1964-08-13

HOUSE OF COMMONS DEBATES


[Stage Direction]
20220-427*
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, August 13, 1964

Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian wheat board is announcing in Winnipeg today that it has negotiated contracts for the sale of approximately 200,000 metric tons of wheat for shipment to Poland and 50,000 metric tons of wheat for shipment to Bulgaria. The sale to Poland, totalling about
7.400.000	bushels, is for shipment during the period August to November, 1964. This is the third sale made to Poland under the provisions of the long term agreement signed on November 5, 1963, and represents a preshipment of part of the wheat Poland has agreed to buy during the second year of the three year agreement.
The sale to Bulgaria, totalling about
1.800.000	bushels, is for shipment during the period August to October, 1964. This also is the third sale made to Bulgaria under the provisions of the long term agreement signed on October 8, 1963, and completes the quantities Bulgaria has agreed to buy during the first year of the three year agreement. The credit terms remain as previously announced.



On the orders of the day:


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
In view of the statement he made a moment ago, could the minister tell us whether efforts similar to those made to dispose of western wheat are being made to sell the products of eastern farmers and, if so, what are those efforts?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the Department of Trade and Commerce has the responsibility for promoting the export sale of products in
all parts of the country. This, I think, we do with some success. If the hon. gentleman has some export product he would like to promote, my department would be very happy to listen to him.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, again to the Minister of Trade and Commerce.
Even though there are no specific products I would care to mention at this time, could the minister not put on his list of exports the products which eastern farmers have in abundance and cannot dispose of due to a lack of outlets?



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in a position now to advise as to the present situation in regard to the Cyprus United Nations forces? Are additional powers to be secured to enable the forces to go anywhere on the island with the exception of government buildings and, furthermore, to enable them to disarm the local population where the United Nations commanders feel it is necessary so to do in the interests of preserving peace?


Hon. Paul Marlin (Secretary of Stale for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday there is to be a meeting of the secretary general and representatives of the contributing powers in New York today. The meeting is scheduled for four o'clock this afternoon and I would have to wait until that meeting is over, either today, or tomorrow, if it continues. In any event, I would simply repeat that so far as any extension of powers is concerned this is a matter, of course, that can only be determined by the security council. After that body reaches a decision it would then be a matter for agreement between the secretary

Inquiries of the Ministry general, on behalf of the organization, and the government of Cyprus.


John George Diefenbaker: Has there been any indication on the part of Archbishop Makarios that he would accept an increase in those powers? I ask that question in view of an editorial that appeared in the Manchester Guardian of August 12 which reads in part as follows:
-there is no longer any reason for maintaining the United Nations force in Cyprus in its present Impossible position. President Makarios should be told bluntly that if the United Nations forces are to do their job properly-
It goes on to say that they must be allowed these extra powers. Has there been any indication in any way that he is prepared to permit an increase in the powers?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, he has already replied, of course, to the secretary general with regard to freedom of movement. Beyond that there has been no reaction, that I am aware of, concerning the attitude he would take with regard to extending the powers of the force. I saw the editorial and I might say I would doubt that was the way to achieve the objective we all have in mind.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Are any representations being made to Archbishop Makarios by the secretary general of the United Nations or by the minister himself as to removing the provisos which are contained in his letter with regard to his willingness to grant freedom of movement to the United Nations forces? I refer particularly to the proviso that the United Nations forces may only go into certain restricted areas after consultation between the government of Cyprus and the commander in chief of the United Nations forces. It is perfectly apparent that during the period of negotiation between the commander in chief and the government of Cyprus, troops and supplies could be unloaded and there would be little value in investigating after that.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, this, of course, is one of the very subject matters of the meeting today; but I have been advised that, notwithstanding the reservation made by the head of the government of Cyprus, General Thimayya has in no instance been refused access to those areas that the government of Cyprus have in their recent communications regarded as secret places.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: May I ask a supplementary question. Were the United Nations forces not precluded from entering the Limassol area and other points of disembarkation? Is this ban to be lifted by the government of Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I expect this will be one of the matters discussed today. [Later:]


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: have a question I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence. Is it correct, as reported on the radio news today, that a new contingent of Canadian peace keeping troops has left this country for Cyprus?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: A very small contingent did leave this morning; it is really integral with the units which are already there.


CONGO-CANADIAN ASSISTANCE TO MAINTAIN STABLE GOVERNMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs concerning the situation in the Congo. In view of the fact that the governments of Belgium and the United States have taken definite action to provide assistance to the government of the Congo for the development of stability in that country, has the Canadian government made any decision regarding assistance in a similar fashion?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Some time ago, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada took a decision to join in contributions to a special Congo fund. Our contribution this year will be in the neighbourhood of $500,000. This was an earlier contribution, but beyond this we have not gone. I should point out that in relation to other countries this was a generous contribution.


RECOGNITION OF QUEBEC DELEGATION IN PARIS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice  Cole@Chicoutimi: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
In view of the fact that, if I am not mistaken, the right hon. Prime Minister once stated with much sympathy that "Quebec had the same right to be in Paris as the other provinces to be in London", could the Secretary of State for External Affairs now say

whether the Quebec delegation in Paris will have the same privileges which are granted to general consulates?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I think that
question is based on a statement made the other day by Mr. Lussier. I had the opportunity to read in yesterday's Le Devoir the report dealing with that statement by Mr. Lussier, Quebec general delegate in Paris. That matter has been under consideration for some time and our ambassador in Paris has already begun considering it with the French authorities. I hope, in the near future, to be in a position to announce that a solution consistent with the needs of the Quebec general delegation in Paris and with our excellent relations with France, was found to that problem.


PASSAMAQUODDY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I think this question should be directed to the Prime Minister since it covers at least two departments. It has to do with evidence given yesterday before a United States Senate committee by Secretary Udall in connection with the Passamaquoddy-Saint John river power project. According to newspaper reports this evidence is to the effect that Canadian officials should be encouraged by the new report.
Is the Prime Minister in a position to say if the government has conducted negotiations or at the present moment is engaged in consultations with the United States on this project? Has the government had the report from the committee now sitting in Washington to which reference was made by Mr. Udall? Is the government giving sympathetic consideration to this question on the basis not only of the report to congress but the examination being made by Canadian fisheries officials?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: There is at present an examination going on by Canadian officials and technicians as to the feasibility of this project. There have been no discussions with the United States on this matter recently, and there will not likely be until this examination is completed. I saw the report of Secretary Udall to which my right hon. friend refers and,
Inquiries of the Ministry like him, I would be very much encouraged by that report if it turns out to be accurate in the light of engineering and technical examination. We are making inquiries on this report to see if we can get the evidence on which it was based.


John George Diefenbaker: And would the Prime Minister, having secured that report, make a statement to the house during the next few days in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I shall be glad to make a statement, Mr. Speaker, as soon as we get that information.


EDUCATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, the other day I asked the Prime Minister a question concerning some doubts that had been raised about the participation of the province of Alberta in the student loan fund, and he indicated at that time that he would be seeing the premier of the province. I understand that has happened, and I ask if he can clarify or remove these doubts with regard to this particular subject.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I did have a conference with the premier of Alberta yesterday. He did not raise this subject at all; therefore in a sense that is a clarification.


COMBINES
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. W. Pritlie (Burnaby-Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Justice. My question relates not only to the recent report of the restrictive trade practices commission concerning collusion by Ontario road surfacing contractors but to the fact that there is a growing list of such reports upon which the Department of Justice has taken no action. Will the minister undertake to make a statement to the house soon concerning these several recommendations of the commission?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, subject to my mentioning now that these reports are presently under consideration to ascertain what, if any, action ought to be taken in furtherance thereof.

