day. It is found on page 298 of Bourinot's fourth edition:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
I should also like to draw the attention of the house to citation 200, subparagraph 4 of Beauchesne's fourth edition. I shall read it again just to make the point that it is in Beauchesne, even though it is in exactly the same words that I have just read from Bourinot. It reads:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
I mentioned Todd, the Canadian authority. He puts it this way:
If a question contains more parts than one it may be divided into two or more questions by the order or with the consent of the house.


An hon. Member:: What is the reference?


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is the reference to Todd, who wrote in about 1840 on the practices of the legislature of Upper Canada.


An hon. Member:: What page?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am sorry, I have not the page; I will get that for you later, Mr. Speaker; the book is in the library. Likewise I would draw attention to May's thirteenth edition, page 278, where this appears:
The ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the house, the house may order such question to be divided, is observed in the following manner.
I feel that having read that sentence, Mr. Speaker, I must read the ones that follow,

Canadian Flag
but I emphasize the fact that May is confirming the fact of the ancient right to have a complicated question divided into its component parts. The paragraph goes on:
When two or more separate propositions are embodied in a motion or in an amendment, the Speaker calls the attention of the house to the circumstances; and, if objection be taken, he puts the question on such propositions separately, restricting debate to each proposition in its turn; though this course is rarely adopted, because it is generally recognized that, if a motion formed of a series of paragraphs is submitted to the house, the question should be proposed on the principal paragraph, which determines the decision of the house upon the various proposals contained in the whole motion. If the necessity should arise, separate subjects contained in a motion can be placed seriatim before the house by way of amendment.
Without reading them, Mr. Speaker, may I say that this is also discussed in Campion and it is also discussed at some length in Redlich. I do not feel it is as appropriate to read from Redlich as it is to read from the later authorities, because he belongs to ancient times and his work discusses the procedures in a day when the Speaker himself formulated and put the motions to the house based on the things that were said by members. It was out of that practice that the custom arose of the house being able to say to Mr. Speaker, "Please, sir, you put too much in the motion. It should be divided." Redlich describes this situation back in the eighteenth century, and he and Campion and May also point out that this right has been protected down through the years.
Bourinot, on the same page from which I read a moment ago, page 298, has a little more to say on the matter of complicated questions, and I think it is very helpful to us in the situation that we face at this time:
As respects what are known as "complicated questions'', they may always be divided into distinct parts, with the consent of the house. No individual member, however, can ask, as a matter of right, that such a question be divided, since the house alone can properly decide whether it is complicated or not and into how many propositions it may be divided.
I want to make it clear that I am not claiming any right as an individual; I am presenting the point that the house as a whole has the right to decide whether or not the question to be put before us today can be divided into its component parts. Let me continue reading from the same paragraph on page 298 of Bourinot's fourth edition:
The fact is, the necessity of dividing a complicated question is now obviated by the facilities offered for moving amendments.

I notice that in this volume that passage has been underlined. I suppose somebody has quoted that on some occasion as an argument against the right I am now maintaining. But I would draw attention to the sentence that immediately follows. It reads:
But, in any case, it is always open to a member to move formally that a question be divided.
I submit that if authorities such as those I have named, whose works span the centuries, namely Redlich, May, Campion, Todd, Bourinot and Beauchesne, all declare that it is an ancient right of parliament to have a complicated question divided, surely this is an occasion when we as a House of Commons should be allowed to exercise that right.
May I point out, Mr. Speaker, that this right which has been asserted over the decades-indeed, over the centuries-is obviously rooted in common sense. It does not make sense to ask a deliberative assembly to cast one vote on a question which contains two distinct propositions. I shall refrain from getting into anything that can be called a debate on the motion the Prime Minister is about to move, but may I use today's proposal as a clear example of what common sense calls for. There are members in this house who favour part (a) of the resolution but are opposed to part (b), yet among those members who take that position some have declared they will vote for the combined motion and some have declared they will vote against it.
Likewise there are members of this house who favour part (b) and are opposed to part (a). Some of those members have declared they will vote for the combined motion and some have declared they will vote against it. In other words, Mr. Speaker, it is utterly impossible, in view of the way in which the motion has been put before us, for the house to give a clear and meaningful vote on this question.
I want to make it very clear that I raise this question not out of any personal or party interest, not with respect to the interests of my party or with respect to the interests of any other party in this house. I raise it because I feel that on this important question of a flag for Canada we in parliament owe it to the Canadian people to see to it that under our rules and procedures we come to a clearcut decision.
So far as I personally am concerned I favour both parts of the motion now before us. I would like to see the first part modified, as everybody knows, but I favour both parts

whether they are put before us separately or whether they are put before us together. In other words I am not raising this matter out of any personal concern, and the position I take is the position taken by most of my colleagues. But because I feel it would be unfair to Canada for parliament to take an unclear decision-because that is what would result if we had a vote on these two propositions at one and the same time-I feel that the ancient right of parliament spelled out so well by Redlich, May, Campion, Todd, Bourinot and Beauchesne should be respected on this important occasion.
Anyone who has studied the authorities on procedure at all knows that things that can seem to be very clear can be confused by something else. I have no doubt, from the question I put to the Prime Minister a week ago last Friday, that others have been studying this question as well, and no doubt attention has been drawn to our standing order 44 which seems to stand in the way of the ancient right which I am now claiming for parliament as a whole. Standing order 44 provides as follows:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
We are governed by our standing orders. Standing order 44 is pretty clear. It says that when a motion is under debate there are only certain kinds of motions that can be made, and that standing order does not list a motion for the dividing of a complicated *question as a motion that can be moved in such a circumstance. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, initially we do seem to be in some difficulty. We have an ancient right given to us across the centuries, but our own standing order 44 seems to stand in the way of our exercising that right. But because we have this ancient right, because it makes common sense, because acting upon it seems to be the thing we should be doing for Canada in the course of this debate, I think we should find a way of exercising that ancient right if it is at all possible.
One of the authorities I read a moment ago said that the practice of dividing a motion has been obviated by the right we now have to move an amendment. That will not do in this case. An amendment could not divide the question. There could be an amendment to cut out part (a) or part (b), but the effect [DOT]of that would be only to confirm or defeat
Canadian Flag
one part. It would not give us a chance to vote on the two propositions separately. Likewise I do not see how we could revert to motions and bring in a question that would deal with the matter. It would require unanimous consent, and I do not look for unanimous consent to be given very often during the course of the debate on the flag.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that what we have to find is a procedural motion of a kind that can be made while the debate on the flag is in progress. One other course would be for Your Honour just to rule, as a Speaker did 81 years ago, that the motion should be split, or as Speakers used to rule in the parliament of Westminster. That is one possibility, but in case you feel that that is too much for you to take on your shoulders I suggest that the house has to find a way to bring in a procedural motion that can be moved while the debate is in progress and that will have the effect of splitting the main motion into two parts. If there is such a procedural motion there is no doubt that it can be moved.


Thomas Miller Bell: How about the government?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have not yet said who might do it. As a matter of fact the hon. member for Saint John-Albert is anticipating my remarks. I intend to suggest that another minister, another member of the government, the Leader of the Opposition or anyone can move such a motion. The point is that I think it ought to be moved, and my reason for raising the point of order now is in the hope that we can get a ruling from the Chair that such a course of procedure would be possible as a means of resolving the situation.
May I point out that if it is agreed that a motion can be made to divide the question into two parts, that motion could be debated and could be voted on, and the house itself would thus make the decision whether or not the question should be divided. In the house itself making the decision-by a free vote, I would hope-there is no question but that we would be in line with what all the authorities have said, namely that it is an ancient right to have a question divided, and that although one member cannot demand it as a personal right, the house itself can make such an order.
I had reached the point where I was suggesting that what is necessary, unless somebody can come up with a better way, is a procedural motion of a kind that would be in order. I draw the attention of the house to citation 195 in Beauchesne, fourth edition,

Canadian Flag
found on page 165. I am going to read the first paragraph. It is not particularly relevant but it is close to the question. It reads:
A substantive motion is a self-contained proposal not incidental to any proceeding, amendable and drafted in such a way as to be capable of expressing a decision of the house.
What we will have before us in the name of the Prime Minister is a substantive motion. But the next paragraph is germane to the problem I have raised. It reads as follows:
Privileged motions, which must not be mistaken for questions of privilege, deal with situations arising from the subject matter of, or the debate on, the original question either in consequence or in anticipation of a vote or through the necessity of resorting to new proceedings.
That is exactly the kind of motion we would need in the course of this debate unless, as I say, some other way is found to deal with the matter. We will need a vote on a matter that will arise in anticipation of the vote. I draw hon. members' attention to the next two sentences in the citation with regard to what happens when motions of this kind are made:
They must be given the right of way when proposed during a debate. They are divided into superseding motions and amendments.
The various kinds of such motions are then indicated. So what we have reached at this point, Mr. Speaker, is that it is possible, despite standing order 44 which seems to say that nothing of this kind can be done, to bring in a motion during the course of the debate-some member of the cabinet or anybody else in the house can do it-which would be in order, which would not require notice, which would not require unanimous consent, and on the basis of which by a free vote the house itself would make the decision.
One of the kinds of motions referred to on page 195-as well as in several other places-that can be made under that heading is a motion for reading the orders of the day. I suppose many members have seen that phrase in our rule book a number of times, "reading the orders of the day", and have wondered, as I have, what it meant. The authorities are not extremely helpful, but it is interesting to go back to a precedent. In this connection I went back, proceeding from a footnote in Bourinot, to the session of 1883. On March 16 of that year a very interesting proceeding took place in the House of Commons. Sir John A. Macdonald was prime minister at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I paused for a moment so that applause could be noted because I agree with what Sir John A. Macdonald did on that occasion. I hope his supporters will take the same position and, since he was speaking from the government side, I hope the government will take that position as well.
The reason I looked up this debate on March 16, 1883, was that Bourinot referred to it as an occasion when a motion that had two distinct propositions was split. It is an interesting motion and was to the effect that a paragraph out of the speech from the throne, a paragraph that had to do with the sale of liquor, should be referred to a special committee and that, notwithstanding a certain standing order, that special committee should be composed of certain members. This motion to refer a paragraph to the committee and that the committee should consist of certain members was split into two parts.
The Liberal opposition of the day, the spokesman for which on that occasion was Hon. Edward Blake, objected to what was being done. The Speaker of the day, in very clear words, simply said that the motion could be divided. This reference will be found at page 253 of Hansard for March 16, 1883. The reason for the desire to divide the motion was that the propositions were distinctly separate. One was the idea to set up a committee to deal with the sale of liquor; the other was the question as to who should be on the committee. Apparently there were many members of the Liberal party who did not want to be members of the committee, and a furor developed. At any rate, the motion was divided into two distinct parts and they were voted upon separately; in fact there was a recorded division in both cases.
This is an example, Mr. Speaker, of where research into past procedures is sometimes more rewarding than one expects. Oddly enough, when one studies the incident that took place on March 16, 1883 one finds something that will help us today. It is not only that a complicated motion can be divided, that Mr. Speaker made the ruling that it could be divided, but the point that is really interesting is how they got to the motion at all on March 16, 1883. It referred to a paragraph in the speech from the throne. The speech from the throne had already been debated and the address thanking His Excellency for it had already been passed. During the course of that debate, however, there had been considerable discussion about this paragraph relating to the sale of intoxicating liquor, and there was a desire generally



IS. 1964

[Stage Direction]
expressed to deal with it separately. There we have the same question; how do you deal separately with something that is included in something else?
It is in the record, and I invite members to look either at Hansard for 1883, which I have here, or the Journals for 1883. They will find that on that date, March 16, 1881 they got at it in this way. Sir John A. Macdonald, the prime minister of the day, made a motion that the orders of the day be read, and specifically that the paragraph from the speech from the throne relating to the sale of intoxicating liquors be read at the table. Both Hansard and the Journals indicate that this paragraph was read at the table by the Clerk of the house. When the paragraph had been read at the table of the house Sir John A. Macdonald, on the basis of its having been read, moved that it be referred to the proposed committee as I have already indicated. The motion was debatable and it was debated at great length, Sir John A. Macdonald and Hon. Edward Blake being the main contenders. Thus the matter was resolved.
I submit that unless somebody can find a better way of doing it we have, in this precedent, an answer to our problem. Standing order 44 says that when a question is under debate there are only certain kinds of motions that can be moved, and one of them is the motion to read the orders of the day. Such a motion could be moved by any member who can get the floor in the course of the debate, be he a cabinet minister, a Liberal backbencher, a member of the official opposition, or any other member. This motion having been made, if it passed then the Clerk, according to precedent, would be called upon to read at the table the orders of the day. We could dispense with all the rest but order 44, but once he had read order 44, the motion that the Clerk Assistant read just a moment ago, I submit that on the basis of what happened on March 16, 1883, it would then be in order for a member of the house-I think it should be done by a cabinet minister but it would be in order for any member of the house-to move that the question which had then been read by the Clerk at the table be divided into its two parts for the purpose of taking a vote.
If hon. members think this is a bit novel, then I say it is a novel situation to be deciding upon a flag for the people of Canada. Parliament has never dealt with this situa-
Canadian Flag
tion before, and the decision we take may last for a long time. It seems to me that in these circumstances we owe it to ourselves, but even more may I say that we owe it to the people of Canada, to try to find in our procedures a way of making this decision in a most clearcut fashion, a way of arriving at a vote that will be meaningful. As I say, Mr. Speaker, you in your research may have found some other way which seems better, and if so that is fine with me; but if no other way has been found, I suggest consideration be given to the proposals I have made.
If I may sum up, I hope I have shown by reference to the six authorities from whom I have quoted that the right to divide a complicated question is an ancient one that parliament is entitled to have observed on this occasion. I have already shown that under our standing orders there are difficulties. But I have shown by reference to what happened in 1883 that these difficulties can be overcome. I hope Your Honour will at least be prepared today, if you are not able to give a final ruling, to say that this matter is one with which the house can deal at some point in the debate that is about to commence. It is immaterial to me whether the division is made so we can debate the propositions separately or whether it is made just before the vote is taken. It seems to me that one debate ought to be enough, but I will leave that to Your Honour and to the house. Whether or not we do have separate debates, I do insist that to have a clear, meaningful decision we should have two separate votes.
I hope, therefore, that this parliament will show its respect for the things that have come down to us across the centuries by assuring in this debate the right to have separate votes, and that Your Honour will stand with those who in the past have contended that this is one of parliament's undoubted rights.
Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. gentlemen who care to make remarks on this point?
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South
Centre): I would defer to anyone on the government side if he wished to deal with this matter. I have certain remarks I should like to make, but since this is a government motion I thought they would be the first to insist that it remain as it is. It represents the policy of the government, carefully considered, and the motion is carefully drawn with the two ideas put into one motion for a definite purpose. I am sure they would not want to see any change in that motion

Canadian Flag
so prematurely. However, if no one from the other side is willing to speak I should like to deal with the procedure put before us by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.
I wondered at this, Mr. Speaker, when everybody here was eager to hear the presentation of the Prime Minister. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has taken 30 minutes to put forward a rather odd suggestion which he has advanced in various devious ways, and is asking Your Honour to reach a conclusion. Before you do that, sir, I certainly think you should hear from others who have also given some consideration to this point. You might want to look back at another reference, Hatsell in 1770, who first dealt with the matter.
I was surprised that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre placed his reliance on our standing order 50 which reads: Whenever Mr. Speaker is of opinion that a motion offered to the house is contrary to the rules and privileges of parliament, he shall apprise the house thereof immediately, before putting the question thereon-
I fail to see where any of the rights and privileges of parliament are abrogated by the introduction of the resolution that is before us, and I do not see that the Speaker is called upon immediately to examine this and take some action. In fact the hon. member did not give any reference to any incidents when the Speaker had intervened under such circumstances, and certainly he was unable to point out that this offended against any ancient right or privilege of parliament, although he used that expression.
The hon. member is quite right in giving us the references he did, with the one omission I have mentioned, and in the parliament at Westminster there has been in effect a method by which, from time to time, motions may be divided. Although our reference books, Beau-chesne and Bourinot, refer to this they do not give satisfactory examples from Canadian practice, and in fact Beauchesne rather skims over the whole thing without any substantial reference whatsoever. So you have to go to May for the references. I wonder why the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre quoted the thirteenth edition of May when we have, and have had for a number of years, the sixteenth edition available. Why does he not get up to date when dealing with a volume as important as May, which has been available in its sixteenth edition for a number of years?
Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw your attention to a number of references which I

am prepared to give where, in the British House of Commons, certain motions are divided; but before doing that may I draw your attention to the fact that there are occasions when motions are not subject to division in the British house, and this should have been drawn to your attention by the hon. member who preceded me. In May's sixteenth edition on page 607 you will find this sentence in the middle of the page:
The practice of the house by which a motion or amendment embodying several propositions is divided by the Chair if objection is taken to it on that account, so that questions may be put on each proposition separately, is not followed in committee of the whole house.
So you have that restriction on this division of motions in British practice, and then you have a further restriction. I give the reference. In 1928, as recorded in the parliamentary debates for the United Kingdom, volume 217, column 678, a member of the house requested the division of a motion which was then before the house dealing with the sittings of the house. The hon. member asked if there would be two votes on this particular motion and Mr. Speaker replied:
No, only one. The business specified under the standing order may include two or more bills and sometimes it includes some other government business.
I draw these two examples to your attention, sir, so you may be clear on the fact that the practice of dividing motions is not carried throughout the business of the house. It only pertains under certain circumstances.
The circumstances under which it may be done can be drawn from a number of references in the British House of Commons running from 1888 to 1928. There are not many references, half a dozen, and in each instance the motions were divided on the request of an hon. member. That is the way they do it there, and the motions that were divided were dealing with matters very distinct one from the other.
The first example I cite, on April 19, 1888, volume 324, page 1828, had to do with a motion which embodied in its first part mention of the earning of grants for cookery, in connection with a bill dealing with education in Scotland, and in the second part it dealt with grants for drawing in reckoning the total of 17s. 6d. per scholar in average attendance. These were two very separate and distinct propositions, and the Speaker said he had no objection to taking them separately. As a matter of fact the motion was not proceeded with; it was withdrawn.

The second example, and this is one of considerable importance, is on July 17, 1905, page 897 in the same reference volume. There was a resolution before the house which the Speaker had been asked to look at. He did look at it and he said:
-the resolution ought to be divided into at least eight, and probably nine, resolutions.
The substance of that was that Mr. Balfour, the proposer of the motion, withdrew it and said he would bring it back again in the form of a bill.
The third example is on November 13, 1912, volume 43 of the fifth series of that year, where you will find a lengthy discussion with regard to a division of a motion before the house, which is worthy of your attention because I think this one rather sets the pattern. The motion before the house at that time dealt with an amendment for the suspension of the standing orders of the house and a recasting of a guillotine resolution, that is allocation of time; and, most important, for the rescinding of an amendment passed by the house a few days earlier.
The Speaker decided that so far as he was concerned the suspension of the standing orders was immaterial, it was the type of thing introduced into many motions. But he said there were two propositions before the house, one being the rescission of an amendment-this is a most unusual practice indeed, to reverse a decision made earlier by the house-and the second proposition was to remodify the timetable which had been passed by the house two weeks earlier. He said in effect that that motion might be divided, and they would deal separately with the really important question, the rescinding of the amendment. So he cut the question into two parts.
The last reference I would give is in 1920, volume 131, column 2606. There was a motion before the house asking for the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule, and at the same time asking that business other than supply might be taken on a supply day. The Speaker agreed that the motion might very well be taken into two parts. The question affecting the suspension of the eleven o'clock rule might have meant an all-night sitting and was an important question to be decided by the house. The second part of the motion dealt with something entirely different, namely the taking of business other than supply on a day set aside for supply. There was no resemblance between the two propositions put forward in the motion.
Canadian Flag
This, in addition to the examples quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, represents very largely, if not completely, the examples Your Honour will be able to find in the various reference books. So it is quite clear that in the first instance the division of a motion before the house is not often made. It occurs when two distinct and opposing points of view are presented in one motion, and in such cases the Speaker, for the convenience of the house, makes the division. In some of the examples I have given the motions were withdrawn because of the objections raised and something else was substituted.
Now may I deal with the somewhat dubious method by which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre wants to get around standing order 44. I think Your Honour will have to give most serious consideration to this proposition about reading the orders of the day on some subsequent day and then, at that stage, considering a superseding motion. I would want to examine the record very carefully myself in that regard, but I doubt whether on the basis of the example given to us this morning by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre it would be sound or safe for such a rule to be established here. I think, Mr. Speaker, you must be looking ahead to the business of the house in the future. The adoption of such a suggestion would result in the establishment of a precedent for the future, and all the ramifications which would follow from such a precedent should be carefully examined. Standing order 44, without repeating it in full, certainly says that no motion can be received when a question is before the house except to amend it, postpone it, and so on; and after reading the citation I am not sure that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is giving a correct interpretation of what happened in 1833. However, that is for Your Honour to look at. Even in the motion to which the hon. member drew our attention, two very separate matters were brought to the attention of the house. One involved the setting up of a committee to consider the sale of liquor, and the other asked the house to consider the names of the people who should be appointed to that committee. It is obvious that those two matters could easily be dealt with separately.
I conclude simply by saying that the examples I have been able to draw to Your Honour's attention are so far removed from the motion before us that I doubt very much

Canadian Flag
if you could give them serious consideration in relation to what the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said. The motion which is before us amounts to the setting out of a principle, an exposition of the policy of the government, and the two ideas are so closely related that I think they must be considered as a whole. I will leave the matter at that point.


John George Diefenbaker: The references to which allusions have been made by my hon. friend are, of course, known to hon. members of the house. I wish to draw Your Honour's attention to this, that these authorities all advise to the effect that where a resolution contains different propositions, consideration can be given to dividing it within the limitations referred to by my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre.
But what is the proposition here? The government introduces a resolution. The contention now is that this resolution, which must have taken a great deal of thought and consideration on the part of the government, does infringe on ancient rights, rules and privileges of parliament. This places a Speaker in a very difficult position. It may well be that the government now finds itself in a position where it would like to see a division of the resolution which it has itself created. It may very well be that. But let us read the proposition. It is this:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada-
Here it goes on to describe the three maple leaf flag.
-and also to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership-
And so on. How does one divide that? Does one divide it by leaving out "and" and "also"? You cannot divide this proposition. This is an entire proposition. This was the government's policy. This is what the Prime Minister told Mr. Smallwood, the premier of Newfoundland, in the telegram which was tabled here. It is not a question of a resolution being produced which ignores the rights and interferes with the privileges of parliament. This is something which represents the carrying out of a promise by the government.
No doubt the government now finds itself in a somewhat invidious position. Did not Premier Smallwood himself, following receipt of the telegram in question, interpret that telegram and interpret the conversation he

had with the Prime Minister in the legislature of Newfoundland? At any rate the premier announced during a session of the legislature that he had received an assurance from the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, replying to a telegram from Premier Smallwood, said:
There is no question of the federal government's intention to recommend that both the union jack and Canada's proposed new flag be proclaimed by the Queen.
Premier Smallwood had asked for an explanation of the course to be followed by the government if the motion were adopted to authorize the government to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations, and so on. Premier Smallwood had asked for an explanation of the course to be followed by the federal government. He wanted to know what would happen. He went even further. He said the Minister of Transport was in London on Thursday to see Her Majesty the Queen on the flag issue. He said he had been informed of this by the Prime Minister. This, he said, was an honour to Newfoundland.
Now the government stand on a certain resolution they placed before parliament. It may be that they find it a little difficult. I am sure there would be no co-operation or discussion between the government and the hon. member who proposes the course we are considering, but if there was not the hon. member is a mind reader of the first rank; he knows the position in which the government now finds itself in having this resolution in its present form.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I rise on a point of order. The right hon. gentleman is surely dealing now with substantive matters, not just the point which is before the house; but since he is doing so, and referring to what he considers to be the policy of the government in this matter, may I point out to him and to the house that the government has no intention of moving that this resolution be divided.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: All right. I am happy to have that assurance, which means that the Prime Minister of this country says that the resolution does not contravene the ancient rights and privileges of parliament. I agree with him in that regard; it does not. That being so, Mr. Speaker, you are now to be placed in the position where one member of

the house raises a question and the government, represented by the Prime Minister, and myself speaking for the opposition-


Gilles Grégoire: No, not for us.


John George Diefenbaker: -for the official opposition. There is really only one opposition, but I am speaking for the official opposition.


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


John George Diefenbaker: If the hon. gentleman would wait-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, I should like to ask the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) if he considers only himself a member of the official opposition. Are there not others also in the opposition?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are dealing with one point of order, and the Leader of the Opposition was speaking to that point of order.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, now that I have the official approval of the Prime Minister that, in his considered opinion, with which I agree, this resolution does not constitute any invasion of the ancient rights and privileges of parliament, or he would never have brought such a motion before the house, may I say this was the agreement that was made between Premier Smallwood and the Prime Minister according to the telegram which was filed. Therefore, I say that you, Mr. Speaker, are placed in the position where, if you were to determine upon and were to direct the breaking up of this resolution and separating the two parts, you would be so doing contrary to the rule that separation is allowed only where there are two distinct propositions. In this case there are not. The words provide, first, for a three maple leaf flag-and there can be no division in that- and also for the royal union flag. If you were to rule that the government have produced a resolution which consists not of one proposition, and a distinct one, but of a conjoined or conjuctive proposition-"and also" -you would, as I see it, be acting contrary to the rules. I cannot thank the Prime Minister too much for having risen and, with that certainty permitted of him by his position, telling the house that he does not intend to separate this resolution. Would he not want to if it did infringe the rights of parliament, because he is here to uphold them?
Under all the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I ask you not to uphold the suggestion put
Canadian Flag
forward in the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. To do so would be contrary to the rules and would put you in the position where you would have to interpret what was in the minds of the government. Separation takes place only when there are distinct propositions put forward. In this case the undertaking was-if there are any notes to be handed around I should like to get them myself- to bring before the house a joint resolution. May I point that out once more, because it has happened several times and I do not wish to refer to it again.


Mr. Speaker:: May I just clear up one slight
misunderstanding at the moment. Surely the Chair has the right to consult with his Clerk.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Of course.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, there was no consultation on Your Honour's part a moment ago. This has happened several times when during the course of argument notes have passed to you. That is not consultation; that is giving advice without consultation.


Lester Bowles Pearson: How disgusting.


Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hal):: Mr. Speaker, I want to speak only briefly on the proposition which has been put forward to the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In his opening remarks I think he laid the situation fairly clearly before the house when he said that the resolution which is now before parliament is not contrary to the rules, but may contravene some privilege of the house. If you look, Mr. Speaker, at the resolutions which are on the order paper for today, it is possible to find a number of resolutions which do contain more than one proposition notwithstanding that they deal with the same subject. Item No. 44 in my opinion certainly does propose two separate matters to the House of Commons, but surely both deal with the same subject, namely a Canadian flag, or two flags.
I think this resolution is somewhat different from others which are on the order paper today, because I believe there will be no bill following this resolution to which members of the house would be able to move amendments. Nevertheless, notwithstanding what is contained in government order 44, if there are members of the house who feel they are unable to vote either in favour of or against the whole resolution, they have the option open to them to move an amendment

Canadian Flag
to delete part of the resolution which is before them. That opportunity is open to all hon. members no matter what the item of business before them, particularly resolutions to be followed by a bill. Hon. members have the opportunity to amend each of the clauses of any bill presented to the committee of the whole.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I think that perhaps you have the prerogative, when this motion is moved, to ask for the consent of the house, if the house so desires, to deal separately with the two matters raised by the resolution. There is also the option open to any hon. member, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, to move that the resolution be divided, and at that time it would be easy for you to take the sense of the house as to whether the house wants to do that.
I am not going to go into all the citations brought to the attention of the house both by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). It seems to me there is abundant precedent for putting before the house a motion which includes propositions like the two contained in the motion before us at the moment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to the year 1883 and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill) quoted excerpts going back to 1770. For my part, I would like to go back to the year 292 B.C., when the Athenian Alcibiades came before the first democratic parliament in the world, the Athenian areopagus, and proposed, in a single resolution, that the Athenian parliament simultaneously declare war against Sparta, the Peloponnessus and Sicily.
The Greek areopagites, in their great wisdom, then thought that they should divide the motion, so as to declare war against Sparta and the Peloponnessus, but not Sicily. Mr. Speaker, this happened in the year 292 B.C. This means that the most ancient rights of the people's representatives do not go back only to the 16th and 18th centuries, but to the 3rd century B.C.
Mr. Speaker, the most ancient right enjoyed by a member of parliament who is called upon to cast his vote, is to do so-as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said a few moments ago, quoting many authorities in support of his argument-on a resolution

which is in no way complex, but simple, so that he may express his opinion and say fully and completely what is on his mind.
Now, this is not the case of the resolution before us today. This resolution is complex to the point of creating a dilemma for several members of the house, and I can easily illustrate this with an example.
Suppose that the resolution would include a first distinctive flag, with three maple leaves, and a second one which would be the French tricolour, for instance, to recall the origin of the first citizens of this country. I am convinced then, that many hon. members would have been prepared to vote for the three maple leaves, but not for the French tricolour-and I would have been the first one- because we want no tie with any country. The Prime Minister himself, in such a case, would have had, for all practical purposes, to vote against that resolution.
Now, Mr. Speaker, many members of this house face the same dilemma. Therefore, it shows beyond any doubt that the resolution as presented to us is a complex, and not a simple one.
Further, that resolution is not a simple one, because it calls for a single vote on two conflicting matters. On the first one, we express our Canadianism and on the second one, we express our allegiance to another country and that, through one single vote on the same resolution.
That goes to show how complex is the said resolution.
Far be it from me to dwell on the matter endlessly, but the complexity of the resolution now being brought before us seems obvious enough to me. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, it is up to the house to find a way to divide the resolution. In my opinion, that is very simple. It is up to the Prime Minister himself to divide it. He has stated that he does not want to do it, but I must tell him that when he went to Winnipeg to make his speech, he gained the respect of everybody in Canada. He showed he had a lot of guts. He faced a somewhat hostile crowd, but he won the respect and approval of all the young Canadian people for the courage he showed on that occasion.
Even though he stated on several occasions today that he refused to divide his motion, that is, to back-track when necessary, as he has already done, this is not characteristic of someone unable to make up his mind, but rather of someone who can appreciate the good points of a solution.

I appeal personally to the Prime Minister so that he himself will introduce a motion to divide this resolution in two parts, which would prevent any conflict or split and enable hon. members to vote according to their conscience. In addition, this would remove the dilemma in which the resolution places them today.
In view of the circumstances, I feel it is the duty of the Prime Minister of Canada today to divide the motion so as to give satisfaction to a large number of members who are anxious to vote in favour of a distinctive national flag but who object to any allegiance to another country. It is the Prime Minister's duty to enable those members to vote for a distinctive national flag. We cannot support the motion as it stands at present. That is why the Prime Minister must make it possible for us, representatives of the province of Quebec who wish to drop any allegiance to another country, to vote in favour of a distinctive national flag.
That is why I call upon the Prime Minister personally to allow us to vote not only once on the two flags, but twice: once for the national distinctive flag and the second time for a symbol of allegiance to another country.


Mr. G. W. Baldwin (Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a very brief contribution to make to this discussion. I have listened to the very interesting and ingenious argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), but it seems to me he is met with one fatal obstacle. He has attempted to stick-handle around it, but it is still there. I refer to standing order 44, which is in simple, definite, precise, unambiguous words:
When a question is under debate no motion is received unless to amend it; to postpone it to a day certain; for the previous question; for reading the orders of the day; for proceeding to another order; to adjourn the debate; or for the adjournment of the house.
I call to Your Honour's attention that right at the beginning of the standing order it says the date when this rule apparently came into effect, was either promulgated or amended to its present form, was July 10, 1906. I think the standing orders of this house, like any statute, are designed to meet certain situations and I have not any doubt that the very interesting case and precedent cited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and other similar cases might well have been
Point of Order
part of the reasoning behind the appearance of this particular rule in its present form.
If the hon. member, or any other hon. member, can produce any Canadian citation or precedent indicating that subsequent to July 10, 1906 there has been a case where a resolution has been divided, despite the provisions of standing order 44, then Your Honour would be met with a different situation. But the only citations mentioned, as I understood the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, subsequent to this date were English citations. There is no indication before Your Honour that there is an English rule comparable to this. I submit that on the basis of standing order 44, the very clear and precise wording of this rule, and the fact that the only citations which have been mentioned are those prior to this date, Your Honour is in the position that he must follow this rule. This is the rule laid down by the house for the guidance of Speakers and of the house in the future. I must fall in with what the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) has said, that barring the decision by the government to bring forward a new resolution or two new resolutions we are bound by the resolution as it stands, as Your Honour is bound by the provisions of standing order 44.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member for Peace River a question before he sits down? Is he not aware of the fact that I proposed that we follow standing order 44, by having a motion to read the orders of the day and carrying on with the kind of procedure that was used by Sir John A. Macdonald?


Gerald William Baldwin: I would submit, Mr. Speaker, with all deference, that the hon. member is simply begging the question there.