Inquiries of the Ministry CANADIAN CONSTITUTION


CONSIDERATION OF AMENDMENT METHOD AT DOMINION-PROVINCIAL CONFERENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North
Centre): Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the subject of finding a way in which to amend the Canadian constitution in Canada been placed on the agenda for the meeting of the federal government with the provinces in Charlottetown early in September; and can the Prime Minister tell us anything further with regard to this matter at this time?
High! Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):
Mr. Speaker, I think I have already announced that this is a matter which will be discussed at Charlottetown at the federal-provincial meeting, although that meeting will be primarily ceremonial in character to commemorate the one hundredth anniversary of the Charlottetown conference. This is the only matter on the agenda at the moment, and it will be discussed there.
Mr. Knowles:: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, if agreement is reached to arrange for the constitution to be amended in Canada, will the necessary enactment be made in another country or will it be made in Canada as a sign of our sovereignty.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it will have to be made in the proper constitutional way. I would like to look into the matter to find out what that way is, and perhaps I could say something about it tomorrow.


CONTROL OF FABRIC EXPORTS TO CANADA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Mr. Speaker, I address my question to the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Trade and Commerce, depending on which minister is in charge of the negotiations I have in mind. Can the minister now inform the house on the results of negotiations with the government of Japan relating to their exports of certain classes of textiles to Canada?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I had a similar question the other day and I promised to give a statement to the house as soon as I was in a posi-


tion to do so. I am not yet in a position to
do so.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question. Could the minister tell the house whether the government of Japan have informed the Canadian government that they cannot enforce a formal agreed quota in this regard, but that they will not allow their exports to rise beyond 20 per cent above last year's figure?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will make a full statement on this matter at the beginning of the week, if I possibly can.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I wonder whether the Minister of Labour is now in a position to answer a question I put to his parliamentary secretary on Tuesday regarding the transfer of the national employment service from the unemployment insurance commission to the Department of Labour.


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes. The transfer will be effected just as soon as a parliamentary decision is taken on an item in the supplementary estimates which will provide legal authority for such a transfer.



BRITISH COLUMBIA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Labour regarding the winter works incentive program and the recent decision of the government of British Columbia. In the letter which has been sent to all municipalities in British Columbia, of which the minister has a copy, there is a sentence which says that "the provincial share of the winter works incentive program will be directed solely toward helping those people who have been unemployed and on social assistance for a period of three months or more."
Does this mean that no winter works programs will be approved unless the persons employed thereon have been three months or more on social aid, or does it mean that the provincial and federal governments will have a different sharing arrangement in the programs where there are other

persons employed who have not been on social aid tor three months or more?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I read that particular sentence and the same question occurred to me. I think it is somewhat ambiguous. I do not know whether the second part of the sentence is intended to include a different category or whether the second part of the sentence is related to the unemployed. I am not sure on that point, but in any case the programs put forward for federal participation are provincially approved, and the type of program hitherto has been a matter for provincial decision. We as the federal government have made no alteration whatsoever in the regulations governing the programs. We have, as my hon. friend realizes, always asked that preference be given to the unemployed in the matter of hirings, and this would include persons in receipt of unemployment insurance and also those in receipt of unemployment assistance.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Could the minister get some clarification of this matter, because I should like to know whether persons who are in receipt of unemployment insurance rather than those on welfare will be employed. Does this preclude a municipality from benefiting under the winter works incentive program unless social welfare recipients are employed? A great many are concerned on this point.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The federal government naturally will provide 50 per cent of the direct payroll costs without strings attached, as we have in the past. In British Columbia they have had a graduated system of bringing the provincial participation up to 100 per cent of direct payroll costs. I will be glad to try to get clarification of this point, because we will need clarification from our own point of view.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A further supplementary question. Is any proviso or condition imposed by the provincial governments precluding municipalities from benefiting from the arrangement by which 50 per cent of the payroll cost is paid by the federal government?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Except that these projects, as I understand it, must be approved and submitted on behalf of the municipalities through provincial governments. In other words the first stage of approval is provincial approval, and then it comes through the federal government. In that sense, of course, these projects are a matter for provincial decision.
Inquiries of the Ministry


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the minister whether that would still be true even if the provinces were to impose impossible conditions?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is something we would have to consider, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Comox-Alberni.


Mr. Barnett:: My question has already been asked and answered, Mr. Speaker.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. R. Tucker (Trinity-Conception):: May
I direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries. In view of the poor salmon, lobster and cod fisheries in Newfoundland to date this year, would the minister advise whether his department would consider assisting our fishermen in the same way that assistance has been given to our farmers when they have experienced crop failures?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: While the lobster catch in Newfoundland this year may have been slightly below the average, the figures for the salmon season have not yet been fully compiled and I would not wish to comment before we have the final results. It is true that the cod fishery has not started very well, but my information is that in recent days it has shown an encouraging improvement, and my department would not be justified in considering any type of direct assistance before the final figures for the season are known.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Loibiniere):: I
should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works and ask him whether the air conditioning in this chamber has been cut off in the hope that this will have the effect of shortening the Conservative filibuster on the flag.


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: I will take the question as notice.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: should like to ask the Minister of Justice

Inquiries of the Ministry when I may expect an answer to my question No. 1,494 dealing with alleged wire tapping by the R.C.M.P. in Toronto, which was placed on the order paper a month ago.


Guy Favreau: The answer has been prepared, and it will be made available to the hon. member the next time questions are called.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Has the minister any explanation to give to the house concerning his recently reported statement to the effect that his plans for the integration of the armed services cannot be implemented within two years but will be delayed indefinitely?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes. It was an inaccurate quotation. The Canadian Press inaccurately reported what I said. I believe they have sent out a "kill" on that story and issued the correct story.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Could we have the correct
story here, instead of being dependant on the press; because we like to hear from the minister?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I do not like to be repetitious, bearing in mind the rules of this house.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): I think the house would excuse the hon. gentleman being repetitious. This is information to which we are entitled. The view has been expressed and widely disseminated that he said integration would not be completed within two years but would take a very considerably longer period. What did the minister say? Let him tell us so that we do not have to depend on the uncertainties of the press.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: I will send my right hon. friend a transcript of the entire broadcast.


John George Diefenbaker: I must say to my hon. friend that my time would be much better spent otherwise.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I must say that I find this announcement by the Minister of National Defence, but with
IMr. Orlikow.]

the minister refusing to give the house what he has given to the press, amounts to a denial of the rights of hon. members of this house. This matter affects us directly, and I do not think these statements should be given to us through any leaky bucket.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, on the same question of privilege, I have already said- and if I did not make it clear I will do so now-that there was no new information in the broadcast, and that what appeared to be new information was an incorrect report.



INQUIRY AS TO RECOVERY OF STOLEN ARMS AND AMMUNITION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence arising out of the fact that activities are now being carried on in Montreal by some young people claiming to be members of the reborn F.L.Q. I would ask the minister whether he is now prepared to answer the question I asked him on May 7 as to whether all the arms which were recovered are in fact the total amount of arms stolen from the armouries in Montreal earlier this year.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I cannot answer the question from memory. I think practically all of them were recovered, but I will take the question as notice and give my hon. friend a precise answer tomorrow.


William Heward Grafftey: A supplementary question to the Minister of Justice. Could the Minister of Justice inform the house whether in his view alien influences are behind the activities of these individuals in question?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I would have to take this question as notice.



EQUALIZATION OF PAY FOR PREVAILING RATES EMPLOYEES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. E. Nasserden (Rosthern):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Associate Minister of National Defence in regard to the urgency of the situation of prevailing rate employees at the Dana R.C.A.F. station. Is he in a position to answer the question I asked the Minister of National Defence yesterday?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister compulsorily retired between now and a year of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, as there from next May. are prevailing rate employees in departments
other than the Department of National De- provision of nuclear missiles to Canadian fence I have referred the question to my	forces
colleague the President of the Privy Council.
On the orders of the day:



REPAIRS TO NAVAL SHIP SOLD TO TORONTO GROUP

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Port Arthur asked on whose authority work was being carried out on the former H.M.C.S. ship Haida at Halifax dockyard. The answer, Mr. Speaker, is on the authority of the Minister of National Defence. The work involved the return to the ship of various articles of furniture and equipment, which were removed at the time Haida was taken out of service, for the purpose of restoring it to world war II fighting appearance. All items placed on board are surplus to Royal Canadian Navy requirements.
Haida was purchased by a group of public spirited Canadians who intend to maintain the ship as a national monument in the city of Toronto, and the Department of National Defence in these circumstances was happy to lend every possible assistance.
I am informed that the estimated cost of returning the equipment on board Haida was in the order of $1,600.



PENSIONS OF PERMANENT STAFF COMPULSORILY RETIRED

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. I would ask him whether it is correct that military personnel on permanent staff-I am referring only to permanent staff individuals-are being asked to retire prior to reaching their normal retirement age; and if so, are they being penalized by being asked to accept reduced pensions as a result?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, as has already been announced there will be a number of involuntary retirements in advance of the normal compulsory retirement age. These will be effected during the months that lie ahead. There are special cash benefits to whose who are so retired, and in addition the normal penalty in respect of pension benefit has been waived. This will apply to all those who are 20220-428i


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is the situation unchanged in Canada's defence preparations, namely that no nuclear arms have been provided for the Voodoo planes in Canada, no nuclear missiles for the Honest John battery with the Canadian brigade in Europe, and that most of the Canadian F-104 airplanes in Europe are not equipped with either nuclear or conventional weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, I have had no notice of this question, but from memory I can say that the Bomarc missiles have been armed; the F-104 squadrons in the strike role-six squadrons, two wings in Germany-are operational; the Voodoo aircraft have not yet been armed with nuclear missiles. I am afraid I cannot give an answer as of this date with respect to the Honest John, although the missiles were not available the last time I made a check.



NEGOTIATIONS TO WITHDRAW FROM NUCLEAR DEFENCE ROLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs what negotiations are in progress with respect to Canada withdrawing entirely from her nuclear role, as promised a year and a half ago by the Prime Minister.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe I can answer that question any better-


Gordon Minto Churchill: Any better than you did before-and you didn't answer then.


Paul Joseph James Martin: -than I answered it some time ago. I would ask my hon. friend to look at the answer I gave several weeks ago.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I did look at that answer, and it was a very evasive one. The minister did not have any notice then, either, and was taken by surprise. I understand there are

Inquiries of the Ministry no negotiations whatsoever going on with regard to Canada's withdrawal from the nuclear role. Is that correct?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be responsible for my hon. friend's understanding; but I believe he will want to look at the reply, and if he is not satisfied with it I will be glad to take this question as notice. I am sure that he, more than most members of this house, would agree there are some questions that are so important that they should be asked only on the understanding that notice is given.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is this not one of the most important problems that face the government of the day, in view of the promise that was made such a long time ago and in view of the international tension that prevails?


Mr. Marlin (Essex Easl):: Mr. Speaker, I fully agree it is one of those questions, and that is why it should not be put so cavalierly by way of a question without notice.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry and "rural development". Could he tell the house whether he received favourable replies to the letters he sent to the minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec in regard to the assistance to be provided to the maple sugar and maple syrup producers who have been requesting such assistance because of last spring's crop failure?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Foreslry):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has written to Hon. Alcide Courcy, minister of agriculture of the province of Quebec, but I do not know whether or not an answer was received.



PREVENTION OF SPECULATION IN FEED GRAIN FOR EASTERN FARMERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm, who was

shocked that the Minister of Forestry took some holidays but who chose to do the same, I would like to ask the Minister of Forestry what are the steps he intends to take in order to prevent speculation on feed grain to be supplied principally to eastern farmers?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the measures which were announced last year, as well as that which I announced some weeks ago, will prevent this possible speculation.



ARDA-REQUEST FOR EXTENSION OF SURVEY IN QUEBEC

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Forestry.
In view of the success of the survey conducted by his department jointly with the Quebec department of agriculture with regard to ARDA, is the minister in a position to state that his department will soon undertake, again in conjunction with the provincial department, a similar survey in the Saguenay-Lake St. John district, in order to find solutions to existing problems?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member is referring to the report tabled in the house a month ago by the Minister of Agriculture.
As far as I know it has not been decided to proceed with this type of survey for the moment.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry.
Can he tell us whether he will talk to the Minister of Agriculture about the possibility of publishing the report also in French?


Maurice Sauvé: This report is now at the bureau for translations and I hope that it will be tabled in French in the near future.


Mr. Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Forestry.
Could he tell us whether he intends to bring pressure to bear on his colleagues so that the survey will cover the other areas where problems cry for a solution? I am thinking, of course, of the Saguenay-Lake St. John area where a study like the one carried out in Gaspe is needed.
Does the minister propose to act along that line?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, the survey mentioned by the hon. member was a pilot study. We are considering the possibility of continuing along that line but no decision has been taken as yet.



PENITENTIARIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. In view of the many representations which have been received in regard to retaining the women's prison at Kingston, where it is adjacent to research and rehabilitation services, would the minister assure the house that no decision is being made to move the prison from that area?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I have already said that the matter was still open and that no formal or final decision had been taken.



OLYMPIC GAMES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In view of the announcement that the hon. member for York West will officially represent Canada at the Olympic games in Tokyo later this year, will the minister inform the house whether his expenses will be included in the sum of $122,905 provided by her department for sending Canadian athletes to Tokyo in October?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: No, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will go in my place as representative of the government, and the cost of his visit will be part of my ministerial expenses.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Transport but in his absence I will direct it to his parliamentary secretary. On page 5 of the metro edition of this mom-
Canadian Flag
ing's Toronto Globe and Mail there is a report that the president of Air Terminal Transport Limited of Malton intends to meet officials of the Toronto taxi industry as requested by the Minister of Transport. The report continues that the president hinted he would not help the Toronto taxi industry at this meeting. Is this the spirit in which the Minister of Transport desires the meeting to be held?


Mr. Jean-Charles Canlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite sure that it would be the hope of the Minister of Transport that any such meeting would be conducted in a spirit of complete co-operation.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, I should like to raise this matter at 10.30 tonight.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the house leader what arrangements he has made with the Minister of Labour and the chairman of the industrial relations committee to carry out what is in effect an undertaking by the trustees to appear before this parliamentary committee, and the undertaking by the Minister of Labour that this meeting would be proceeded with.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the matter is under consideration.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, August 12, consideration of the motion by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. G. D. Clancy (Yorkton):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very brief in concluding the remarks which I began yesterday. I would like to summarize what I said. I have no

Canadian Flag
intention of trying to prolong this debate, but I would like to look back on what I said. It is very seldom that a member of this house has the chance to read over what he said the previous evening. However, I would like to restate my basic position as an individual and as a member who I think can speak for a fair number of his constituents.
I object to the way the flag problem has been brought in; I object to the design; I object to the way we have been told "Accept it or have it shoved down your throat."
Before two o'clock I met a group of young people travelling through Canada; I rushed down to the court house to watch some new Canadians receiving their citizenship. These people who became Canadians today at 3.30 are just as good Canadians as I am, because the number of generations does not mean anything. What in the world have we got today? Why would the government bring up something that is going to split the nation wide open? I did not believe what my grandfather told me and I do not expect my grandsons to believe the prejudices I teach them, because they would be awfully stupid boys if they did. All right. We are one country. Let us face it. We have enough segregation today. We have it right across the country. There has to be a little compromise. If the Canadian people want a new flag, as a Canadian I say yes; but you show me which flag they want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: I am not asking you. I know you fellows are in the position where you are going to do it.