Mr. Speaker:: Are there any other hon. gentlemen who wish to speak on the point of order? I am sure it will come as no distinct surprise to all hon. members that I, too, have done a little homework in the last few days; in fact, considerable research. Along with my advisers I have given this matter as much consideration as was possible and I have reached an opinion which I think it my duty to give to the house.
Our standing orders do not specifically provide for the dividing of a complicated question. However, such Canadian authors as Bourinot and Beauchesne, and such British authors as May, do recognize such a proceeding. May, at pages 411 and 412 of his 16th edition, states:

Point of Order
The ancient rule that when a complicated question is proposed to the house, the house may order such question to be divided, has been variously interpreted at different periods. Originally the division of such a question appears to have required an order of the house, and in 1770 a motion "That it is the rule of this house, that a complicated question which prevents any member from giving his free assent or dissent to any part thereof ought, if required, to be divided", was negatived on a division.
As late as 1883 it was generally held that an individual member had no right to insist upon the division of a complicated question. In 1888, however, the Speaker ruled that two propositions which were then before the house in one motion could be taken separately if any member objected to their being taken together. Although this rule does not appear to have been based on any previous decision, it has since remained unchallenged.
Then follows the sentence that the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre read, if I am not mistaken.
The house does not recognize the right of individual members to insist on the division of motions moved in committee of the whole house, or of motions	giving specal	facilities	for	the
transaction of public business-
It would appear from the foregoing that in accordance	with recent	practice	in	the
British house, that is, since 1888, the decision whether a question is to be divided rests with the Speaker.
May I give to the house a summary of recent proceedings in the British house with regard to the division of complicated questions which I have found recorded in their parliamentary	debates. On	April 19, 1888,column 1,828,	Mr. Speaker	said:
It may be for the convenience of the house that the hon. gentleman's two propositions should be put together, but if any hon. gentleman objects to their being taken together, they will be put separately.
July 17, 1905, columns 897 and 898:
A member raised a point of order asking the Speaker to rule as to whether when a resolution contains various different propositions it should not be divided and each put separately. It will be seen that the Speaker decided that, in his opinion, it should be divided.
October 8, 1912, column 161:


Mr. Speaker:: -If the noble lord finds himself in any doubt as to how to vote upon it I shall be very glad to put it as two questions.
November 13, 1912, columns 1,994 and 1,995:


Mr. Speaker:: -the rule, of course, is that if any hon. member feels embarrassed in voting upon a resolution, that the Chair shall divide the resolution, In order that the member may, if he wishes to vote "Aye" on the one part and "No" on the other, not be embarrassed by having to vote "Aye" or "No" on the whole of it.

July 15, 1920, column 2,606:
At the request of a member who asked for a ruling with regard to a motion in the name of the leader of the house which he contended consisted of two questions, the Speaker is reported as saying:
If it will suit the hon. and gallant gentleman, I will put the question in two parts.
May 14, 1928, column 678:
A motion having been made and a question proposed "That the proceedings on the currency and bank notes bill and on the bankers (Northern Ireland) bill be exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of the standing order (sittings of the house)", a member raised a point of order submitting that there were two questions involved in the motion and asked whether two divisions or only one division would be taken. The Speaker decided not to divide the motion on the ground that the business specified under the standing order could include two or more bills, and sometimes it includes some other government business.
This reference will serve to indicate, at least in my opinion, that the speaker in the British house has a right of discretion in such matters.
In Canada, on the other hand, Bourinot, at page 298 of his fourth edition, states in part as follows:
As respects what are known as "complicated questions", they may always be divided into distinct parts, with the consent of the house. No individual member, however, can ask, as a matter of right, that such a question be divided, since the house alone can properly decide whether it is complicated or not and into how many propositions it may be divided. The fact is, the necessity of dividing a complicated question is now obviated by the facilities offered for moving amendments. But, in any case, it is always open to a member to move formally that a question be divided.
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
The footnote to the foregoing commentary indicates that Bourinot's comments are based on a proceeding which occurred in the British house in 1770 which, however, it should be noted, refers to the ancient practice in the British house.
In the same regard paragraph 4 of citation 200 of Beauchesne's fourth edition reads as follows:
A motion which contains two or more distinct propositions may be divided so that the sense of the house may be taken on each separately.
While this citation is a reiteration, in part, of what has been stated by Bourinot, no indi-

cation is given as to the procedure to be followed in making any such division.
May I at this time thank all those hon. members who have made such a valuable contribution to our discussion this afternoon on what is a very difficult problem. The Chair very much appreciates having the benefit of their experience and knowledge. I have looked into our records and have failed to find any case which establishes a clear and proper procedure on the matter. It is true that there are to be found instructions to committees to divide bills, or to introduce more than one bill based on a single resolution adopted in committee of the whole; but such instances, in my view, are different from and not applicable to the present situation.
I have considered other cases which might have some bearing on this question, in particular the procedure followed in 1947 and 1948 when a motion was divided in our house, and I might perhaps be permitted to deal more in detail with that instance, which seems to be the nearest to the problem confronting us today.
On Wednesday, December 10, 1947, when a motion to approve a general agreement on tariffs and trade, together with a complementary agreement with the United Kingdom was being considered, an amendment was proposed thereto as follows:
That the said resolution be not now proceeded with, but that the same be referred to the committee of the whole house with instructions to divide the subject matter thereof into two resolutions, one relating to "the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the protocol of provisional application thereof, annexed to the final act of the second session of the preparatory committee of the United Nations conference on trade and employment held at Geneva from April 10 to October 30, 1947, together with the complementary agreements of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United States of America," and the other resolution relating to "the complementary agreement of the same date (April 30, 1947) between Canada and the United Kingdom."
It is suggested that this amendment was irregular in that "it is not an amendment to a motion to move that the question go to a committee". In this connection see citation 202, subsection 6, Beauchesne, fourth edition.
At any rate, when this debate was resumed on March 10, 1948, a subamendment was proposed in the following words:
That the amendment be amended,-
(b) by adding at the end of the said amendment the following:
"the said resolutions to be expressed as follows: 'That it is expedient that parliament do approve the general agreement on tariffs and trade, including the protocol of provisional application thereof, annexed to the final act of the second
Point of Order
session of the preparatory committee of the United Nations conference on trade and employment held at Geneva from April 10 to October 30, 1947, together with the complementary agreement of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United States of America; that the house do approve the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.'
'That it is expedient that parliament do approve the complementary agreement of October 30, 1947, between Canada and the United Kingdom relating to the general agreement on tariffs and trade; and that the house do approve the same, subject to the legislation required in order to give effect to the provisions thereof.' "
Subsequently the subamendment, amendment as amended and main motion as amended carried. In this connection see the Journals, March 10, 1948, pages 240 and 241. In dealing with this proceeding it must be said that, if the amendment itself was irregular, it logically follows that all subsequent proceedings thereon were also irregular. In this regard it would appear that this procedure was carried on through an arrangement among and with the consent of all parties and cannot be considered as establishing a proper procedure. See Hansard, March 8, 1948, pages 1951 and 1952; also Hansard, March 10, 1948, page 2080.
To summarize our procedure, it can be said that no clear precedent concerning the dividing of a question can be found in our annals and that the ancient British procedure set out at page 298 of Bourinot's fourth edition has been superseded by another practice in the British house.
In other words, this would appear to be an unprovided case and ordinarily, under such circumstances, reference is made to current procedure in the British house. Such action is provided for by virtue of our standing order No. 1, which reads as follows:
In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this house.
Accordingly, it is my view that the procedure which applies in this case is the current procedure used in the British house, one which perhaps has not been used too frequently but which nevertheless must be recognized, and if it is to be observed on this v occasion it would appear that the question of the dividing of a complicated motion rests with the Chair.
In line with the ordinary procedure of our house, any decision in this regard would, of course, be subject to an appeal to the house.

Canadian Flag
Now, motion No. 44 which is under consideration today reads as follows:
That the government be authorized to take such steps-
Shall I dispense with the reading of this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Dispense.


Mr. Speaker:: Taking into consideration the references and quotations just cited, and more especially the view expressed by the Speaker of the British house on November 13, 1912, where he said:
-the rule of course is if any honourable member feels embarrassed on voting on a resolution that the Chair shall revise the resolution in order that the member may, if he wishes to vote "Aye" on the one part and "No" on the other not be embarrassed by having to vote "Aye" or "No" on the whole of it,-
-I must come to the conclusion that the motion before the house contains two propositions, and since strong objections have been made to the effect that these two propositions should not be considered together, it is my duty to divide them as follows:
(a)	That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
(b)	That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership in the commonwealth of nations and of our allegiance to the crown.
Therefore, unless there should be an appeal to the house from my decision, and my decision is not sustained, it is my intention to put the question on the first part of the motion as divided.



OFFICIAL ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW DESIGN

Mr. Speaker:: Since there is no appeal, the question now is as follows:


The Right Hon. Prime  Minister@Mr. Pearson: That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.

Are the members ready for the question?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in the interesting discussion that preceded the opening of this debate, we went into a great deal of constitutional and parliamentary history. I do not propose to go back to 292 B.C., but I would remind the house that this is the 750th anniversary of the signing of Magna Carta, June 15, and perhaps it is an appropriate occasion for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to indicate that he is still standing on guard to protect what he considers to be the ancient rights and privileges of parliament.
Today is another anniversary, a little closer to home both in time and in space. One hundred years ago today, on Monday, June 15, there was a dramatic moment in Canadian history when, in parliament, Sir John A. Macdonald and George Brown, two strong and even bitter political opponents, agreed to meet and try to end their long antagonism for the purpose of creating a Canadian confederation which one day would stretch from sea to sea. I hope, Mr. Speaker, that this resolution which is now being discussed one hundred years later will, when action is taken on it, result in a united effort, above party and above personalities, to strengthen and ensure the survival of the confederation which Macdonald and Brown, putting patriotism above all else 100 years ago, did so much to create.
The resolution before the house, the procedural significance of which you have now indicated in so far as its possible division is concerned, reads as follows:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag and also to provide that the royal union flag, generally known as the union jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol of Canadian membership-


John George Diefenbaker: Order, Mr. Speaker, that is not the resolution. You have separated it.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You have to change your speech.


Thomas Miller Bell: The Prime Minister has the wrong speech.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition that I am not even allowed to read

anything concerning the second part of the resolution as I open this debate. I ask your ruling on that.


John George Diefenbaker: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. You have decided that this motion consists of only certain words. The Prime Minister now finds himself in difficulty and he is trying to use the entire motion in order to forward his speech because he has not the material for the earlier part.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I don't find myself in any difficulty whatsoever. The right hon. gentleman seems to find himself in a state of some excitement.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Smallwood will be surprised.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, that was an uncalled for interjection, and I hope the right hon. gentleman will play his part in trying to keep this debate worthy of the occasion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: On a question of privilege, it was to keep the debate worthy of the occasion that I asked that the Prime Minister stay within the rules and deal with only those portions that are today before the house, which is your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I objected to the division, and the Prime Minister, having taken advantage of the division is still holding to the original because he knows what Mr. Smallwood would think.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is too bad Mr. Smallwood has been brought into this debate so early in the proceedings-


George Clyde Nowlan: He was in two weeks ago.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I think we ought to have a ruling. I would like your guidance as to whether, in my discussion of the resolution, I am not at any time to refer to the second part which deals with the royal union flag.


Mr. Speaker:: The resolution was divided into two parts, (a) and (b), or resolutions Nos. 1 and 2, whichever terminology you care to apply. Under the heading of relevancy we are of course discussing a flag for Canada, which is the first resolution before the house. The question of relevancy is a very difficult one to rule on, and I would respectfully suggest to the Prime Minister that he try to stay within the resolution as proposed to the house by myself.
Canadian Flag


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, does your ruling-which I of course accept-mean that we are to continue debate on the first part and take a decision on that and then, only after that decision are we permitted to speak on the second part?


John George Diefenbaker: That is what you agreed to.


Lester Bowles Pearson: All right, I don't mind.


Mr. Speaker:: The point before the house is a flag for Canada. The second resolution deals with the union jack, and I have suggested to the house that the joint resolution, if you want to call it that, be separated. We are now dealing with the first part, the flag for Canada. I admit that in dealing with this subject it is very difficult to rule out any reference to the past history of this country. You cannot just automatically forget the stirring years of the past history of our country, and therefore it seems to me that the Prime Minister, within reasonable limits and within the rule of relevancy, is entitled to make reference to things that have gone on in the past, which I presume might involve a reference to the union jack and what it stands for.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So that there will be no misunderstanding later, may I ask you, sir, when is the second part of the resolution to be introduced in the house?


Mr. Speaker:: I propose to introduce the second part or second resolution, if you wish, when the first part has been taken and determined.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy about your decision. It clarifies the atmosphere and I shall be very happy to abide by it. I am now speaking and introducing that part of the resolution which deals with a Canadian national flag, and it would be impossible to deal with the Canadian national flag without showing how that flag has evolved, how it symbolizes the past and I hope, if I mention the union jack, hon. gentlemen opposite will not be too indignant.


Mr. Chatferfon:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you indicated only a few minutes ago that the second resolution will be introduced in due course. Will that happen whether the first resolution is defeated or approved by the house?


Mr. Speaker:: That is correct. It will be on the order paper as a separate resolution.

Canadian Flag


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue, as I said a moment ago, this is a serious, a solemn and historic occasion and I venture to hope, as I also mentioned a moment ago, that the debate will be worthy of the occasion.
This is the first time in our history that parliamentary action has ever been requested by a Canadian government to decide on a national flag.


John George Diefenbaker: In that regard would the Prime Minister allow a question? Is it not a fact that the order in council of 1949 said that the red ensign shall continue to be the flag until parliament otherwise renders a decision?


Lester Bowles Pearson: If my right hon. friend will conceal his impatience he will find I am dealing with this as I go along. I may say the order in council was not made in 1949. It was in 1945. But, Mr. Speaker, that is just what I was going to say. There was an order in council passed on September 5, 1945 and part of it read-and I shall return to it later:
Until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag...the red ensign may be flown.
Those are the words of the order in council.


John George Diefenbaker: Read all the words. You left some out.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No such action has been taken by parliament. Until now no government has asked parliament to take such action. I know, as do all hon. members, that in 1945 a flag committee of the house was set up which made a report with a recommendation in regard to a flag.


John George Diefenbaker: That was in 1946-the report.


Lester Bowles Pearson: The committee, I said, was set up in 1945, which is correct. The report was made in 1946, I think in June or July. That report was made but no action was taken by parliament at that time, nor was any action asked by the government of Canada at that time. Someone says on the other side that if it had been asked for it would have been taken.


George Clyde Nowlan: That is right.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am not here to dispute or agree with that, but it was not taken and therefore this is the first occasion on which parliamentary action has been asked for.
In order to meet the point that we as a government are rushing into this matter, that

what we are asking parliament to do now has come in some way as a surprise to parliament and the people of Canada, it is desirable for me to put on the record the commitments I have made, as the leader of my party and now as the leader of the government, in regard to this matter. Back in January, 1960, following a broadcast I made, I issued a statement-and the broadcast dealt with this matter too. I made my position clear. This was as far back as 1960. And I proposed in that statement on January 27, 1960, the submission by government to parliament of a measure which, if accepted by representatives of the people in parliament would, I hoped, settle the problem of a national flag by agreement on a distinctive design which, unlike the red ensign-a flag never given formal sanction by parliament-could not be confused with certain United Kingdom or colonial flags and which was easily identifiable as Canadian. This was the position I took at that time, and it is the position I have taken consistently since that time. Indeed, in the letters which I have received over the years-and I have received a great many, especially in the last six weeks on the flag question-I have written as follows-and I am quoting now from a letter I have been sending out for a good many years to people complaining about action which might be proposed to change the red ensign. My replies have included these words:
I assure you that I respect the union jack or the red ensign and all that they stand for in our history and traditions; and as a symbol of freedom and democracy. I have been proud to have served under the union jack in war and to have lived under it in England in peace and war. I hope that it can be kept, and flown on appropriate occasions as a flag symbolizing Canada's association with the other nations of the commonwealth and our monarchial connection. I do feel, however, that there should be a Canadian national flag which could not be mistaken for the emblem of any other country and which, by its acceptance, would be a strong unifying force in our country.
At our party rally in 1961 which laid down the policy to be followed by our party, the statement of policy included these words:
A Liberal government will establish a distinctive Canadian flag within two years of taking office.
We are carrying out that policy laid down at the party rally. It was in the election platform of 1962 and, in 1963, the undertaking was repeated in exactly the same words:
A new Liberal government will submit to parliament a design for a flag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of any other country.
Our party's commitment to ask for a parliamentary decision on the flag extends over

many years. The present resolution, therefore, should come as no surprise. We are not proceeding without due notice, nor are we ramming anything down parliament's throat as has been suggested.


Some hon. Members:: Oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Now, for the first time in our history, parliament is being asked to decide this matter-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -and parliament will decide it, one way or the other.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I have also given pledges to parliament since the election of 1963-pledges in parliament. On November 12, 1963 the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker) asked me a question with regard to representations I had been receiving from the Royal Canadian Legion on the flag issue, and in the course of my reply I stated:
I repeated to them, however-
The reference is to the Royal Canadian Legion.
-the commitment that this government had entered into for the production through parliament of a Canadian national flag within two years of being elected.
The Leader of the Opposition then asked:
Would the Prime Minister say whether such a flag will come before parliament, or simply he declared by way of order in council to be the national flag of Canada?
I replied that it would be a matter for parliament's decision. And it is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: On February 24, 1964, in answer to a question asked in this house I repeated that parliament should certainly be put in a position to decide for or against a particular flag. Parliament is now being put in that position.
May I call it five o'clock?


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



DISABLED PERSONS ACT


Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North) moved:: That, In the opinion of this house, the government should give consideration to the advisability of enlarging the definition of a disabled person in
Disabled Persons Act
the Disabled Persons Act, and the regulations pursuant thereto, to take into consideration such factors as the physical condition, the mental condition and the age of the applicant, and other factors which create a condition of permanent unemployability.
He said: While the business which has just preceded this private members' hour has generated a great deal of heat, I am not so sure that the matter now to be discussed is not equally important and deserving of the consideration of parliament.
It was just a year and a few days ago that I first brought a resolution before the house asking the government to consider an extension of the definition of the word "disabled" under the Disabled Persons Act.
At that time it was suggested by the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Ryan) that such a course of action would be followed. We have waited a year, but the action has not come. A year ago I said there were four things which ought to be considered. The first would be the physical condition of the person concerned; the second would be the mental condition, the third would be the age and the fourth would be any permanent unemployability which might flow from the first three conditions. If the government does not change its mind-and that is a broad assumption to make; I cannot be sure this is government policy yet, because I have not heard the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) give official approval-some small steps are to be taken along the lines I have suggested. These are reflected in communications dealing with the Canada pensions act and the definition of disability for disability benefits. The proposal is as follows:
The general intention is to recognize those medical impairments in which disability is so prolonged and severe that the person is unable to secure substantial gainful employment. He need not be completely helpless to be unable to engage in substantial gainful activity.
If the government persists in this proposed definition it will certainly have my support. I should like to see them carry that definition into the Disabled Persons Act; and I mean carry it into the act now, not next year or in 1971, when the disability benefits under the proposed Canada pension plan commence.
Even if the Canada pension plan is enacted there will still be severe limitations on the pensions of those who are disabled. In the first place, the benefits, as I read the proposal, do not start until 1971 in the case of disabled people, which is still some six or seven years away. The second class of people who will not benefit are those who never become eligible

Disabled Persons Act
under the proposed Canadian pension plan- for example those who never complete two years' contributions. There are many people who fall into that category at the present time, people who drift on from one relief roll to another. They will never come within the ambit of the proposed Canada pension act.
The third matter which I think should be taken into consideration concerns the benefits which are proposed. They are too low in the case of those who are disabled and unemployed. The benefits will not help the people who need them most. Surely the government's first responsibility is to help those least able to help themselves.
I would like to turn for a moment to another related part of the Disabled Persons Act-and this also applies to blind persons' pensions-and that is income ceilings. Income ceilings are very low. Where a wife or a husband is disabled, the earnings of the working spouse are considered in the eligibility of the disabled spouse for a pension. In most cases where either the husband or the wife is paraplegic extra expenses are involved in the home, but because of a very modest income on the part of the working member of the family they are disqualified. I know of one instance where a wife works and her husband's drug bill is something like $60 a month. Therefore I suggest the earnings of the working spouse should not be considered in fixing the income ceilings of such people under Disabled Persons Act.
Another instance which has come to my attention concerns the case of a wife in a wheelchair. The oldest daughter is kept at home to keep house. The father is the operator of a small farm, and the income is something like $1,500. They are disqualified under the act, and the daughter has to stay at home instead of earning.
There has recently been held in Ottawa a very fine conference on the family, which dealt with how to keep families together. I should like to suggest that one very practical and speedy way to help families with a disabled mother or father who are struggling to keep the family unit together is by lifting the income ceiling and paying the disabled person's pension, regardless of the earnings of the working spouse. I think the same provision as to income ceiling should apply to families where the wife is blind. In such cases there are always extra expenses involved, no matter how skilled she is. There are many matters which call for outside assistance. Insufficient use is made of food and many tasks have to be done by outside

help. If a man is on a modest income and his wife is blind I think she should get the blind person's pension regardless of her income. This would help this sort of family. I realize our hospitals are crowded, but the present provisions of the act and the regulations under the act tend to keep a family apart. They tend to force a family to put a disabled member into a hospital or nursing home. It is always cheaper to keep disabled persons in their own homes.
Since this matter is not of the controversial nature of the one we have just been dealing with, I hope everyone will support it; and I am sure the government will get very quick action if they take the necessary steps I have suggested.


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few words on the hon. member's notice of motion. First of all, I should like to put a few facts on the record in connection with disability pensions. As all hon. members know, these pensions were first brought in in 1954. Since that time the numbers of pensioners have been increasing. In 1963 there were 50,621 people who received the pension, at a cost to the government, as part of course of a shared program with the provinces, of almost $20 million. The same year there were 17,659 applications, of which 5,500 odd were approved, something over 11,000 were declined, and 780 were either withdrawn by the applicant or the person involved passed away. Of the 11,500 which were declined, over 10,000 were turned down on medical reasons.
At the present time the federal administration of this plan is under the old age assistance division of the welfare branch of the Department of National Health and Welfare. That branch is responsible for the federal administration of disabled persons allowances. The medical features of the act are the responsibility of the medical rehabilitation division of the health branch. Medical decisions on applications are made both by the provincial and the federal medical examiners. At the present time there are federal-provincial agreements for sharing the cost of special medical examinations and medical referees. I should like to say in passing that, having been a medical practitioner, I certainly agree with the hon. member that we should simplify the application forms. They are very complicated and take a great deal of time to complete.
I am also interested in the hon. member's fourth point concerning permanent unemployability. I am not sure in my own mind

whether he means permanent unemployability or permanent disability.


Heber Edgar Smith: Unemployability.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Unemployability. Then this brings up the point: Are they one and the same? There is grave difference of opinion about this. Under the act at the present time we must assume they are the same thing. Many things other than health can make one permanently unemployable; I have only to mention education and skill. At the present time if one is not well enough to work and earn an income he applies for a disability pension.
I should like to read the definition of a permanently disabled person contained in the present Disabled Persons Act and the disabled persons regulations which were passed in December 1960. It is as follows:
For the purpose of the act and these regulations, a person shall be deemed to be totally and permanently disabled when suffering from a major physiological, anatomical or psychological impairment verified by objective medical findings which is likely to continue indefinitely without substantial improvement and, as a result thereof, such person is severely limited in activities pertaining to normal living.
I should just like to deal with the interpretation as it is given here. The first factor, physical condition and mental condition, are covered in that definition. Then it refers to physiological, anatomical or psychological impairment. As far as age is concerned, at the present time the act specifies that a person must be 18 years of age and over to draw this allowance, and they can continue drawing it to the time they can be turned over to the old age assistance programs. I am not sure whether the hon. member means it should be granted to those below the age of 18.


Heber Edgar Smith: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Certainly.


Heber Edgar Smith: Would he agree that under the present definition "normal living" excludes the ability to work and earn a living?


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Would the hon. member rephrase his question, please?


Heber Edgar Smith: The regulations refer to a person carrying out the functions of normal living. Is working for a living not one of those functions?


Harry Cruickshank Harley: Again, Mr. Speaker, this brings me to the question of definition. I agree that one necessarily does not have to be working to be living normally, or vice-versa. To illus-
Disabled Persons Act
trate this, the act takes into consideration physical and mental factors as well as age. I should like to give to the house some statistics relating to people who now draw this allowance. The greatest number of people draw this allowance for reasons of mental deficiency. The second largest group are those suffering from arteriosclerosis and degenerative heart disease, which is of course most common in older people. The third group consists of those suffering neoplasms, or cancer as most people refer to it. The fourth group are those suffering from schizophrenia, which is of course another mental disease commonly known as split personality. When we come to the definition of "disability" as given in the regulations I think we should read into the record what the regulations say at the present time about disability. Reading from the disabled persons regulations, again, of December 16, 1960, we see:
For the purpose of enabling the provincial authority to consider the eligibility of an applicant as regards his total and permanent disability, the applicant shall furnish or cause to be furnished, in such form as may be required by the provincial authority, a medical report signed and dated by a qualified physician, which shall state
(a)	the nature, extent and prognosis of the disability,
(b)	the findings upon which the diagnosis and prognosis were made,
(c)	the limitations in function imposed by the disability,
(d)	any other pertinent information concerning the disability, including any recommendations for further diagnostic work or treatment as may be relevant, and
(e)	any additional information required by the provincial authority.
Then section 2 is:
The provincial authority shall consider the medical report required by subsection 1 and, before determining that the applicant is totally and permanently disabled, shall cause such medical investigation to be made as it may deem necessary in the circumstances.
3. The provincial authority shall, at least once in each year, cause such further medical review or investigation to be made as the nature of the recipient's disability may require.
I think this provision goes into great detail. As I have mentioned to the hon. member, on occasion I have had these forms to fill out and I certainly agree with him that they could be simplified; but I think what they ask for under the definition of "disability" is a reasonable thing. They want to be sure before they grant this pension that it is not going to be a temporary thing. They want to be sure also, of the basis on which the diagnosis was arrived at and how severely it is going to limit

Disabled Persons Act
the person involved, and to obtain any other information they may deem desirable.
I would like to suggest to the hon. member that the regulations as they stand are all right, but the major problem is in their application. The regulations should be the same across Canada. To show what I mean, there is a table giving the percentage of recipients to the total population range. The last figures available are for 1955. They range from .750 in Prince Edward Island to .046 in the Yukon Territory. Taking into account the population, this means that 16 times as many people are drawing this pension in Prince Edward Island as are drawing it in the Yukon Territory. These figures are based upon the percentage of population in these two areas. I certainly agree with the hon. member that these figures show that the regulations are not being applied in each province uniformly.


Heber Edgar Smith: Disabled people do not stay in the Yukon; it is too cold up there.


Harry Cruickshank Harley: I am sure that would not account for 16 times as much disability. I would like to mention in passing, Mr. Speaker, that the most common age groups in this area of disability are 18 to 19, when the pension is first allowable, and 60 to 64, at which time most of these people become eligible for old age assistance programs.
I agree 100 per cent with the hon. member with regard to the income ceilings. I think these should certainly be raised. There is no question that a great many people spend a large part of their income on buying drugs for their disability. I think it would be a very simple thing to allow bills for drugs to be added to the income ceilings. Drugs these days are very expensive and I am sure they could take practically all the pension allowed for some illnesses. I would also agree that the allowances are not suitable and should be graded.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say I am sorry if I have misinterpreted what the hon. member has said, but at the present time I think many of the things he is looking for could be achieved if the application of the regulations was changed. In my opinion the application of regulations could be changed in such a way as to make them more uniform and more applicable across the country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the attendance in the house and the galleries is not quite as large now as it was between 2.30 and five o'clock, but to a great many Canadians-in fact, to

far too many-the matter we are now discussing is of very great importance. I commend the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) for presenting this motion again this session as he did last session. I hope that one of these days what he asks for will be attained. It is not necessary to speak at any length to indicate our support of this motion; I indicated that support when this same proposition was before the house at the last session. However, I would like to take just a moment to thank the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) for supporting the proposition, but at the same time to express my disagreement with him when he suggests there is nothing wrong with the regulations and that all that is wrong is the manner in which those regulations are applied.
If I recall correctly, during the course of his remarks he himself quoted from the act and from the regulations setting out the definition of "total disability". I submit that that definition is itself a barrier preventing many people receiving the allowance under the Disabled Persons Act. We have all had experience with this act. We have all had experience with people who have been denied the benefit that is available under it for the simple reason that they could still feed themselves and look after themselves in the most elementary ways. What we are concerned about is that the definition itself be broadened so that people who are disabled in the ordinary sense, as we know them and as we see them, can get the benefit of this act.
It does seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that in relation to this piece of legislation, as in relation to other pieces of social security legislation, parliament should in this affluent age be much more generous than we have been thus far. We sometimes tend to pride ourselves on the number of pieces of social legislation that have been put on the statute books during the past 40 years, and therefore we think we have done a good job. I submit that in terms of our capacity and in terms of the needs that some of our people suffer we really have not done very well at all.
I shall have something more to say on this general subject the next day that private members' notices of motions are called, because the very next one on the list is in my name and calls for doing something about filling the major gaps in this country's social security program. Therefore I need say nothing more on this occasion. I simply want to support wholeheartedly the request that

has been placed before the house in the motion moved by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) and I hope that hon. members who are present will permit this motion to be voted on before six o'clock.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, I notice there are a number of members who want to speak on this notice of motion and for that reason I am going to be very brief. I want to say that we extend our congratulations to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) for bringing forward this notice of motion again.
I was interested in the remarks made by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) when he spoke of the interpretation of what total and permanent disability means. In my experience this has been the biggest problem we have had. I believe that one of the major improvements that could be made in applying the regulations under the Disabled Persons Act would be to take into consideration the matter of income as opposed to permanent medical disability. After all, the provision of money by way of a pension certainly is not going to do very much toward correcting the medical problem, and in my opinion the legislation is specifically designed to provide income for those people who have disabilities of such a nature that they are prevented from earning income. Therefore I think the emphasis should be placed on the consideration of whether or not the individual applying for a pension can in fact earn any income. If the present interpretation or definition of permanent and total disability, from a medical point of view, is to be the criterion, then I think we are losing sight of the purpose of the act which is to provide income for people who are disabled in such a way that they are unable to earn it themselves.
Over the years I think most members of the house have had experiences in attempting to get applications for disability pensions approved. Almost invariably you run up against the question of what permanent disability means. My experience has been that unless a person is almost confined to bed, disabled to the point where he cannot even move around the house and cannot do anything, quite apart from being able to earn income, the application is not approved. So some credence can be given to what the hon. member for Halton has said, that perhaps the present wording of the regulations would be satisfactory if they were applied a little differently. I hope that when the government is ready to make changes in the application of the act they will give high priority to
Disabled Persons Act
the consideration of the ability to earn income rather than the degree of medical
disability.
In the province of Alberta the provincial government has recognized the shortcomings of the federal act and of a number of other acts where the province and the federal government co-operate in providing pensions. They have proceeded to set up what they call social allowances for people who find themselves in a position where they cannot quite qualify under the regulations of the federal act. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) may be interested in this because, as he has pointed out, he has a notice of motion standing on the order paper, in fact the very next one, which is designed to fill some of the gaps. I think that he and other members of the house could benefit from studying what the province of Alberta has done during the past few months.
Today the social welfare agency of the province of Alberta considers each application on the basis of the individual merits and individual needs of the case. No specific pension is predetermined as used to be the case. They take into consideration the cost of living, including such things as food, clothing and shelter. They even take into consideration the matter of drugs. After all these factors are considered they arrive at a monthly payment, call it a pension if you will, that will meet these requirements.
In addition, Alberta has now embarked on a rather large program of building nursing care hospitals or custodial hospitals, if you prefer that term. These are designed for people who are disabled but have afflictions of a nature not requiring active hospital treatment. They are not even in the category of those who would be accepted into auxiliary or chronic care hospitals. These new hospitals are designed for people who are unable to take care of themselves.
I can foresee a situation developing where it will be substantially cheaper for a number of disabled people to be committed to these nursing care hospitals and it will cost Canadian taxpayers more to keep them there than to provide a reasonable pension enabling them to stay at home. If some income were provided to take care of the purchase of drugs and other necessities of life, in many cases these people could quite adequately be taken care of in their own homes. In some cases I think this would be more satisfactory to the persons involved and more

Disabled Persons Act
satisfactory to their families. I think, therefore, some consideration should he given to extending and broadening the definitions and the qualifications under which the federal government participates in this program for these people.
I know that that kind of motion has been introduced into this house a number of times.
I am ready to admit also that there have been some concessions or some relaxing, if you like, of the regulations over the years.
I do not believe that this procedure has reached the point whereby we can make payments that would be in the best interests of both the people involved and the Canadian taxpayer. I say that because there are many services that could be provided for disabled persons in their own homes which, because of a lack of income, they are prevented from having.
I should like to extend our support to the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) on this motion. I hope, too, that some of the opinions expressed by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) are going to be accepted by the government so that we can have some broadening of these definitions.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: I shall only take a few moments because I notice there are other members who would like to speak on this subject. I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) for having brought this matter up on several occasions. I certainly agree with the remarks made by him, by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley) with certain qualifications, by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member who just resumed his seat. I am very glad to see the minister is listening to this debate, and I am sure she would do well for herself if she dealt with this matter as quickly as possible by recommending to her cabinet colleagues some of the suggested changes. In addition, she would be doing a great service to a large number of people in this country who are disabled to a total and permanent degree.
Of course, it is this question of what is total and what is permanent that causes all the problems in the administration of these regulations. Without being unkind to the medical profession, I would say that very often it depends upon which doctor you go to whether it is decided you are permanently and totally disabled. I mean no disrespect to the medical profession but doctors, like the members of other professions, have differences

of opinion. Some doctors seem to be more flexible in their views than others, and the regulations are very rigid. Indeed, unless the medical facts can be made more flexible it is going to be very difficult for any but a very limited number to gain any benefit from this legislation.
I should like to give the house an example that recently came to my attention indicating the need for a change in these regulations. A lady in my constituency was judged totally and permanently disabled by the Ontario workmen's compensation board. As no doubt hon. members from Ontario know, this board has very rigid rules as to what is total and permanent disability. Certainly, they are never too generous in their interpretation of these regulations. In any event, the applicant in question was judged totally and permanently disabled by the workmen's compensation board but for technical reasons, namely that part of the disability was caused not by the industrial accident but by other causes, the patient was only able to get a small pension. Then, application was made for the disabled persons allowance. However, she was told:	"The workmen's compensation
board may say you are totally and permanently disabled, but we do not have to say so." She did not get anything.
This is the kind of thing that needs checking up. I hope the minister is putting this item high on her agenda for changes in the regulations. I was particularly interested, of course, in this question of raising the ceilings on permissible income for those receiving these benefits. If anyone needs a little extra income it is these people who are disabled. They need it for drugs and the services of people to come in and help look after them and their living quarters. Certainly, these ceilings should be raised.
There is one suggestion I should like to make to the minister and it may be one that could be introduced without causing too drastic a change in the resolution. I suggest the adoption of the same principle that is used, at least in theory, by the Canadian pension commission. If there is some question of whether or not a person is going to be permanently and totally disabled in the future, the pension commission gives the benefit of the doubt to that person. I believe the application of such a principle might be of great help to these people. In all fairness, no one wants to be paying a pension to every applicant who comes along and who is not entitled to a pension. If this benefit of the