William Heward Grafftey: Under compulsion in some cases.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: You are going to shove it down our throats. All I want is to be able to say to my people that I have put up my argument and have said what I think about it. I am not going to hold up the business of the house over an issue which is a disgrace to the Prime Minister. You cannot do this if you want unity. I want that fellow who became a citizen at three o'clock today to be as proud of this country as I am, and you will only do it by-


An hon. Member:: The maple leaf.


Gordon Drummond Clancy: Mr. Speaker, I heard a member down at that end say to his leader "We can make some political hay out of this, all right." We are Canadians. Let us be Canadians first, last and always. If you split us

now it will take 30 years to get us back together again. You will have to start another war, and nobody wants that war.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, the last speaker waved his arms toward this end of the house and said that some member down here had said to his leader, "We can make political hay out of this". He did not name the party. There are three parties in this corner of the house, and I want to make it perfectly clear that he was not referring to the New Democratic party.


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak on the flag resolution submitted to the house by the Prime Minister and on the amendment now before us proposed by my leader, the Leader of the Opposition, I continue to be impressed by the wisdom of the amendment. It calls for reference of the question of an official national flag to the people of Canada by way of a plebiscite. I am impressed by its language. It is my opinion that its basic premise is very proper and very much justified, and its recommendation of appropriate action deserves and should have the utmost consideration by every member of the house.
In order that the amendment will be fresh in my mind, and I hope other hon. members feel likewise, I should like to quote it since in my opinion there are various aspects which require careful and thoughtful consideration. So, Mr. Speaker, the amendment reads as follows:
As the proposal to change Canada's national flag will affect-
I draw the attention of hon. members to the words "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.
There surely is no difference of opinion in this chamber with respect to the fact that the proposal to change Canada's national flag will affect the unity and destiny of Canada now and for years to come. It is my opinion, Mr. Speaker, and I say this most advisedly, that it will adversely affect the unity of Canada. I assert here and now that it is not possible to affect the unity of Canada adversely without having the destiny of Canada adversely affected as well.
I come now to the question of the plebiscite itself. Before proceeding to discuss this

phase of the matter I submit that the many assertions made in this chamber and elsewhere that we do not have a distinctive Canadian flag at the present time do not stand the test of careful examination. In this connection I would ask the house to note that it is not what I say but it is what the order in council says, and the order in council of 1945 sets out the authority.
It is a well known principle of law that usage, consent and possession over the years bring about a degree of moral and even legal claim. Twenty years is the period with regard to the law of ownership by possession. We have had this order in council in effect since 1945, 19 years, and we find that in that same order in council the year 1924 was mentioned as well. So we have the order in council of 1945 authorizing the use of the Canadian red ensign and using the words "wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag". It places the label "distinctive" upon the Canadian red ensign without any question. There is no doubt about it.
But this government is not prepared to take the judgment of Right Hon. Mackenzie King, the leader of the Liberal party in 1945 and the leader of this country for many years. They are not willing to accept that. They say we have no distinctive flag, and with that I do not agree. I might also refer to the remarks of the hon. member for Calgary North last night who quoted from Hansard of 1904, 60 years ago, to show that at that time they were talking about the Canadian red ensign flying from the flagpole on top of this building. Yet the government still tries to deny that the Canadian red ensign is the distinctive flag of Canada.
Because the order in council is not long I am going to quote it. The order in council with respect to the Canadian red ensign is P.C. 5888 and reads as follows:
Order in council re use of Canadian red ensign P.C. 5888
At the Government House at Ottawa Wednesday, the 5th day of September, 1945 Present:
His Excellency the Governor General in council:
Whereas the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, reports that by order in council P.C. 134 of January 26th, 1924, authority is given for displaying the red ensign with the shield of the coat of arms of Canada in the fly (commonly known as "the Canadian red ensign") on suitable occasions from all buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian government and situated without Canada;
That the Canadian red ensign was employed by Canadian forces during the present war; and
Canadian Flag
That, until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: I continue:
-it is desirable to authorize the flying of the Canadian red ensign on federal government buildings within as well as without Canada, and to remove any doubt as to the propriety of flying the Canadian red ensign wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
Now applaud that if you want to.
Therefore, His Excellency the Governor General in council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, is pleased to order and doth hereby order that the red ensign with the shield of the coat of arms of Canada in the fly (hereinafter referred to as the "Canadian red ensign") may be flown from buildings owned or occupied by the federal government within and without Canada.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the first duty of this government in presenting this resolution to this house is to rescind that order in council before they introduce any other resolution which in effect discards and destroys the flag authorized by the order in council of a Liberal government and recognizes the Canadian flag since 1945 by order of a committee of parliament known as the cabinet. In 1964 the Liberal cabinet does not even bother to rescind that order in council passed by another Liberal government in 1945. Apparently they wish to ignore that fact, Mr. Speaker.
I submit that the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister is incomplete. It would appear to me that it should have a preamble to this effect: "Whereas the Prime Minister and government have decided to disregard, discard and destroy the Canadian red ensign which has been recognized as the distinctive flag of Canada for many years, formalized by order in council of September 5, 1945 as the distinctive Canadian flag, now therefore be it resolved"-then the resolution standing in the name of the Prime Minister could have followed.
The amendment to this resolution is one which everyone who wishes to be equitable, reasonable and patriotic should support. It recognizes the principle of democracy; it recognizes the right of all Canadians to have a voice in the selection of a national flag. It recognizes the need for union, unity and united action. It recognizes concern for the destiny of Canada. What could be more important? What could be more appropriate?
Now I leave this particular phase of the question, and I refer to the resolution which

Canadian Flag
asks us to accept a certain design. I do not accept it. I hope the majority of the house do not. It stands for nothing by way of history and tradition. It discards the past and I submit has no appeal for the future.
I leave this point of the design for the moment and refer again to the plebiscite. I say, Mr. Speaker, that this parliament has no mandate to scrap the red ensign and choose a new national flag, the design of which is generally conceded to have been chosen by one man. Here we are, 265 representatives in this chamber, being pressured by the government to discard the flag which we have been using for many years and to vote, yes or no, on the alternative design which the Prime Minister selects. Then the Prime Minister and the government inject the question of the choice of a national flag right into the realm of partisan politics when the Prime Minister states that the government is prepared to stand or fall on the acceptance of this resolution. It must be accepted or the house is dissolved and a new parliament is elected.
This simply means that every supporter of the government will vote for it as a matter of party loyalty, unless he or she has the necessary intestinal fortitude to stand for principle rather than party and refuse to be a slave to party discipline on a matter so vital to Canada and to his conscience. There will be very few government supporters who will meet this test. There is no need for this test to be imposed. There is no need for anyone to have to make such a decision, as I will explain later.
In the meantime I continue my argument that this parliament has no mandate to choose a national flag. I base this assertion on the fact that a majority of 265 members is 133 members, and these members are asked by the government to take the responsibility for selecting a flag which will be a symbol recognized and revered, I hope, by 19 million people. This works out exactly, Mr. Speaker, to seven people per million, because seven times nineteen makes 133. Let us think this over. Should we let seven persons per million of population choose the flag for any country? This is the question I want answered here. This is the ridiculous situation with which we are confronted today, and we never should have been asked to face it.
Who is to blame? Well, the Prime Minister is, because the resolution is in his name. Generally speaking the Liberal party is to blame as well, since there will be only a few people who will put principle ahead of party. I realize the government may argue that