doubt principle were applied, it might be helpful in the interpretation of these regulations.
In conclusion, I may say that I hope the minister will give consideration to recommending these changes just as quickly as possible. One further matter I should like to mention is this question of the blind pension. It has been suggested over the years that the blind persons' allowance be paid to these persons regardless of income; that there be no income qualification. I suppose the principle here is that if a person is deprived of his sight he is deprived of one of the most valuable assets in making a living, and that compensation should be paid regardless of income because, regardless of what income he may have it is presumed he would be able to make more if he had his sight. This argument would apply to those who are receiving the disabled persons' allowance. They are, likewise, deprived of their ability to make a living, in whole or in part, and therefore should receive some basic compensation from society. I feel this is a point that is worthy of consideration. I believe this principle should be given consideration to a greater extent than it is at the present time in considering employability or income producing ability. This should be taken into consideration in assessing the amount that should be received by those who receive the disabled persons' allowance.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: I should like to congratulate the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith) for bringing to the attention of this house the sorry plight of many people in this country who are not just sick but totally and permanently disabled. It is true that the people in this category are unable to work. However, some attention should be given to the fact that by seeking to enlarge the Disabled Persons Act and the regulations, as a result of this motion, I believe the hon. member is confusing the whole issue.
The hon. member's motion, Mr. Speaker, would upset the basic principle of the Disabled Persons Act by introducing the concept of employability. Such a step would make the disabled persons allowance superfluous, and impossible to distinguish from the Unemployment Assistance Act which is now a part of the social legislation, federally and provincially, because it is a partnership.
So far as enlarging the definition of a disabled person is concerned I fail at the
Disabled Persons Act
moment to understand how the present definition can be enlarged further. This definition can be found under the Disabled Persons Act, office consolidation, 1961, and it states:
For the purposes of the act and these regulations, a person shall be deemed to be totally and permanently disabled when suffering from a major physiological, anatomical or psychological impairment verified by objective medical findings which is likely to continue indefinitely without substantial improvement and. as a result thereof, such person is severely limited in activities pertaining to normal living.
In my own experience as a medical practitioner I cannot agree with the statements that were made in this house concerning the applications for Ontario, because in my private experience I notice that more and more patients for whom I have filled out the medical reports for disability pensions are being accepted by the Ontario medical advisory board. However I must say a complete evaluation of the patient's status physically is not the entire solution in this matter, because a social report is also required by the regulations.
This social report is designed to provide the medical review board of each province with a clear picture of the applicant in his normal circumstances. It provides evidence of the degree of actual handicap which the impairment involves, and also indicates the extent to which the applicant has overcome difficulties in the past. It helps to identify those persons who would be capable of helping themselves if they received special assistance.
The intention of the act is not to make sick people permanently and totally disabled. In Canada we have progressively been making laws, and through government funds helping to increase the rehabilitation services. In this field of disabled persons I think that is where much emphasis and effort should be put in the future, that is, trying to make these people not only comfortable but placing them in the position to be active, even active to such a point as to earn a living. Nobody wants to be called a cripple and a useless person.
I would also like to draw to the attention of the house the vocational rehabilitation act which was passed by this parliament. This act also helps to assist in returning disabled persons to gainful employment. Furthermore, international meetings are convened from time to time to study social security problems, including the particular problem to which we are addressing our attention at the moment.
I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members that the International Social

Disabled Persons Act
Security Association in its "Report on the Activities of the Working Group on Harmonizing the Criteria for the Evaluation of Invalidity" published in its bulletin of October, 1962, recognizes several elements posed by the complex problem of invalidity evaluation. I believe most hon. members will find this report helpful to them in studying this problem and in seeing how social agencies of various countries are working zealously to harmonize the criteria upon which a medical review board can call a person permanently and totally disabled.
For the record, and so far as my own province of Ontario is concerned, I would like to state that the disabled persons allowances act of Ontario, dated 1955, states in its regulation (4) that an advisory board is to be established "consisting of three persons, of whom at least one shall be a duly qualified medical practitioner" and in regulation (2) that the "chairman of the advisory board shall be a duly qualified medical practioner." Furthermore the regulations state:
The advisory board shall assist the director in determining eligibility ol applicants by
(a)	reviewing medical evidence submitted in support of the application,
(b)	obtaining any additional necessary evidence, and
(c)	furnishing to the director a report on the evidence with a specific finding as to whether or not the applicant is totally and permanently disabled as prescribed by the regulations under the Disabled Persons Act (Canada).
This board is not a static thing. It meets from time to time to discuss definitions of chronic illnesses, to bring up to date the evidence of medical research so far as certain chronic illnesses are concerned, and what is available in the field of rehabilitation to return these people to an active way of living.
Further this board reviews medical statistics and I should like to point out that in the year April 1960 to March 1961, in which, in the 10 provinces of Canada, 6,448 cases were approved, the greatest percentage of the disabled were found in the category of mental, psychoneurotic and personality disorders. This group consisted of 2,164 disabled persons, or 33.6 per cent of the total for that year. This group contained not only cases of mental deficiency, such as those we call mentally retarded, but also schizophrenic disorders and other personality diseases.
The second group was the group called diseases of the nervous system and sense organs, and consisted of 20.3 per cent of the total, or 1,306 out of the 6,448. This category

consisted of epileptics, spastics suffering from cerebral paralysis, cerebral embolism and thrombosis, multiple sclerosis, cerebral spastic infantile paralysis, and other disabilities.
The third group consisted of persons afflicted with diseases of the circulatory system and these formed 17.9 per cent of the total, or 1,154 cases. They included arteriosclerotic and degenerative heart cases, hypertensive disease not otherwise reported, other and unspecified diseases of the heart and chronic rheumatic heart disease. This was followed by a category called "diseases of the bones and organs of movement", which cases formed 7.7 per cent of the total. These were people suffering from rheumatoid arthritis and allied conditions, osteoarthritis and similar disabilities. A further group consisted of people suffering from terminal stages of cancer. Some of these cases dragged out for many months, even years. They accounted for 5 per cent of the total, or 322 cases.
Next in line came the allergic, endocrine system, metabolic and nutritional diseases. These diseases included diabetes mellitus. The next group covered infective and parasitic diseases; and the next group consisted of diseases of the respiratory system including bronchitis and other diseases which render a person chronically and totally disabled.
As X have mentioned, I believe our efforts should be directed towards rehabilitation. The government should be congratulated for having taken steps last year to help the agencies which are working in this field. I think we should not only help the disabled to obtain pensions with greater facility; we should make it possible for them to enjoy life -to pass measures to put them on their feet again, and even give them an opportunity of earning a living.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to congratulate the sponsor of this motion who put forward the true reasons why he submitted this recommendation to the government for consideration so that amendments could be made to the Disabled Persons Act in order to extend its benefits to a greater number of persons, not because they are ill, but rather because they are permanently unfit for work.
The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) is against this resolution as a matter of principle-


Stanley Haidasz: On the contrary.


Rémi Paul: I realized quite well that the hon. member attempted to assimilate the wording of this resolution to the present legislation, and more especially to the Unemployment Assistance Act.
I think that the hon. member, who is a medical doctor by profession and whose reputation is well established, can quite readily grasp the difference between an individual who is temporarily ill and who puts his family in such financial straits that it must get social assistance and another individual who does not fall into a category of infirmity or specific disability which would make him eligible for benefits under the present provisions of the act.
Mr. Speaker, it often happens that some people who are physically able to look after themselves are denied a disability pension although their health prevents them, as so well stated in the resolution moved by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Smith), from holding a permanent position.
Mr. Speaker, I feel the government should make the necessary changes to broaden the scope of the act or to make its benefits more readily available because, as I said a while ago, it often happens that a person who suffers from diabetes, asthma or heart trouble cannot qualify for a pension under the Disabled Persons Act.
Yet, legislative changes must be made to enable such people to follow treatments and to look after the needs of their family. In fact, I greatly appreciated the remarks made by the hon. member for Simcoe North who suggested that the pension for invalidity should be paid directly to the disabled and not be considered as family income as it is under the present legislation.
For instance, last Saturday, a widow with five deaf-mute children, some of them suffering from epilepsy, came to my office. She cannot receive the full amount of the pension now provided because it is alleged that the $30 collected for each of her children goes into the family budget. And yet, we know that the health condition of those persons can entail a great deal of expenses.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the hour for the consideration of private members' business is just about over, but I should like to commend again the hon. member for Simcoe North for introducing this motion. I am convinced that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh), who has followed the debate rather carefully, will take into consideration the suggestions that were made so that the largest possible number of 20220-274
Canadian Flag
people in need of assistance may benefit from federal assistance.


Mr. Depuiy Speaker:: Order. The hour for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will revert to the business interrupted at five o'clock.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A, to inform the house that the questions to be raised at ten o'clock this day are as follows:
The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates), Canadian flag, reported threats to supporters of red ensign; the hon. member for Essex West (Mr. Gray), housing, request for further consideration of redevelopment projects; the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood), trade, steps to increase exports to Britain.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21. 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, in dealing with this important resolution before us and the procedure that might be followed to bring it into effect, if it meets the wishes of parliament, there has been some criticism to the effect that the resolution should not be submitted to parliament at this time but that there should be a referendum or a plebiscite before action by government or parliament; or that it should be submitted-and this has been another proposal-to a federal-provincial conference for agreement and a decision.
As to the latter, Mr. Speaker, surely this would not be the most effective or the right procedure to follow. Those provinces which

Canadian Flag
have separate flags chose them without reference to the federal government or federal parliament, and they were, of course, right in doing so. The choice was within their own responsibility. Similarly, the choice of a national flag is the responsibility of the federal government and the federal parliament. Reference of the matter to a federal-provincial conference would not only in my view be the wrong procedure constitutionally, but it would postpone any decision for a long time. Every province presumably would have to agree on a design, which would presumably mean that every provincial legislature would have to agree on a national design. Any such agreement would certainly be a long and difficult process if indeed it were possible at all.
As for a referendum or a plebiscite, I have received a great many representations on this emphasizing the desirability of following this course in a matter of such deep and wide national importance. It is interesting, and it is therefore important to look into the precedents in regard to the use of the referendum in our parliamentary and constitutional systems.
There have been only two precedents for referenda or plebiscites in Canada. One was in 1898 when there was a plebiscite on prohibition. The prohibition plebiscite act of 1898 provided for a direct appeal to the people on this matter. The plebiscite at that time involved the substantial application of all the procedures required by the dominion elections act. The result was that there was a substantial majority in favour of prohibition in the over-all vote and a very large majority for prohibition in all the provinces except Quebec, which was strongly against prohibition. Perhaps because of this division no action of any kind was taken as a result of that plebiscite.
There is another instance, closer to our day, of the use of the plebiscite, and some hon. members in this house were in parliament at the time and recall this. It was in 1942 when the government of the day consulted the people about conscription, and the terms of the plebiscite read: "Are you in favour of releasing the government from any obligation arising out of any past commitments restricting the method of raising men for military service?" Before this plebiscite could be undertaken legislation had first to be passed to provide regulations to set out in detail the provisions for taking the vote. Those regulations comprised 78 sections, and 37 forms were necessary for all aspects of the vote. It required many months, from the introduction of 
the legislation on February 13, 1942 to the announcement of the results on May 11, 1942. Those are the only two instances in our history, Mr. Speaker, when this constitutional device was adopted.
There are strong arguments, I submit, against a referendum or a plebiscite. In the first place, I believe it is essentially out of keeping with our system of parliamentary democracy and responsible government. The very fact that there have been only two plebiscites in the entire history of this country and, so far as I am aware, none at all in the entire history of the United Kingdom indicates that this is not a part of our parliamentary system of government. The essence of our parliamentary system is that the people elect members of parliament on the basis of broad positions of policy and programs and they expect the members of parliament to assume the responsibility of making decisions in the national interest based on those positions. That is the purpose for which members of parliament are elected. The government's responsibility is to decide on policy, to present that policy to parliament for consideration, and they hope support, and to stand and fall on the decisions parliament takes. If parliament decides that it cannot support a government on a matter of major policy, our system does then provide for a referendum, a referendum to the people in an election.
Votes in a special referendum on a special subject would be by constituencies, and any cleavage on racial or geographical lines would be highlighted over the six or seven months period of the referendum and subsequent action. That seems to me to be a great disadvantage in the adoption of this constitutional procedure.
This disadvantage was emphasized in the debate in 1942, when the government came to parliament with a proposal for a plebiscite in that year. I quote from Hansard of January 26, 1942, and the words of the acting leader of the Conservative opposition, Mr. Hanson, when he said, as reported at page 26:
Let this government-
-referring to Mr. Mackenzie King's government-
-rise to the level of its duty; let it not be afraid to lead. A plebiscite is not a policy; it is the negation, it is the avoidance of a policy... Its purpose is to avoid rather than to face responsibility; it is to avoid rather than to enforce the performance of a duty. It is not a declaration of faith; it is a declaration of impotence.

So spoke Mr. Hanson at that time. The member for Lake Centre, now the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) speaking in the same debate on January 30, 1942, as reported at page 186 of Hansard, said this:
Allow the members of parliament to vote on this question. Do not submit the question to the people of Canada, for in my opinion, the taking of a plebiscite at this time may well destroy the unity of Canada.
Later, when the decision was made, he said this on February 25, 1942, as reported at pages 836 and 837 of Hansard:
A plebiscite is to be taken regardless of the fact that in the long history of Great Britain, with all the constitutional changes which have taken place, no government has ever submitted any matter to the people by way of plebiscite.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the time has now come for the government, in our tradition of responsible government, to take action by submitting this resolution to parliament for decision. Parliament will then take the responsibility and parliament will decide. If the government resolution is defeated, then on a matter of such major importance the government has obviously lost the confidence of parliament. If an amendment is submitted, as I presume there might be, substituting the red ensign for the maple leaf design, and if it were passed, then that flag, by action of the parliament of Canada, would become the flag of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: It is.


Lester Bowles Pearson: By order in council it is, until parliament makes a decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: But if parliament accepts the resolution as it is now, then the flag in the resolution, accepted by parliament, will be submitted to the Queen for a royal proclamation, as is the proper procedure, and it becomes Canada's flag by true parliamentary mandate. It will not be the flag of a person or a party; it will be the flag of the people of Canada by the decision of their representatives in parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Webb:: A political flag.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I believe that this is the right procedure. I believe that this is the right moment in our history to take this decision. May I quote the Right Hon. Vincent Massey, speaking in Charlottetown 20220-274i
Canadian Flag
on June 1 at the annual meeting of the Association of Canadian Clubs. He said then:
Historians, I am sure, will point to the early 1960's as a time of doubt about our future as a nation, when we were subject to dangerously heavy constitutional and emotional strains:	when the
very structure of our national life was questioned; when people were prepared to ask whether the Canadian experiment was worth while; when union with a more powerful neighbour was talked about with a freedom that would have been looked on as treason in former years; when the cynics and the fainthearted dared to belittle the deeds of their fathers and instil doubts in their sons.
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.
Mr. Speaker, in taking this position, I know there are others-


An hon. Member:: Joey.


Lester Bowles Pearson: -who are as patriotic and as Canadian as I am or can ever hope to be, who disagree honestly and deeply. I respect that kind of honest disagreement. I know, also, that a flag issue is bound to raise strong and deep and genuine emotions. All national symbols have a deep meaning and create strong sentiments. That is why they are so important in national growth; in nourishing loyalty and patriotism among those who make up our nation. It is inevitable, therefore, that there will be strong emotional reactions when there is any suggestion that old symbols should be dropped, or adapted to new conditions and new needs.
Whatever our strength of feeling may be, however, on one side or the other I am sure we can discuss this matter in this house with respect for each other's views and in a way, as I said this afternoon, which will be worthy of the historic importance of this occasion. We have a responsibility to history in this debate and I am sure we all wish to be worthy of that responsibility, on whatever side of the house we sit. And when a decision is reached, whatever that decision may be, we will all, I know, abide by it and do what we can to secure its universal acceptance in this country.

Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, the resolution before us represents another stage in our development as a nation. It reflects and underlines a healthy Canadian nationalism-not a nationalism that is narrow or prejudiced or chauvinistic. There is no room for that in this age of interdependence, when the demands of even the most fervid nationalism have often to be subordinated, in the interests of the nation itself, to the requirements of internationalism.
And so, in its recognition of our new nationalism, the maple leaf flag of this resolution does not ignore the obvious truth that nationalism is not enough, or the equally obvious truth, as was pointed out to us some days ago in the house by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), that, while it is a heartening and stirring thing to have a distinctive national flag, it is even better to have it flying over a free and flourishing country with social justice and social security for all.
Why, Mr. Speaker, do I think it is a desirable thing to have a new flag now? In order to answer my own question I want to look at the record. The flags we have used for Canada have already changed as Canada has evolved from colony to self-governing dominion to independent nation, to a sovereign state respected among the states of the world. As these changes of symbol have taken place to keep pace with other changes, our formal links with the United Kingdom have changed also. But our ties of friendship and, for so many Canadians, of kinship, have not weakened. They are as strong as ever. But they are not now associated with any kind of political or legal subordination, and that makes it possible for them to be stronger. There are now ties of affection, respect, tradition and adherence to the same basic ideals, cherished links through having the same Queen and being members of the same commonwealth of nations. But as our formal ties have changed, and they have-I wish I had time to go over the record of the changes; it is a good record for Canada-so have our formal symbols changed.
In this evolution I believe that the time has now come for another change, by the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for or confused with the emblem of any other country but Canada. I believe that a flag of the design described in the resolution would be a good one for this purpose, that it will symbolize and be a true reflection of the new Canada and, as such, will strengthen national unity and give us a deeper sense of national identity and national

pride. It will be something around which all Canadians, new and old, native born and naturalized, of all racial stocks, can rally, and which will be the focus of their loyalty to Canada. So I believe that the position taken in this resolution is forward looking, is responsible, is wise and is deserving of support by this house and the people of this country.
It is argued, Mr. Speaker, and I can appreciate the strength of the argument, that the flag of this resolution ignores our past. In my view it does not. No one would deny, of course, that we have a responsibility to the past. But we have also a greater responsibility to the present and to the future. Moreover, our responsibility to the past will be best discharged now by being true to its real substance and its real meaning and will relate that past to a united nation in the future. To do that, Mr. Speaker, we all have to make certain concessions of sentiment, as we have in the past as our nation has grown. May I quote the words of Premier Stanfield of Nova Scotia in this connection on April 6 last at the Canadian club in Montreal, when he said:
Surely, however, it is not necessarily patriotic for me to insist that something I value highly must be adopted as a national symbol if it is objectionable as a national symbol to a large number of Canadians. Surely the Canadian thing for us to do is to find symbols which are mutually acceptable. Let us emphasize what we have in common. Surely we can have a national anthem and a flag that unites Canada.
In that same spirit the Canadian Chamber of Commerce not long ago adopted the following resolution at its annual meeting:
That the parliament of Canada formally adopt and authorize a distinctive national flag.
Because, as the resolution went on to say:
A distinctive national flag would be a strong, unifying influence, consistent with the status of full nationhood.
I should also like to quote a resolution of the Association of Canadian Clubs adopted at Charlottetown as recently as June 2 last, which reads:
Canadian clubs in biennial conference assembled support a Canadian flag that is simple, dignified and distinctive; and offer their services, if and when parliament has approved a Canadian flag, in promoting its acceptance throughout Canada.
Some hon. members will say: Have we not such a flag now? I do not think so, and I should like to explain why I do not think so. The red ensign has served Canada honourably and well since it was designated for such service by order in council; but those who

are in favour of retaining it and making it permanent and official by parliamentary action must surely realize that basically-this is certainly no disrespect to the red ensign- it is the flag of the British merchant marine and that it is similar, except for a different coat of arms, to the flags of certain British colonies.
I have done some research on this and I have no doubt other hon. members have too. It is true, and this has a bearing on the distinctiveness of the red ensign and its identification with Canada, that apart from Canada and its merchant vessels more than a dozen merchant navies, British companies and other countries, British colonies, use the British red ensign as a base for their flags. Indeed, half of these are British colonies. The majority of these flags based on the red ensign have a badge or coat of arms in the fly which, at no great distance, may be easily confused with the Canadian shield, or vice-versa.
That, Mr. Speaker, seems to me to detract from the acceptability of the red ensign as a permanent distinctive and exclusively Canadian flag, truly representative of all the people of this country, and I am confirmed in this view when I examine, as I propose to do now, the way the red ensign developed for Canadian use.
The red ensign was first authorized in 1892 for use on Canadian ships by the British admiralty. It has since been authorized by the Canadian and British governments for Canadian use in various respects, but never by parliament as a national flag, and only by order in council until parliament has acted on a national flag.
It was, for instance, used on government buildings at the beginning of this century but, because of the lack of formal adoption as a national flag, it was withdrawn by the minister of public works from such use in 1908.
In an effort to clear up subsequent uncertainty as to what was the Canadian flag, even for government buildings, the colonial secretary in London stated in 1912 that the union jack was the national flag of Canada. And so it remained for many years; all through world war I, when the union jack was the flag of the Canadian forces under which Canadians served and under which many Canadians died. The red ensign, though many of my correspondents do not seem to appreciate this, was not in use during world war I in any way, shape or form for the Canadian forces.
Canadian Flag
It was not until January 26, 1924, that an order in council was passed authorizing the red ensign to be flown for limited use over all government buildings abroad, and that became essential because we were building up a diplomatic service and for obvious reasons we had to have some flag to fly over Canadian embassies that was not the union jack.
And so the situation remained until towards the end of world war II when in 1944, by order in council, the red ensign was authorized to be flown by our forces overseas. Then, on September 5, 1945, was passed that order in council to which reference has already been made more than once, decreeing that, until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag, the red ensign may be flown wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag. That is the authority given in 1945, not by parliament but by order in council, by which the red ensign has been flying as a Canadian flag.
It is very interesting to note that, as this evolution in our flag symbols took place, there was always very strong opposition expressed to any change. This was especially true when the red ensign was officially authorized to replace the union jack, when very great objection indeed was taken in certain quarters to the change from the union jack.
In my view, the time has come for a further and final change. If, as I believe to be the case, Canada needs a national flag and if the red ensign is not the most appropriate design for this purpose, what should that design be? In my view, it should be based on three red maple leaves because that is our formal and historic emblematic link with our Canadian past. The record shows this quite conclusively.
The maple leaf itself has been accepted as a Canadian symbol since long before confederation. It is deep in our history and in our traditions. Contemporary records all through the nineteenth century are full of references to it. For instance, during the visit of the Prince of Wales to Canada in 1860, all citizens of Upper Canada were asked to wear sprigs of maple leaves as the emblem of their land so that, in the words of the old Toronto Globe, they would be known to the world as Canadians. The symbolism grew until Canada came to be known, as it is known now, as the land of the maple leaf.

Canadian Flag
In war it has become the emblem of the men in uniform; their official and their unofficial emblem. The words "maple leaf", in fact are synonymous with Canada in uniform. Those words mean a great deal, as the maple leaf badge does, to all veterans of the two world wars. The official badges of the three armed services all include maple leaves, and have for a hundred years. A similar situation applies to regimental badges. Of the 462 cap badges of Canadian units in world war I, 409 included the maple leaf; of 133 in world war II, 83 included maple leaves. It is the official emblem of Canada in NATO and is the central device of the Canadian U.N. patch worn in Egypt, the Congo and Cyprus. It is on regimental flags, war service buttons, medals and decorations. It was used by the Royal Canadian Naval ships in world war II for identification by painting a large red maple leaf on the front.
Just after the end of hostilities in world war II the Canadians forces newspaper, the Maple Leaf, printed many letters from soldiers on the question of a distinctive Canadian flag, indeed they encouraged expression of viewpoint of the men in uniform who were at that time awaiting demobilization. A majority favoured a flag with a maple leaf design as a unifying element, representative of Canada itself, without reference in its design to one or the other of Canada's found-in graces. The Canada medal authorized in 1943 but not yet issued has three maple leaves conjointed on one stem.


An hon. Member:: What happened to that?


Lester Bowles Pearson: We will be resurrecting that, perhaps, one of these days.
A special copy on parchment of the bill of rights printed for distribution to schools, and with the name of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) on it, bears three maple leaves on one stem, although I confess this insignia is not as prominent as I wish it had been.
The Leader of the Opposition, on December 20, 1963, as recorded on page 6226 of Hansard, in discussing the world fair symbol hon. members will recall that debate when the house took violent exception to a symbol which has now been judged by North American experts as the symbol of the century said this:
-I would have thought that this would be an ideal occasion to place the maple leaf in the centre to show it was Canadian.

I am inclined to think he was right. Then, as recorded on page 6233, the right hon. gentleman had this to say:
___I was particularly impressed-by the hon. member for Leeds, who pointed out that the official emblem of Canada is three maple leaves.
All this is pretty impressive sponsorship for the three maple leaves design.
Indeed, the three joined red maple leaves have for us a historic and heraldic significance which, in my view, make them preferable on a flag, to a single maple leaf which has not the same significance and has not, in fact, any formal emblematic authority; but that does not necessarily exclude it from consideration.
The three joined maple leaves first appeal in our history in a heraldic sense in 1868, when Queen Victoria gave "armourial ensigns" to Ontario and Quebec based on a sprig of three maple leaves. The Great Seal of Canada also carries three maple leaves.


Mr. Aiken:: So does the red ensign.


Lester Bowles Pearson: So does the red ensign; indeed it does. I think it accounts for about one forty secondth of the flag.
Then in 1921, and I believe this is of very considerable and formal significance, an order in council was passed and a royal proclamation was issued approving arms for Canada which included, as the purely Canadian part, three maples leaves on one stem with the motto "A mari usque ad mare" and established white and red as the official colours of Canada.
If I may paraphrase this royal proclamation of 1921 establishing the arms of Canada, by simplifying the heraldic language, what it said in essence was this: The King, at the request of Canada, assigns to Canada the national colours white and red, and declares that the national emblem of Canada shall be three red maple leaves on one stem, on a white field. These shall be used to represent Canada on all appropriate occasions.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, that answers the two questions "What are our national colours"? and "What is our national emblem"? By order in council on April 26, 1922, this Canadian coat of arms replaced the shield formerly used on the red ensign, and in 1957, under the administration of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, the arms of Canada with the three joined maple leaves were simplified and confirmed.
In 1939, at the beginning of the second world war, the government authorized a battle flag for the first division and presented

that flag to the commander of the division as it embarked for overseas. The basic feature of its design was three red maple leaves on a white background.
Then in 1962 the Queen adopted as a personal flag for Canada one which had in its design the three red maple leaves, joined, on a white background. This flag, which flies only over the place where the Queen is actually in residence in Canada and is not used or authorized to be used for any other purpose, was announced from the palace in London and government house in Ottawa as a "flag of the arms of Canada charged in the centre with Her Majesty's own device." This of course, was done after consultation with and agreement from the Canadian government.
In the light of this, Mr. Speaker, can there be any doubt that the design recommended in the resolution is a proper one; with Canadian history, Canadian tradition and official sanction on the highest levels behind it?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is because this design has such a history and because, with the blue sea-to-sea border, it makes a striking and beautiful flag, that the government is putting it before parliament in this resolution. The single maple leaf, I repeat, has not the same historical and heraldic significance even though it also, with the blue borders, I am told makes a very attractive flag.
Mr. Speaker, there was a second part to this resolution which, by your ruling, will now be considered separately, and of course I naturally accept that ruling. However, I think no one in the house will object to my making now just one point about the other part of the flag proposal which the government hopes the house will in due course consider and accept.
We are now considering the adoption of a national flag. In my view we would not contradict or weaken in any way the creation and the acceptance of that new flag if the house should also decide to recognize our historic past and our commonwealth presence by continuing to honour the flag which is particularly the flag of the monarch who is now the head, and the only head, of the commonwealth. We will be returning to that subject shortly.
My colleague, the hon. member for Leeds, (Mr. Matheson) recently put in essence the case for a national distinctive flag in these words:
A flag sends a message. The question Is what message do you wish to send?
Canadian Flag
Then he added:
-It's time Canada had a flag that sent the message "Canada".
This, Mr. Speaker, is the reason why there is such strong support, I believe in this house, and I believe in this country, for the flag embodied in this resolution.
I have received a great many written and oral opinions about the flag in recent weeks. Most of the letters and telegrams I have received are in favour of what the government proposes. Many are opposed. Much of the opposition, I believe, is based on a misconception of the purpose and the meaning of our proposal. Much of it is due to a sincere, and indeed at times a passionate refusal to drop the union jack in any design of a national flag. I can sympathize with that feeling even if I do not agree with it.
This resolution does indeed mark a break with the past, as every accepted stage in the evolution of men and nations must mark a break with the past. But this break does not dishonour or repudiate the past, or the flag symbols of that past under which many of us have served and lived. I for one, and there are a great many others in this house who will support this resolution and who will join with me in this, honour those flag symbols, and I proudly acknowledge what they stand for in justice, freedom and human rights. I pay my tribute to the British people whom this flag particularly symbolizes and from whom we have inherited so much-a people whose courage and service to mankind has not been excelled by any other people in history. I have seen the union jack carried doggedly and heroically in combat;
I have seen it flying defiantly over the fires caused by the bombing of London; I know something of the decency, the goodness and the fortitude of the British people. All this is part of our tradition, too-a proud part; it will not be betrayed in any way by the proposals in this resolution. None of these things will be altered in our minds and in our hearts when we support this resolution. We support it as Canadians, because the stand it takes is Canadian and because it marks another stage in the growth of Canada.
As I have said, I have had many letters stating that this is why the resolution is getting support from people of all races and walks of life and from every part of the country.
One distinguished Canadian citizen and soldier who has given me a very warm and

Canadian Flag
generous assurance of support for the Canadian flag of this resolution with a maple leaf design is Colonel Keiller Mackay, former lieutenant governor of Ontario, one of the founders of the Royal Canadian Legion and at the present time grand commander for Ontario. There are many others. I received this letter from a lady who signs herself as a member of the I.O.D.E. She wrote:
Speaking only for myself I feel that anything and everything which will unite Canada from coast to coast is good. I want my children and my grandchildren to be glad and proud they are Canadians-not because their forebears came from England or France or any other part of the world but because they are part of one unique country, united from sea to sea.
I received the letter which follows from another lady, from Camp Valcartier, perhaps she is the wife of a soldier. In any event she writes from an army camp:
Canada is a marvellous meld of many people with a wonderful mosaic of colourful backgrounds bound together with a common love of freedom and equality. We are grateful for a national flag which is, for many of us, the culmination of Canada's birth as a nation. Today, everywhere, Canadians must stand taller and prouder-for here at least is a flag that truly belongs to us.
Now is the time for all of us regardless of race, creed or party, to unfurl the new flag with a new pride and happiness in our hearts and, please God. with charity in our hearts too, that will ensure the promise that the future holds.
I was also very interested to read the script of a broadcast delivered on May 29 by a former Conservative member and parliamentary assistant from Halifax, Mr. Edmund Morris. This is what he said in his broadcast:
No flag design will satisfy everyone at the time of its inception. Once having determined that there should now be a designation of a national flag, it followed inescapably that some one design would have to be chosen by Canada in preference to the many hundred alternative suggestions. It has been said that if the United States were now to be choosing a national flag, there would doubtless be those who would oppose the stars and stripes.
The challenge to opposition M.P.'s is to perceive that no single act could do more at this juncture for much-praised national unity that for them to close ranks with other M.P.'s and to make the adoption of the flag unanimous.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: Which Halifax member is going to retire to provide a senatorial vacancy so that this man can be appointed?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The hon. gentleman is too cynical.
Here is another very interesting letter from Mr. John J. Hogan, Q.C. of Bathurst, New Brunswick. He writes:

A Canadian flag, distinctively Canadian is a standard long ignored, now desperately needed and an absolute "must" if we are to achieve our destiny.
We all respect the threefold cross of Britain; the tricolour of France; the flags of those countries in which so many new Canadians had their origin, but we will love our own flag, and the sooner we can demonstrate that love, the better for all of us.
One of Canada's most distingushed soldiers, Major General R. R. Keefler, speaking on June 2, had this to say:
I have been a member, in good standing, of the Canadian Legion, and I completely disagree with their present public attitude concerning the red ensign. In the first place, being a modification of the British merchant marine flag, it is by no stretch of the imagination distinctive or even identifiable by foreigners as Canadian.
I suspect that the majority of Canadians would accept gladly one flag that is simply and uniquely Canadian. Whether the national symbol turns out to be one maple leaf or three maple leaves, is not so important. It is important, in my opinion, that the flag be distinctively Canadian.
There are those who say that this proposed flag does not portray Canada's history.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hear hon. gentlemen opposite saying "hear, hear".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I hear them say it even more loudly.
In fact, it does more than that. It portrays the proud result of that history-one nation, independent, united and strong. It tells the result of our march to independence. It will portray our confederation fortified and united. In doing this, in symbolizing the end rather than the means, it recognizes all that our past has achieved. But it does more than look to the past, wherein lies our most vivid memory; it looks to the years ahead-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It is the goal, not just the dream, of the millions who sought here new horizons of hope and happiness.


An hon. Member:: Hallelujah!


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am sorry hon. gentlemen opposite can mock this kind of debate and this kind of discussion. A member said "hallelujah" and I agree. Hallelujah, that we can have a flag which will symbolize this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: That was the hallelujah chorus.