this was an issue in the last election. I submit it was not; not in any general way, in any event. The Prime Minister says it was promised, and perhaps that is so. Where was it promised? I say it was not emphasized, it was not even a major plank in the Liberal platform. In my constituency of Victoria-Carleton I do not recall having heard a word about it, and my opponent never mentioned it once. I have no doubt many members can make similar statements. I repeat that we have no right to arbitrarily decide upon a new national flag and discard or destroy the Canadian red ensign in the process.
Even allowing, Mr. Speaker, that there may have been a minor mention of it made in the election, the important factor is the Prime Minister did not secure a majority of the votes cast or a majority of the seats in this country. This is a minority government, and it has no mandate to proceed with such a tremendous change simply on the basis of a majority vote in parliament. The Prime Minister must know and the government must know that this change, the design, is not acceptable to a large percentage of the people of Canada. In my opinion it is not acceptable to the majority of the people of Canada. However, the government proposes to have us swallow this design. Then, they say, if you do swallow it and comply with our wishes we will let you have a few days off to spend with your wives and families in your constituencies. I cannot and I will not accept this proposition.
The Prime Minister says he is committed. I do not agree that he is, in the light of the arguments previously advanced. I say to him even if he were committed he should put Canada before commitments unwisely made in the heat of an election campaign. He should explain, and he should refrain. To carry out unwise commitments is the negation of duty. He should not force a design upon the people of Canada in view of the large number of people, I believe a majority, who do not favour its acceptance.
I have another argument to present. A change such as is contemplated by this resolution is not, generally speaking, made by the majority in any assembly. If we examine the situation in the United States in connection with amendments to the constitution, or more recently the motion stopping debate on civil rights legislation, I submit we will find that questions of that nature, which are in the same general category as the flag issue in Canada, are decided only by a two thirds majority. Surely we will acknowledge that

changing the flag of a country is equally as important as these things I have mentioned.
How should the question be dealt with? I can tell you, Mr. Speaker. The amendment proposed by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is the way to deal with it. The Prime Minister would be given great respect by all Canadians should he present his resolution as a request only for an opinion of the house rather than as a motion on which the government is prepared to stand or fall, to stake its life and the existence of this parliament. There are other ways. There is the matter of a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate. There is the question of examination. This is too important a matter to be relegated to the realm of partisan politics and decided on that basis. It is not fair; it is not right; it should not be done. There is no question about that.
I have some quotations concerning a plebiscite, which I would like to read. They are all in favour of a plebiscite, and the first one appeared in the Telegraph-Journal of May 23, 1964, written by Mrs. Jean Sweet, an outstanding woman of Saint John, New Brunswick. Her arguments favouring a plebiscite are so impressive that I would like to put them on the record:
Normally, like most peaceful citizens, I'm a coward about public issues. But I think the time has come to stand up and be counted on this flag matter.
Most people who ever saw a tree know that big trees rise from big firm roots. If you trim away the roots you weaken the tree. If too much root is removed you have nothing. The tree-that grew slowly over many decades-weakens, falls, and decays.
Loyalties grow the same way... putting down roots in friendly soil. Without loyalties-even misplaced loyalties-man is nothing but a drifting derelict.
Millions of Canadians grew up as I did in the frendly soil of a Canada we learned from earliest years to respect and view with immense pride. We were taught not to brag loudly and constantly about our land, but instead to know what we had and to feel secure in its tenets.
Above all our flag has symbolized this land. It has grown with us. From pre-school age we loved the simple but intricately planned design of the union jack-so carefully integrating the major elements of Great Britain. We were proud when we saw the Canadian coat of arms in the fly of the beautiful flag. We sang songs to it. It meant our land.
Through school days, I have no recollection of any "Quebec Question." I remember Montreal as a fascinating place I longed to see where- right in our Canada-two languages were spoken and peoples from many other lands settled and lived.
Above all, as a child I watched the proud Van Doos march through the streets of our town, where they trained-headed by the tall lean figure of Col. Vanier (I didn't know his name then, not until
Canadian Flag
I met him as our Governor General). From that time I "saw" those proud French speaking troops "fighting for our flag" as news of their exploits trickled home. When we sang "We'll never let the old flag fall" the Van Doos were in the picture, dying in France for that flag.
Well, as far as I'm concerned, no one man, no one group of troublemakers can tell me "Here is your new flag." This is a matter of roots, Canadian roots. If my flag can be readily discarded, so can my country, and any other belief I ever held in it. It is disturbing-and makes me wonder: what next?
This is a matter not for one man, one party or one government to decide. This is a matter for a clearcut vote, a national plebiscite of citizens' votes-apart from any party affiliation whatsoever. It is a matter where every citizen has a right to cast his vote for the issue-and not for the party, the man next door, the boss or any dictatorial group with whom he must identify himself.
Such a vote should be protected in every way possible from any pressures or interference. It should be most clearly stated on the ballot, beyond any possibility of misunderstanding or confusion.
It seems certain that many of our new citizens, those who chose Canada and all it stands for-
-and a few minutes ago the hon. member for Yorkton referred to them as having taken the oath-
-when they sought refuge from other lands, must favour the flag they chose and to which they have so recently sworn allegiance.
As for me...I am just one unimportant citizen (there are millions of us unimportant citizens or there would be no nation).. .but without the flag that I was taught to respect from earliest years, I should no longer "feel" Canadian.
I also quote from the Toronto Telegram, the Chatham News and the Moncton Times. The Toronto Telegram had this to say:
The people of Canada should be allowed to decide whether or not they wish to live under the flag of their forebears or discard it in favour of a new emblem...Let Mr. Pearson ask the people by referendum whether they want to replace the banner that carries the symbols of our nationhood by one that is mounted on the colour of surrender and would be most suitable for an arboretum...
The Chatham News had this to say:
Prime Minister Pearson, in announcing that he was prepared to place the life of his government on the line over the flag issue, has pulled off one of the trickiest political manoeuvres in Canadian history. The Prime Minister knows that no one- the opposition parties or the people-wants an election at this time. We agree with those who say "take it to a vote of the people."
The Moncton Times had this to say:
There is only one sound solution: That is for there to be a national referendum embracing all voters, and possibly even the younger citizens of the country. The ballot should be a comprehensive document asking if a change is desired, yes or no; if so, which of several designs does the individual favour, first, second, third, and so on, or none of them. Only in this way can there be a clear and definite expression of the people's will. The selection of a new flag should be left to the people, and the majority choice should be accepted.