John Angus MacLean: I was rising on a small question of privilege. Had I known I was going to get so much applause I might not have done so. I hope I did not understand the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) correctly because he left the implication, to me at any rate, that certain groups in this house had a monopoly of loyalty to Canada or to this country.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No one, Mr. Speaker, could take that interpretation from what I said; and nothing in what I said bore that interpretation or implication. On the other hand, if I wished to be sensitive I could say that no one on the other side of the house has a monopoly on loyalty for the things for which we stood in the past and for the people from whom we have descended. My hon. friend will remember that when I began this part of my speech I said that there were people in this house who violently object to the stand we are taking, and I said that I respect their objection. They are as good Canadians as I could ever hope to be.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that the flag we are submitting in this resolution results not only from our growth but from our diversity, the achievement of peoples with pasts in other countries; but they are now concerned, as we are all concerned, with one future only, and that is the future of Canada. We are all concerned with Canada's future in a world at peace, in freedom and security. So this flag, if it is adopted by this parliament, will stand for one Canada; united, strong, independent and equal to her tasks.


George Clyde Nowlan: What about the union jack? Are we to adopt that too?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be
delighted to talk about the union jack, but when I mentioned it this afternoon I was howled down by my hon. friends opposite.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege. The right hon. Prime Minister was not howled down. He began to read a prepared speech on the subject; and then whether or not he anticipated your ruling he apparently overlooked it. Then when he got in a mess he said he was howled down by the opposition. We were simply trying to make him conform with your ruling, and I would suggest that the Prime Minister does that in the future.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I do not understand my hon. friend's interjection. When I began my speech this afternoon I read the resolution, and the last part of the resolution included that part
Canadian Flag
which dealt with the union jack as the symbol of the commonwealth and the monarchy. Then before I could read the words that follow, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) got up and stopped me.


George Clyde Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, all I am doing is to ask the Prime Minister this. He is talking about the flag of Canada which is going to denote national unity. Is he taking the union jack which Joey Smallwood forced upon him, or is he going to take the other one?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, if I answered that question you would rule me out of order, of course. However, I hope to answer it in due course when we discuss this part of the resolution separately, when I hope to satisfy my hon. friend's legitimate curiosity.
As I was saying when this interruption occurred, Mr. Speaker, this flag in the resolution, if it is adopted by parliament, will symbolize a Canada united, strong, independent and equal to her tasks. It will recognize that we cannot be saved or sanctified merely by the valour and devotion of our ancestors. It remains to us in each new generation to do our own duty in changing conditions. Our willingness to do that duty means adaptation and change. It means sacrifice; it means work; it means endurance. And how we meet this challenge in the future under what I hope will be a distinctive Canadian national flag will determine the destiny of our country.
In these restless, soul-searching days about which Eight Hon. Vincent Massey spoke in Charlottetown last week we are being asked particularly to give to the hearts and minds of our children a feeling of national identity, national pride, national loyalty. We are asked to provide for them a symbol of our independent strength and of the bright promise of a future for them. We are asked to help them to be more conscious of our country and more proud of Canadian citizenship. Mr. Speaker, I believe that a distinctive maple leaf Canadian flag will help them in their search of this objective. I believe that it will stimulate them as they would be stimulated by the inspiring words of one of the great founders of confederation, D'Arcy McGee, when he wrote on this subject:
All we have to do Is, each for himself, to keep down dissensions which can only weaken, impoverish and keep back the country; each for himself to do all he can to increase its wealth, its strength and its reputation; each for himself. ..to welcome every talent, to hail every invention, to cherish every gem of art, to foster every gleam of authorship, to honour every acquirement and

Canadian Flag
every natural gift, to lift ourselves to the level of our destinies, to rise above all low limitations and narrow circumscriptions, to cultivate that true catholicity of spirit which embraces all creeds, all classes and all races, in order to make of our boundless province, so rich in known and unknown resources, a great new northern nation.
On the monument to Montcalm and Wolfe on the heights of Abraham are written these words-


John Angus MacLean: Have you put it up
again?


Mr. Churchill:: Is it still standing?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is a very unhappy intervention. "Are you going to put it up again?", my hon. friend says. On the monument to Montcalm and Wolfe on the heights near the plains of Abraham are written these words:
Valour gave them a common death History a common fame Posterity a common monument.
Mr. Speaker, it is for this generation, for this parliament, to give them and to give us all a common flag; a Canadian flag which, while bringing together but rising above the landmarks and milestones of the past, will say proudly to the world and to the future: "I stand for Canada".
Bight Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, as is known, I will not be in the house tomorrow and therefore I will have to restrict myself very considerably in these remarks. This evening I had hoped to be in Toronto to speak to those great lovers of freedom, the Baltic peoples-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: -but my presence was needed here. I am going to speak at limited length tonight and keep within the bounds of what I hope will be reasonable expression.
I shall try not to follow the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in some of his inflammatory remarks, although I am going to welcome the opportunity before this debate is over to answer several that he made.
However, Mr. Speaker, it is of interest to note this, that there was no mention in all of his speech of the contribution of the people of French origin in our country. There was no mention of the contribution made by Sir George Etienne Cartier, with Macdonald, to the bringing about of confederation. This was a significant omission in every part of his remarks. As he concluded by quoting Thomas D'Arcy McGee's immortal words, that our purpose in this nation should be to build unity 
and to avoid dissension, I say to the Prime Minister this, "Physician, heal thyself. You have brought in, at a time when there are many other matters that ought to have received the consideration of the house, this question that cannot have any other effect than to divide this nation as it has not been divided."
The Prime Minister gave the house a roll call of anonymity coupled with a reference to two or three persons who had expressed themselves. I am going to give him an opportunity, before I conclude, to have a roll call of the people of Canada on this question; to give to the Canadian people, by the only means that can determine this question and on the basis of previous experience and precedent, to which he alluded, the opportunity to express their views on this subject. I want the government, secure in its concepts that it is right because it may be able to command a majority of the house, to give to individual Canadians everywhere the right to decide the question of the kind of flag that they believe will unify, strengthen and maintain the great traditions of our country.
The Prime Minister speaks as though he had the authority of the Canadian people. I think of some of the members from British Columbia. I see the hon. member for Victoria, British Columbia (Mr. Groos) sitting over there, representing a great constituency; I see members from Vancouver. I have before me the policies of the Liberal party as distributed throughout the length and breadth of British Columbia just prior to the general election of 1963. In them there is not one word about a distinctive flag with the union jack removed therefrom.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


John George Diefenbaker: Indeed, I remember so well that in Amherst on December 29, 1961, when he said something about a distinctive flag and was asked what would be on the flag, he said, Of course, I will not tell you". He was afraid to face the people of Canada on this, because when the record was produced it was found he used the same excuse that he used with respect to the "Mr. Pearson" film of the C.B.C., "I could not understand some of the things being said". The answer he gave in 1962 to a broadcast station in reference to this question was, "I shall not let you know".
When did he, across Canada at any time, say that he intended to bring in a distinctive flag that had no reference whatever to Can-

ada's heritage and our past, to the contribution made by the French and by the British to the building of this nation? I ask that question, Mr. Speaker. There has not been one word. We have important matters to bring before parliament that deserve attention. The Prime Minister says he is bringing about unity in this country. I say to him that by this action-and the apologetic manner was apparent throughout his speech today-he realizes he has caused in this nation cleavages and fissures and separations that more than a generation of people to come will recall, those that have strong opinions either way-and he mentioned that-or conscientious opinions either way, but certainly strongly held. No one in this nation today would say that there is an overwhelming majority of opinion in favour of the change he is trying to bring about-and he knows he can do it-to separate this nation from the past. He says that when the maple leaf design is produced, it will be peculiarly Canadian. Well, all I have to say in that connection is this. While I wore the maple leaf badge, too, in the first great war-and I was proud of that-and while everyone realizes that under the Meighen administration the national symbol of Canada was declared to be the three maple leaves, not since that date in 1921 has any leader of this nation claimed that a distinctive national flag should be other than the union jack, with also a reference to the French contribution upon it.


George Clyde Nowlan: Meighen would have died if anyone had suggested that to him.


John George Diefenbaker: As a matter of fact, I am going to refer to the committee of 1945 and of 1946. I followed the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in the views he has expressed. I recall the speech he made at a resort in April or May of 1963 when he spoke of two nations, two flags, two anthems. Is this the way to bring about unity within this country?
Mention was made today of Macdonald. What did Macdonald say? He viewed Canada as one nation despite the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) ridiculed this in a speech very recently. On the other hand, the Prime Minister said this evening that he believed in one Canada and that this action would produce one Canada. It will produce one Canada, separate as never before, and that is the reason I am going to make a special appeal to him.
What did Macdonald say? Speaking in the provincial parliament of Canada in 1865 he said that we shall build "a great nationality
Canadian Flag
commanding the respect of the world, able to hold our own against all opponents and to defend those institutions we prize."
Cartier at the same time said, "We are joined together". He went on to say that only through British North American confederation could we prevent absorption into the vortex of American confederation. He went on to say that was contemplated at the time of the American union. He said, "We shall build in Canada a unity", and went on:
As early as 1775 the French Canadians were solemnly addressed in a proclamation by General Washington who called upon them to abandon the flag of their new masters, inasmuch as they could not expect anything from those who differed from them in language, in religion, in race and in sympathies.
He said, "Not two nations", and then:
The question for us to ask ourselves was this. Shall we be content to maintain a mere provincial existence when by combining together we could become a great nation?
With regard to the objection that a great nation could not be formed because Lower Canada was in great part French and Catholic and Upper Canada was English and Protestant and the lower provinces were mixed, he said that was futile and worthless in the extreme.
They builded this Canada and they brought it together. All through the years references have been made to flags. I heard Mr. Mackenzie King speaking in the house on a number of occasions and the stand that Mr. Mackenzie King took was this: We want a distinctive flag for Canada, but no one can contemplate a distinctive flag without the union jack being included therein. On the 21st of June, 1943, he said, as found on page 3823 of Hansard:
A national flag Is one which normally is used by a single nation only, and which is used to distinguish that nation from others at international gatherings and to serve as a symbol of it. The red ensign, with the union jack in the first quarter next to the staff, and the Canadian coat of arms in the fly, has for over 70 years been very generally used in situations where a flag specially distinctive of Canada was essential.
I call Mr. Mackenzie King, gone to his reward, to the attention of the Prime Minister, about to secure his reward. Yes, I am reading from Mr. Mackenzie King, and I know the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) will say that everything here is confirmed by him.
It was first authorized by the government of Sir John A. Macdonald shortly after confederation for use on Canadian merchant vessels. Its use as a distinctive emblem on all buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian government and situated outside of Canada was authorized by order in council on January 26, 1924. It has been popularly

Canadian Flag
accepted as a flag distinctive of Canada. The union jack, while not a flag distinctive of Canada, may correctly be flown on land in any part of His Majesty's domains.
I question whether this would be a suitable time at which to have parliament determine which particular flag-the union jack, the red ensign or some other flag to be specially designed-should be declared to be the national flag of Canada.
Then in 1944 he used very strong words in this regard. I spoke in the debate on external affairs and said something should be done about bringing about a Canadianism within our land, Canadian citizenship and the like, and also that action be taken in respect of a flag. He went on to say, as found on page 6276 of Hansard for August 11, 1944:
And anyone who raises the question of race to prejudice anyone of another race in this country is doing the greatest disservice that can be done to Canadian unity and to Canadian nationality. And not only do I wish to see our people recognized as Canadians, but I also wish to see a Canadian flag recognized in this country.
Those were the days in 1944 when the Minister of Transport was, one might say, at the periphery of prime ministerial greatness.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, they will not laugh when they hear the next paragraph.
I would like to see it the flag that our Canadian men are fighting under today. We have a Canadian flag unfurled in battle today by our very brave men in Italy and in France. I think in time the people of this country of Canada will say we want to have as a Canadian flag the flag they are carrying in battle today.
I know, Mr. Speaker, I am just giving the gospel according to Mackenzie King. The Prime Minister did not sit under him but I am fairly certain he had an official position. Then Mr. King went on to say, and I can give the quotation if anybody wants it, that as far as a flag for Canada was concerned he could not under any circumstances see such a flag without having thereon the union jack as part of that flag.
What has happened? I know there are different views on this matter. Some say they want the Canadian ensign. Others say they want changes made in the Canadian ensign in order to show fully the fact that our two races were brought together in confederation.
What about a distinctive flag? There is a new definition being given to a distinctive flag by the Prime Minister. He would have us believe that a distinctive flag is one upon which there is no reference to the heritage of our country, nothing of the greatness of its past. He said: Don't worry about the past; we are going to look into the future. I am

not going to make any reference to the tremendous inspiration he apparently has in mind will be aroused in the hearts of Canadians as they look at this new emblem he has produced. But I am going to say this. In 1945 a committee was set up. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) was a member of that committee, as was the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). There is no mistake in that connection. The resolution appointing the committee referred to the fact it was expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag, and a joint committee was set up to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag. The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) attended the committee meeting on December 4, and he said this:
In the new world we will be better fitted to do our part if we have an essential feeling of internal unity and oneness.
He also stated that the committee was to report on a suitable design for such a distinctive flag. He said that it should be a symbol of this great nation, one to which affection and loyalty could be attached and which could become a sign of unity and purpose and make Canada great. The minister of justice of that day, Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, had said this earlier. Hon. Mr. St. Laurent, when he was prime minister and while he was minister of justice had no other view than that, in the union jack being upon the flag of Canada, there was no suggestion of subservience. He said, and I am simply paraphrasing his remarks, that it is simply bringing to the notice of all Canadians what they owe to their British traditions.
I believe there are many who would like to see the preservation of the red ensign but are only too willing, in the interests of bringing about national agreement, to have something additional placed thereon. This was the situation in 1945 and 1946. What should be done about it? Well, the decision in 1946 was this:
Your committee recommends that the national flag of Canada should be the Canadian red ensign with a maple leaf in autumn golden colours in a bordered background of white, replacing the coat of arms in the fly; the whole design to be so proportioned that the size and position of the maple leaf in relation to the union jack in the canton will identify it as a symbol distinctive of Canada as a nation.
This was the recommendation made by this committee, and the vote on it was 23 in favour and 1 opposed. The one opposed was Mr. Lacroix. I point out that fact. The members of all the various races met there and

they did not regard a distinctive flag as one that would separate us from our past. Indeed, the Secretary of State for External Affairs being the heraldic expert of that day-he has since been replaced by the hon. member for another constituency-said that these are the detailed specifications for the ideal Canadian flag. I am reading from the bottom of page 4 and the top of page 5. It should be easily recognizable and not like any other.
Now, mention was made of the maple leaf this evening. Certainly, in two world wars the maple leaf was generally recognized as Canadian. However, it is interesting to note that in 1915 the state of New York adopted the maple tree as its official tree, representative of the state.
The flag should be visible at a distance. Now, that is an interesting thing. I ask you, how far you are going to be able to see that white flag in winter?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: As it so happens, that is one of the qualities that is required, and mention was made of that in the evidence given before the parliamentary committee. Hon. gentlemen opposite, therefore, have not even read the records of 1945 and 1946.
The flag should be symbolic of the country and its position as a sovereign state in the family of nations, lending itself to a variation for different purposes.


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: Why not read 4 and 5 as well?


John George Diefenbaker: I read all five of them. I simply judge, after reading all five, that what is being produced today in this resolution does not in any way meet the qualifications that were then suggested by the hon. gentleman. The flag is a symbol of unity and not a symbol of the most bitter division in Canada. As this country approaches its one hundredth anniversary, surely the Canadian people should not have forced upon them at the will of a government enjoying whatever support it has through third parties in this house or elsewhere, a flag that is today being criticized so widely. It is no time to play with Canadian unity. It is no time to bring about division within this nation.
What about the circumstances under which it was produced? I understand it was incubated in nine days. What has been happening in the last few months since this government has gone into this field of dominion-provincial relations, national symbols and the like, has been strong blows at unity, driving
Canadian Flag
wedges between province and province, race and race. Indeed, as a result there has been encouraged a rise in emotions such as has not been seen in this land. Sir, this is why, in discussing this subject one does not wish to do anything to arouse emotional feelings. If the government had calculated a means whereby division could be secured in this nation, they could not have gone about it in a more effective manner.
I sometimes wonder whether what is being done is designed to distract attention, to create a diversion from the confusion and the chaos of the government in so many fields since it took office. I say this, why was not a committee of parliament set up, of both houses, as took place in 1945, when agreement was arrived at? However, for some reason, that recommendation was not carried into effect. Why should there not be some action taken to bring about a flag that is distinctive? This does not mean distinctive, because it has not anything to show the British relationship of this country and its past, or distinctive showing the great contribution during the past of the French period, nothing on it showing the tremendous contributions under British rule such as parliament, the rule of law and freedom. Why are these things to be swept aside-simply because a government believes it has the power? When the Prime Minister indulged in quotations he did not think of bringing to the attention of the house the letter he received from the various intellectuals who signed that message of May 27.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I received no such letter.


George Clyde Nowlan: He did not read it, that is all.


John George Diefenbaker: This is not the first time they have not told him in his office. That letter read:
We believe, as you do, that the flag should be a source of national unity, and that it should be unmistakably Canadian in character. However, we protest that the maple leaf flag is neither of these things. Its only advantage is that it is innocuous, that it produces tepid approval, mild disapproval, or indifference, and that it can therefore be adopted without any display of strong feeling whatever. We have a despairing feeling that this insipid flag, instead of promoting national unity, will produce only an indifferent response, and in doing so will subtly undermine the Canadian will to survive. We believe profoundly that this negative approach to our national symbols erodes our national spirit.