Canadian Flag
I quote what the Canadian corps association
have to say:
We feel the supporters of the Canadian red ensign are more democratic in their viewpoint than the supporters of the maple leaf design for they are willing for this question to be submitted in referendum form to the people of Canada and to abide by their decision, where the maple leaf design supporters are reluctant to trust the approval of their proposed new flag to the people of Canada.
We would also like to point out in this letter, that the Canadian corps association, dominion command, considers the advice of the prime minister that a referendum on the flag would cost over $10 million is again simply another smokescreen in the flag question. Those who support the retention of the present Canadian national flag have not urged that the flag plebiscite need be conducted immediately-we do not wish to see our government waste money either, for it is the people of Canada who supply the money. The flag question ballot could be placed in with the regular voting ballots in the next scheduled general election of this country, and there most certainly is no need of either an election to be called, nor a $10 million immediate referendum when the question can be placed before the voters of this country, when the next regular general election is scheduled, and in the meantime, the present national flag should be flown as it has been for the past many years until the people of Canada signify to the contrary.
Our organization fully realizes that there are many important national problems before the present members of the House of Commons that should most definitely take precedence over the flag question, and again we reiterate, that it is not the supporters of the retention of the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag, who are forcing this issue to the foreground in parliament.
I have an editorial from the St. Croix Courier, published in St. Stephen in the county of Charlotte, New Brunswick, which newspaper ran a survey of its readers concerning a referendum or a plebiscite. It asked the people to answer this question: "Are you in favour of a public plebiscite to determine the flag issue?" I am going to read the editorial which contains the answer.
When the time finally arrives in the House of Commons for members to cast their votes on the flag issue, or rather on the amendment as provided by opposition leader Right Hon. John G. Diefen-baker, regarding a plebiscite, we would remind Dr. A. M. A. McLean to harken closely to the voice of the people who sent him to Ottawa to represent them.
Although we cannot say the result of our local referendum by special form in the Courier was encouraging, it did give a broad and penetrating viewpoint of the feelings of the people who considered it worth while to fill out the form and mail it in as requested.
As of the writing of this editorial we had received a total of 307 forms all duly completed and signed.
Remember, these were answers to the question "Are you in favour of a public plebis-

cite to decide the flag issue?" And what was the result? Three hundred people said yes, and only seven said no. That was the result of this questionnaire put out in the county of Charlotte.
Now I wish to quote an editorial which was published in The Legionary, the official organ of the Legion in Canada. This is an editorial in the July issue and the pertinent part reads as follows:
The Legionary therefore takes what is probably the last opportunity available to make one more appeal to the Prime Minister to let the people of Canada decide this crucial question. We do so because we earnestly believe a national plebiscite is by far the most clearcut way of settling the problem once and for all, and because we sincerely believe it is the only means of avoiding, so far as it is possible to do so, making it a partisan issue. Even if a "free" vote of M.P.'s and senators were allowed, there would be a natural tendency- human nature being what it is-for government supporters to vote for the government's own design, and it is far from certain that a parliamentary vote on an issue of this nature would accurately reflect the feelings of the whole people of Canada.
The Legionary believes that the flag question Is such an issue and again strongly urges the Prime Minister to let the Canadian people decide it, one way or another, through a national plebiscite. It is the most democratic way of solving this problem. It is the only way to ascertain what the people really want. And the request for a plebiscite is sure to be warmly supported by all Canadians of good will and moderation because, no matter what the result, if the issue were settled by a parliamentary vote only, grave doubts would arise in the minds of a great many citizens that it represented the will of the people. These doubts would linger on for many years and would remain a serious obstacle to the attainment of national unity.
So please, Mr. Prime Minister, let the people decide. It would be a statesmanlike solution and might well be a nation-saving move.
That is a quotation from an editorial in the official organ of the Canadian Legion. They say this would settle the matter permanently and for all time.
The amendment of the Leader of the Opposition specifically provides for consideration being given to this most important question. It provides that the people shall have the responsibility of making this decision. It allows this parliament to consider that the question has been dealt with, and the matter decided. It transcends ordinary partisan considerations and deals with the matter in a way which would be less expensive and more effective. I fail to see how any member can be other than impressed by this argument. If the house wishes to hear another argument as to the desirability of a referendum, just let hon. members look at the column by Bruce West in today's Globe

and Mail and see what this famous columnist has to say on the subject. He is warmly in favour of a plebiscite.
Now I wish to say something about the preference I have in a personal way for the Canadian red ensign. I do not wish there to be any doubt in this chamber as to where I stand. I propose to vote for the referendum because I consider that the fair way to deal with the matter before us is to refer it to the people of Canada for settlement. But as far as my personal opinion is concerned, I stand foursquare for the Canadian red ensign.
I have had much correspondence on this subject. I have talked with many people, especially to people in my own constituency. I suppose I have contacted 500 people, and so far all of them favour the retention of the Canadian red ensign with the exception of two, and only one of those favoured the design now being put forward by the Prime Minister. I have advanced my own views and they have met with approval. As a matter of fact I have received a telegram from a prominent member of the Liberal party, a resident of Fredericton-an official, I believe, of the Liberal association in the constituency of the hon. member who represents York-Sunbury in this chamber. Apart from his political views he is an outstanding man who has won honours for gallantry in action, including the Distinguished Flying Cross as a pathfinder pilot in world war II. Here is what he says:
New Brunswick command of the Canadian Legion solidly in favour of retaining the red ensign as Canada's national flag.
Some hon. members have argued in this chamber that new Canadians favour the so-called Pearson design. I do not believe they do, at any rate to the extent they have been represented as doing. We have new Canadians in this house. I wish to quote what one of them said about the flag long before this controversy was injected into parliament by resolution. The words are to be found at page 382 of Hansard for May 28, 1963. This is what this hon. member had to say, and I will identify him in a few minutes:
I was one of the more fortunate ones who succeeded in emigrating to another country, in my case to Canada, and I well recall stepping on Canadian soil and being able to see for the first time the Canadian flag which stood for principles quite contrary to those experienced under the flag of the hammer and sickle. I was also aware of the fact that under this Canadian flag thousands of Canadians had fought and given their lives to preserve freedom and democracy as we know them today, all symbolized in the Canadian flag.
Canadian Flag
Later on he said:
I am not the only one who is concerned with this issue of the flag. Many new Canadians will also be concerned with the question of a new distinctive Canadian flag, since all of them at one time or another lived under another flag. Undoubtedly, the question will arise in their minds as to whether this new flag will be one which will stand for the same high principles, the same rights and privileges that have been afforded to Canadians of whatever race, creed or colour, as those which were available under the old flag, a flag under which Canada grew to the position of high esteem in which she is held by all the countries of the world. As a result of this national issue before us, all Canadians will search their hearts and souls in an attempt to find the right answer to the question of whether or not Canada should have a distinctive Canadian flag or retain the red ensign. An answer must be found and a decision must be made.
As I said at the outset, perhaps I should have been the last man to speak about the Canadian flag. My purpose in speaking, however, is only to enumerate the high principles for which Canada stands now, and for which she stood in the past, all symbolized in our Canadian flag. However, should the time ever come when this house decides to adopt a new Canadian flag then, as one who believes in democratic majority rule, I would accept this decision and swear my loyalty to Canada under this new. distinctive Canadian flag of whatever design. At the same time, however, I should like to be around when the old flag, the red ensign, which to me is the free flag, is lowered for the last time. I should like to pay my last tribute to it, to touch it for the last time and then wipe away a tear or two because of my affection for the old Canadian flag, the only free flag 1 ever knew in my life and the flag by which Canada is known all over the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Those were the words of my hon. friend for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp). May I add that it must be a matter of great encouragement to new Canadians when they come to a country like Canada and read of the career of our hon. friend who represents that constituency. It shows that an immigrant boy has been chosen after something like 30 years to represent the people of his constituency in the highest parliament in the land. It is privileges of that kind which are contained in the things for which the flag stands. We in this house have every reason to think that the hon. member to whom I refer, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale, speaks for and represents the views of the new Canadians; we have no reason to think otherwise.
Since the Prime Minister is sensitive about election commitments I assume that he would consider them fulfilled when he presented his design to parliament. He said that he was under an obligation to present a design to par-

Canadian Flag
liament within two years. I would have presumed that when he presented it to parliament it was the fulfilment of his promise. He was under no compulsion or obligation to present his design to parliament as a government measure; that was not necessary. He was under no compulsion to have the fate of that resolution govern the life of this parliament, or to make the life of this parliament contingent upon the acceptance of his personal choice, or for that matter the acceptance of any other choice. I have never ceased to wonder who conceived the design. Whose opinion was it that the traditions of the past, emblematic of the history of this country, should be disregarded, ignored and discarded? Why should they be? Who decided to bring this design to parliament anyway? That would be a good question to have answered. The Prime Minister and his ministers apparently do not consider the question important enough even to justify their participation in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Hugh John Flemming: Apart from the Prime Minister not one of them has stood up and said one word in this debate in defence of the resolution which has been presented and for which they are going to vote. I should like to know what are the views of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) who sits opposite me. Where does the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) stand? What about the Solicitor General (Mr. MacNaught) who represents Prince Edward Island? Where does he stand on this?


Mr. MacNaught:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Hugh John Flemming: I am not
yielding the floor.


John Watson MacNaught: I rise on a point of order.


Hugh John Flemming: There is no question of order here.


John Watson MacNaught: A question of privilege.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High
Park)): Order. I think the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton requested an answer from the hon. gentleman, and he should be given the opportunity to answer.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker-


Hugh John Flemming: No, I
am not yielding the floor; not because I do not want to, but because my time will soon be up.
[Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1


John Watson MacNaught: I have a question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High
Park)): I would ask the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton to resume his seat and bow to my ruling.


Some hon. Members:: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker-


John Watson MacNaught: My hon. friend-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: Order. I recognize the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, may I
speak? I was going to compliment you on being in the chair, and at the same time I would say to you there is no question of privilege here or any right to rise at all at this time, irrespective of the fact that it would be most commendable at least to have an opinion from one of the ministers.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: With all due deference to the Leader of the Opposition, and thanking him for his complimentary remarks, the hon. member for Victoria-Carleton did ask the minister who wishes to raise a question of privilege to state where he stood on this matter, and I have granted to him that privilege. When he has answered I think that will be sufficient.


Mr. Nugent:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the minister can make a speech later, or can answer the question later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: With all respect to the hon. member I do not think that is a point of order.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member who posed the question, the stand of the Solicitor General will be made abundantly clear when the vote is taken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, that is exactly the answer that I expected. He is going to stand up and have his nose counted, and that is all he has to say about the matter. What about the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (Mr. Benidickson)? Where does he stand?


Mr. Benidickson:: I will vote, too.


Hugh John Flemming: So, Mr. Speaker, they acknowledge that they are

going to yield to the crack of the party whip no matter what happens to the country.


An hon. Member:: They do what the whip tells them. Trained seals.


Hugh John Flemming: I ask
the question, who brought this design to parliament? Who made the decision?


John George Diefenbaker: The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette).


Hugh John Flemming: Was it
the government or the caucus of the Liberal party? That is the question which I think the people of Canada will want to have answered in no uncertain terms and at the proper time.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: It is already answered.


Hugh John Flemming: The ministers do not consider it important enough even to get up and try to justify-they could not, of course, but they do not even try to justify-their attitude. They make no attempt. All they say is that they are going to be counted and that they are going to count for one. That is wonderful. We cannot reconcile such an attitude in this parliament.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: Order. I regret to inform the hon. member that his time has expired, although I know we all regret that we will not be able to hear the rest of his speech.


Hugh John Flemming: Mr. Speaker, I lost about five minutes by the interjections which were made.


Some hon. Members:: Carry on.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)):: Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Hugh John Flemming: All right. They just cannot take the truth. They do not want to hear the truth.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker-
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High
Park)): Is the hon. member rising on a question of privilege or point of order?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member had not resumed his seat. I was about to ask him to resume his seat because his time had expired and he was still speaking.


Some hon. Members:: Closure.
Canadian Flag


Mr. Monleilh:: Why? Do you want the floor?
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High
Park)): I was under the impression, when I asked whether the hon. member has unanimous consent to proceed, that he had it.


Some hon. Members:: No.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)): If he has not I will have to ask him to resume his seat. Has the hon. member unanimous consent to proceed?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Refused by the Liberals.
The Acling Speaker (Mr. Cameron (High Park)): I regret I hear a few noes, so I will have to ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I find it very difficult to rise and follow an hon. member who has pleaded so eloquently with the Prime Minister to reconsider a problem of his own creation.
I must at the outset, Mr. Speaker, express my amazement at your most recent ruling, when Your Honour stood in your place and informed the hon. gentleman that his time had expired and he would not be heard further, without first asking the house whether they agreed to let him go on. It is a precedent that I am sure will be used in the future.
I rise to speak because the Prime Minister has again extended to all members of this house an invitation to participate in this debate. Some of the questions that I propose to deal with today are my views on how this matter could be settled without very much difficulty. First of all, I think we should try to understand that there are those for and those against the red ensign and the new flag. When we talk about the red ensign I think it has, more than any other emblematic device in Canada, an emotional and historic sentiment attached to it. I am speaking specifically of wives who lost their husbands in the last war, of mothers who lost their sons and daughters, of children who lost their fathers, and of those children whose fathers lie in our veteran institutions today, some crippled for life and others who will never again see the outside world. When you talk to these people, as I have on a number of occasions, you find that the red ensign is something very, very dear to their hearts.
I intend to quote from some letters I have received from veterans in the last week

Canadian Flag
or two, and I hope hon. members will then realize why I intend to pursue this argument a little further. When I pose my argument this afternoon I would like to point out some of the reasons why I know of so many who are opposed to the new flag, in its present form at least.
First of all, I think it was the Postmaster General who in a speech away from Ottawa, when asked what was his interpretation of the design, pointed out that he understood it to mean that one leaf represented the English, one leaf represented the French, and the third leaf represented the other ethnic groups in Canada. I think we should talk about that for a moment, because we have English and French members in this House of Commons as well as those who belong to other ethnic groups. I happen to belong to one of those ethnic groups; I am of Ukrainian parentage. My grandfather arrived in Canada when he was 17 years old. He married a young lady, years and years ago, who had also emigrated to Canada in her early years.
The press and the Prime Minister have on occasion tried to tell some of us in this house that the ethnic groups in this country desire a new national flag. I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that this representation was never made to me, and I am as close to the ethnic organizations in this country as any other member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