Canadian Flag
I could quote a great deal more but I will see a copy is sent to the Prime Minister tor his private edification.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would not like to mislead the house, Mr. Speaker. I received no such letter but I did get a letter on my desk. It was addressed "Dear Mr...." blank, and there was no signature to it, but it had that body.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the attitude of retreat has become almost a regular course. Now, sir, I mentioned the necessity of action being taken to bring about modifications. What are some of the objections that can be raised as against the flag design in this resolution? First, there is the domination of parliament by the executive. We had that during the days of the pipe line. We are having it today on the part of this government, for a few minutes ago the Prime Minister left the impression that in the event that parliament decided on the free vote which he offered, and it was against the particular type of design he placed before parliament, the government would consider itself defeated. Only a few weeks ago he said, "Oh, we will give you a free vote in parliament."
Second, it simply means this, that the government has adopted as its definition of a distinctive flag, any one that does away with the union jack. Well now, why? Australia and New Zealand do not do away with the union jack on their flags. Other parts of the commonwealth do not, but why is Canada taking this lead?
I think that even today South Africa in its flag carries the union jack. As a matter of fact the flag of Hawaii carries the union jack. Why is this removed? Surely Canada deserves something better than having a symbol, the symbol of three maple leaves, effective as a symbol and brought in by a Conservative government under the Right Hon. Arthur Meighen. But a symbol is a long way from a flag which should epitomize something of the past and of the greatness of a country and thereby includes its people in the potentialities of the future.
I believe, as I did when I spoke in this house on February 4, that this matter should have been placed before a conference of the provinces and the dominion, securing their views, not because they would have any authority but because they would bring about a spirit of Canadianism, agreement, and the meaning of Canadianism. We endeavoured to call such a conference together. The scope of

the conference would be to study ways and means of repatriating the constitution-
-the problem of adequate representation in the public service, crown corporations and other government agencies; the recommendations in the Therrien report; the choice of a national flag and other symbols of our national sovereignty. In brief, the conference will be asked to examine biculturalism and bilingualism in a comprehensive manner.
That was not followed. We were defeated. A royal commission was set up for the purposes of dealing with Canada's national problems and then suddenly, without having directly at any time pointed out that one of the first things to be done would be to produce a so-called distinctive flag without any commemoration of the country's past, the Prime Minister rushes in to produce the subject matter of this resolution.
Sir, you cannot have a national conference now; but the basic condition of good government is consent, the consent of the governed, in other words, the people. Is there any national determination that we should turn our backs on the past, that we should forget everything that has gone by-


Gilles Grégoire: Ask Balcer.


John George Diefenbaker: -and that we should produce something innocuous and insipid.
Why was it that no action was taken following a recommendation of the committee in 1946? I do not know, but I do know that General Crerar, the commander of the first Canadian army in world war II, stated when he was in Ottawa receiving the official welcome of the government of Canada on August 8, 1945, that right hon Mr. King made a statement that is significant of his views, supported as those views were by those of Mr. St. Laurent:
As we moved away from the central entrance of the parliament buildings, Mr. King turned sideways in the car and looked upwards to the peace tower where, at the top, the Canadian red ensign waved. He then said, "And that, General, is another problem which your Canadian army has solved for Canada-the manner of our national flag."
That was his view. As I see it a national flag must bear the history of its country in its fullest. Otherwise it is meaningless. I quote from Barlow in his history:
The study of flags is really the tracing of history by sight.
In other words, it is accepting for those countries newly become nations, great nations, strength and inspiration from the past as they go forward to the future. Sir, to bring about

a change that denies our past requires a degree of national agreement. I do not say unanimity, but I do say the intangible element of the spirit of all Canadians, a national unity determined by the proof of national identity.
There is in all our hearts deep and abiding Canadianism. Canadians think of themselves as Canadians and as nothing else. I do. My people come from two races but I think of myself as a Canadian; and always, from my earliest days in this house, I advocated a Canadianism unhyphenated while fully recognizing the constitutional rights under our constitution and the British North America Act.
You cannot force a flag on the people of Canada and secure from them that mystic something which some ridicule as nationalism -the patriotism of men and women who love their country. A flag design is not a trick by which one group imposes upon others some evidence of a Canadianism that all will not accept.
I have admitted that for many years there has been a sentiment for a distinctive flag. I have shown that a distinctive flag is now being defined as it never was in the past-as one which denies Canada's past. It is a strange thing that we are being asked, and in haste, to reverse the past, to accept the design of the Prime Minister which he unveiled at 24 Sussex street to a selected audience, before parliament had it. The desire for a flag is one thing; agreement on a design is another.
There have been many suggestions. I have received many outstanding ones. I should have thought that instead of saying to parliament, "This you do, or parliament will face the consequences" some other course would have been followed. This is not the way, in a spirit of Canadianism, of toleration, of understanding, in which a thing like this is brought about. A flag is not something which can be ordered by parliament. A flag must be something to evoke the emotions of the heart, a rallying point for the finer sentiments of the people joined together in a nation. We have come to agreement on many things throughout the years. After all, surely there is not such a rush. Surely we do not set a zero hour for the determination of something which the Prime Minister says will be ours always? That is the finality which he places on a design chosen by himself and preferred by him.
Canadian Flag


Gilles Grégoire: Well, you had five years in which to do it.


John George Diefenbaker: Cannot we, in the spirit of unity in this country-not with one group or another trying to press the crown of intolerance on any part of the country-cannot we bring about something which will represent Canada? This is the opportunity for the Prime Minister to rise to statesmanship, to depart from the course of partisan extremism-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I see that the main derisive applause comes from those who would separate this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There are only a few minutes remaining and I understand the Leader of the Opposition may not be here tomorrow. He should be entitled to those few minutes.


David Réal Caouette: A question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


John George Diefenbaker: I therefore suggest a national referendum-


David Réal Caouette: A question of privilege.


Mr. Speaker:: I would ask the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) to allow the Leader of the Opposition to finish his discourse.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, surely the question of privilege must be heard-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I have the floor. The Prime Minister cannot interrupt me. This is exactly the trick he has tried to play before.
I want to move my amendment.


Mr. Speaker:: Under the rules of the house I must interrupt the proceedings and listen to the question of privilege.


John George Diefenbaker: I wish to move my amendment-that all the words after "that"-


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps by unanimous consent we would be able to extend the time a little further.


John Whitney Pickersgill: We agree.
4332	HOUSE OF COMMONS
Canadian Flag


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
The Leader of the Opposition states that our group is trying to divide the country;
I will tell him, before all hon. members, that the speech he is now making will divide the country.


John George Diefenbaker: The applause from the Liberal party after what has been said indicates their agreement with the hon. member. I wish to move-


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Will you shut up?


John George Diefenbaker: I move:
That all the words after "that" in line one be deleted and the following substituted:
"As the proposal to change Canada's national flag will affect the unity and destiny of Canada now and for years to come, the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite prior to any further action being taken by the House of Commons, in order that all Canadians may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag."


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Would it be possible to have that amendment in French?


An hon. Member:: Two official languages. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: In the short space of time that is left I should like to say that although the suggested amendment reads like a statement of principles it does, neverthless, in my opinion, have to do with the method, which is one of the things we are considering. I propose, therefore, to accept the amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Paul Joseph James Martin: On a point of order, would Your Honour give an opportunity for hon. members who wish to do so to indicate why this amendment is not in order?


Mr. Speaker:: I waited-a short time, I admit-but no one seemed to indicate any disapproval. And I may tell the house I am prepared to give reasons why in my humble opinion this motion is in order.


Robert Carman Coates: Ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Burn-aby-Coquitlam.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Cumberland (Mr. Coates) called it ten o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) should have the floor.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, may I ask what is the business for tomorrow?


Guy Favreau: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, the debate on the present resolution will continue.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, on June 4 I posed a question to the Prime Minister with regard to threats which were made on the lives of Canadians who were supporters of the red ensign and of its retention as Canada's national flag. At that time the Prime Minister replied to me in a manner which I considered unsuitable from many points of view. One of the points of view which caused me a great deal of irritation was the flippant manner in which he treated the threats which were made on Canadians because they supported the red ensign.
In this connection I should like to refer to an article which appeared in the Toronto Daily Star, which said, among other things, that Richard O'Hagan, spokesman for the Prime Minister, said that the Prime Minister was joking. Well, Mr. Speaker, when the point is arrived at in this country where the lives of Canadians are threatened, and not only their lives but the lives of their families are threatened, and the Prime Minister treats this as a joke, then in my opinion the whole matter relating to a national flag has reached that sense of proportion that it should be removed from the public until the point is reached where a sense of proportion can be given to the matter by the Prime Minister of this country.

At the same time and on the same date, June 5, there appeared in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald the following headline: "Threats to P.M. over flag". Here is the Prime Minister of this country facetiously making statements in reply to serious questions, which are interpreted in one way by the Prime Minister's office, and by his officials who answer the telephone, as meaning that no one really cares in his office whether Canadians were being threatened, and by another newspaper which did not obtain the same information as meaning that a very serious situation had developed in this country as a result of this flag issue. Regardless of what the spokesman in Mr. Pearson's office had to say, it is my opinion that the headline in the Halifax newspaper was more closely attuned to the feelings of Canadians with regard to this flag issue. It is the type of issue that has inflamed the passions of Canadians; it is the type of issue that can only result in further divisions in this country; it is the type of issue that will promote bigotry and bias and all the things the Prime Minister endeavours to tell the Canadian people he does not wish, and indeed is endeavouring to eliminate. At the same time, if the statement by Mr. O'Hagan is correct, it is an indication of just how much out of touch is the present Prime Minister with the views of Canadians in this country in relation to their symbols, and especially in relation to the flag now flying.
How far are we expected to go in this country when we hear reports of people being threatened with their lives because they support the red ensign; when we hear reports of red ensigns being burned, as was reported in Toronto recently; when we pick up newspapers from all across this country and see Canadians making the statement that all the Liberal party is doing with this flag issue is selling out to the province of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Robert Carman Coates: "Shame" does not mean a thing from over there. It is the people in every province in this country who are saying it.


An hon. Member:: Why are you saying it?


Robert Carman Coates: I am saying it because these are the facts of life, and it is about time that you in your life faced up to these facts.


Mr. Clancy:: Yes, you have slowed us up for years.


Robert Carman Coates: This type of retort coming from the benches of the Liberal party is just an indication of the highly charged, emotional
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion state of the Canadian nation as a result of this flag issue; and it is an issue which should not be treated lightly, as the Prime Minister tries to treat it every time someone asks him a question about any flag except his personal choice. This type of facetious reply received from the Prime Minister is as great an irritation to Canadians generally as anything that can be said about this flag issue. Why the passions of the Canadian people have been allowed to be aroused to the extent indicated in the initial day of this flag debate is more than I can understand and more than most Canadians can understand.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just sat down has in his solemn way given the house what, even by his own admission, he does not know to be true, or false statements. He made reference to a statement appearing in the newspaper with regard to the purported remarks of one of the staff of the Prime Minister's office. He himself threw doubt immediately on the soundness of his own' proposition by saying, "if the statement by Mr. O'Hagan is correct". I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members of this house that it is the obligation of the hon. member not to guess at whether it is correct or not; he stands on the words he has tendered to this house. If he has not gone to the trouble to find out whether or not they are correct, then his words are not worth listening to.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I had to get out the Parliamentary Guide to look up the hon. member's qualifications because I was baffled by his statement. The statement which the Prime Minister made on June 4 in answer to the hon. member is found on page 3925 of Hansard and reads as follows:
Mr. Speaker, if the hon. gentleman will send me a copy of his report I will be glad to examine it, and if the circumstances warrant it can be passed on to the police and to the mayor of Ottawa.
I point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is the responsibility of the provincial authorities and more particularly of the municipal police of this city.


Robert Carman Coates: Mr. Speaker, I am not arguing about that statement.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Mr. Speaker, I have a right to my full three minutes.


Robert Carman Coates: The Prime Minister said-

Proceedings on Adjournment Motion


Mr. Speaker:: Order. There must be some decorum here. The hon. member for Rose-dale.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I can understand the hon. member trying to cut me off because he cannot bear to have the truth of the matter put on the record. I point out that if the hon. member was sincerely interested in bringing this matter to the attention of the provincial police or the municipal police authorities it was his obligation to do so.


Robert Carman Coates: I did not have to do so.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Did he bring it to the attention of the Prime Minister as the Prime Minister invited him to do? My information is that he did not. This is a rather cynical attempt at a partisan political attack and I think it can be rejected as of absolutely no value whatsoever.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: May I ask a question of the hon. member? Is he giving the policy of the government?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



HOUSING


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: Mr. Speaker, on June 10 I asked the Postmaster General the following question, as found on page 4152 of Hansard:
Now that the amendments to the National Housing Act have been passed by the house, will the minister cause further consideration to be given to extending federal government assistance to a proposed municipal project to acquire land for the redevelopment of an area in downtown Windsor for commercial purposes, and to similar projects throughout Canada?
I suggest that this is a matter of urgent interest and concern, Mr. Speaker, to many cities and towns throughout Canada, cities and towns that have downtown areas now used for commercial purposes which are fitting areas for urban renewal. Until the recent amendments to the National Housing Act the federal government, it was understood, could not participate in projects to acquire and clear such areas unless they were to be used later for housing purposes. But in many cases, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that a use involving housing would not have been and would not be the highest and best use, the most logical use for the land in question.
Many municipal governments felt they should be able to propose plans of urban renewal incorporating the most logical use for these downtown areas. Such a use in many


cases would be commercial or even industrial. After all, there might already be commercial areas all around it, and to permit such land to be used later for commercial purposes might give further aid to the construction industry because of the more complicated buildings that would be involved.
Housing or apartment projects once built might give employment only to a few caretakers or maintenance men. Building housing commercial or industrial enterprises could well give employment to hundreds or even thousands. Also, commercial or industrial buildings could return a greater tax revenue to the municipality and, as one member of the house has suggested, such a use might be a further source of funds for the building of public housing elsewhere.
Now that the National Housing Act has been amended I think it most important to ask the question I placed before the house the other day, since it seems to me that there is some lack of understanding of the effect of these amendments on the part of certain municipal officials in some parts of Canada. In answering this question I hope the minister, who I am happy to see is in the house, will be able to clarify, therefore, exactly what the federal government will now be able to do and how far it can go in assisting in projects of urban renewal, where there are areas now used for commercial purposes and where it is proposed they be used later for similar purposes, because of the importance of facilitating renewal of the cores and hearts of our cities.


Mr. Winch:: Mr. Speaker, I move we adjourn for lack of a quorum. We are seven short.


Mr. Speaker:: I do not think I heard the hon. gentleman, and I think I see a quorum.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. There is no reason why the hon. member who has just spoken could not have obtained an answer from his minister. He is a member of the government. We are wasting our time. This is our grievance period, not the government's. They can do anything they want and they have the power to do it. He has wasted ten minutes now. Why did he not see the minister?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: When this question was asked in the course of the debate on June 2, I said that the answer had been given in my remarks. I referred the hon. member for Essex West

(Mr. Gray) to my remarks at page 3794, the second column, the last paragraph on that page. They were in the first three paragraphs on page 3795.
Under the old act, that is the one that is still in force actually until we have royal assent for the new legislation, section 23, as pointed out by the hon. member for Essex West, required that in order to get a contribution from the federal government toward urban redevelopment or renewal projects, a substantial part of the area had to be used for residential purposes, or else had to be used for residential purposes after the urban renewal program had been put into effect. This clause has now been repealed, or at least it will be repealed if and when the new bill, C-102, becomes law.
Under the new legislation it will be possible for the federal government or Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to make grants to municipalities who request it for the clearing of lands which may be used wholly or partly for residential purposes wholly or partly for commercial and industrial purposes. I point out, however, that while the federal government can contribute its share towards such a project, it cannot lend funds for the building of industrial plants on that prepared land.



STEPS TO INCREASE


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: I shall be brief. When I asked my question of the minister the other day I felt it was important to the economy of Canada as well as to the beef producers of Canada. Since that time I have read that Argentina, one of the world's leading beef producers, has ordered meat rationing and is imposing export controls to ease the beef shortage caused by two years of drought.
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
In order to be brief, I shall repeat my question to the minister. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce, in view of this serious shortage of beef, will the minister inform the house what action his department has taken in regard to the export of beef to Great Britain? I ask this question in the interests of the economy of the country and the beef producers. May I have an answer?


Mitchell William Sharp: For some months, Mr. Speaker, my department and the Department of Agriculture have been following the developing beef situation in both the United Kingdom and on the continent of Europe. Our trade commissioner in London has been making a special study of the situation and has kept our Canadian packing houses fully apprised of developments. I understand that a number of these firms are now in touch with their agents in the United Kingdom in an effort to develop some sales.
The problem had been, but is now growing smaller, that Canadian prices were somewhat out of line. The spread is now becoming narrower and therefore we are continuing our efforts to sell beef, in the expectation that it will come into line and that we shall be able to supply part of that market. I am unable to say exactly what the spread is at the moment because, of course, there are so many cuts and so many qualities of beef concerned.
I would like to assure the hon. gentleman that, like himself, we have been following the situation very closely and share his concern to enlarge our market for beef overseas.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.24 p.m.

Tuesday, June 16, 1964