William Skoreyko: Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the very suggestion that some day we might be flying a flag which has on it three maple leaves, each leaf representing a different group or faction in this country, will mean that my children and the children of every member in this House of Commons will ask, "I wonder what leaf on that flag I belong to". I think if the government has seriously in mind a national flag that is going to unite this country, we should take another look at the red ensign.
Why not be reasonable and accept the proposal that has been put forward to the Prime Minister? I know he has received this proposal because I have copies of letters that were sent to the Prime Minister of this country which contain specific recommendations in this regard, namely for a slight modification to the red ensign, which would not only please the people who at the moment support the red ensign as it is, but those who support having a new flag, if that is what you want to call it. It would also please those who are

indifferent at the moment; and there are a great many people in the country who are completely indifferent to this flag issue.
Let us talk about this new flag. How was it chosen, Mr. Speaker? The leader of our party, Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker, moved an amendment in the House of Commons which called for a referendum. There is nothing fairer than getting the majority of the people of Canada to decide on the kind of flag they wish to have flown. When we consider this new flag it is very interesting to go through one's files in search of some interesting comments. I have done this, and the first interesting comment I saw was dated May 20. It is an article headed "P.M. told newsmen of flag decision". Well, Mr. Speaker, on May 15 a question was asked in the house as to whether a decision on a new flag had been made, and the answer was in the negative. This article says:
At a few minutes before 6 p.m. last Thursday, eight men-all members of the parliamentary press gallery-left their desks in various parts of town and made their way to the Sussex drive home of Prime Minister Lester Pearson where they had been invited to discuss the issue of Canada's national flag.
The eight, all editors, reporters or magazine writers, were shown into the newly decorated, grey-green living room where the Prime Minister relaxed with a scotch and soda, waiting to try his hand at "kite-flying" or, as some who attended the session called it later, "news management."
This is how this proposed flag came into being. I wonder how many people in Canada are aware of the fact that this new flag was born over a glass of scotch and soda.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Mr. Caron:: That is cheap enough.


William Skoreyko: That is what the newspaper article says.


Alexis Pierre Caron: Well, that is cheap enough.


William Skoreyko: Yes, it is cheap enough; it is a cheap way of introducing a flag into this house. The article continues:
Kiting a news story is a long established political technique. Certain newspapermen are fed information from what they believe is a responsible source, and are encouraged to write it without attribution.
Government or party higher-ups then can fudge public reaction and take this into account when they decide to go ahead or withdraw from the course they are considering.
If the Prime Minister had heeded those letters-and I intend to put some of them on the record this afternoon-and the requests of those people who wrote and asked him to withdraw his flag proposal, we would not

be debating the question this afternoon. The article goes on to say:
It is doubtful whether any of them anticipated the "hard" news they got-that Mr. Pearson had personally chosen a flag design: that he had sent a telegram to the Queen informing her; that the red ensign would not be on a new Canadian flag, and that he was going to lay the whole matter before the Royal Canadian Legion convention in Winnipeg the next Sunday.
What a Sunday, Mr. Speaker, to bring such news to veterans. I referred a moment ago to those wives, those mothers, those sons, those daughters, whose husbands and fathers lie on their backs in institutions today and may never walk again. It was to these people that the Prime Minister chose to break the news on that fatal Sunday. There was an editorial in one of the newspapers in the west hoping that the flag issue would not be pursued because it might turn out to be a drape for Mr. Pearson's political bier. I can assure you that editorial writer was not a veteran of the last war. He is much too young for that, but that was his feeling in this regard.
The other question that bothers me in relation to the flag resolution is that a normal resolution in the House of Commons will read along these lines: "That it is expedient that the houses of parliament do approve". But the flag resolution reads in this way:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada-
And so on. What the resolution in fact says is that if anyone said no the government, if parliament approves the resolution as it reads at the moment, would have the power to declare war on anybody who might object to the flying of this flag. I think the motives behind such a resolution are worth considerable research.
Why do I suggest that a plebiscite or referendum is probably the solution to this dilemma? First of all, I think every individual as a Canadian citizen in a democratic country is entitled to express a point of view in a matter as emotionally charged as the flag issue. We must remember that the younger groups, particularly the school age children, have no historic attachment to the red ensign, but their fathers and mothers certainly have. I do not suggest for one moment that my boy, who is quite young now, is going to be particularly worried 20 years from now about what happens in the House of Commons today or whether it should or should not happen again. But I can tell you that even at his young age he knows and understands
Canadian Flag
something about the red ensign and loves it dearly.
I should like to bring to your attention in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that the other day when I was walking from this building to my office in the west block I met a little boy carrying a red ensign. Two other little boys were walking toward him and I asked them what they thought of that flag. They said "Oh, it is beautiful; we love it". The mother said "Now, now, Tommy, you know you should not say that". So the young are being told how they should feel and what they should say when they are asked questions with respect to the new flag.
With regard to a referendum, which I say is the only solution to our dilemma, the Gazette of August 5 suggested that there should be some sort of compromise. I intend to deal with this editorial more fully, but it suggested that the leaders of all parties in the House of Commons should get together and arrive at an acceptable design. I do not need to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that such a procedure is probably one of the most unlikely to succeed. They say that the prime consideration so far as the government is concerned should be to unite the country and keep it from dividing further. With regard to a compromise the editorial goes on to say:
The first of these is the objection to the flag in its present design. Even many of those who would favour a distinctive flag for the country have felt that the design offered-a design produced in conspicuous haste-falls below the standard of what might reasonably be expected. A more attractive flag-
They are suggesting other designs, but they are also suggesting that in the end surely there must be some way whereby all the parties, if they wanted to be reasonable, could decide on a modification of the red ensign to suit everybody no matter what their feelings on the matter. If we do not succeed in having our amendment asking for a referendum adopted, what is going to happen? Yesterday the hon. member for Lisgar spoke quite eloquently about what he thought would happen if we do not get a referendum. He made particular reference to an editorial in the Globe and Mail entitled "A Collision Course". It reads in part as follows:
In his haste to give Canada a distinctive national flag Prime Minister Lester Pearson has set his government and the nation itself on a collision course. There is still time for him to alter it. But there is not very much time.
I suggest that is right, Mr. Speaker. There is not very much time. They go on to say that this is the time for statesmanship, and

Canadian Flag
that the Prime Minister should call in the leaders of the four opposition parties and thresh out the whole matter with them. They say that he should attempt to find agreement on a method of proceeding with the flag resolution and keeping the debate within bounds.
That is too much to hope for, Mr. Speaker, because the Prime Minister has indicated that the flag resolution has priority on his list of legislative matters, and he is determined to go through with the flag debate even if it costs the government its life. In an editorial on May 26 last the Edmonton Journal reviews the flag question and makes this comment:
Mr. Pearson's haste, and his total commitment, on the flag issue are on the face of things inexplicable. With so many problems bedevilling our country-
They are many, Mr. Speaker.
-why must he single out this issue and, in effect, stake the survival of his government, to say nothing of his own political future, on the result? It seems foolhardy and senseless...
Ottawa is in some danger of ceasing to be the real capital of Canada. There is a danger, that is to say, that the federal power will lose control of Canadian affairs. If this happens, our country is obviously doomed; it will disintegrate into a number of fragments, none of which can, by itself, survive as a sovereign nation.
The flag issue, as we see it, is therefore an attempt to do two things at once: to demonstrate the genuine desire of the Pearson government to reach a rational accommodation with Quebec, and thereby to re-establish Ottawa's power to control Canadian affairs.
It is, as we say, perilous-more perilous because Mr. Pearson for obvious reasons cannot publicly explain what is going through his mind...
There are more Anglo Saxons than French Canadians in Canada. Is it reasonable to ask them to abandon something which the vast majority of them hold precious?
During the past few weeks, the question has caused much heartsearching in the office of this newspaper...
There is, of course, no guarantee that a new flag will accomplish anything of the kind. But if parliament agrees to a new flag tomorrow-
This is a strong editorial, Mr. Speaker.
-it should simultaneously be made clear to Quebec that this, as the Calgary Herald rightly pointed out a day or two ago, represents a massive concession. It should also be pointed out that Quebec can expect no more concessions of this magnitude.
For this reason, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister tries to make the people of Canada believe that the flag is being introduced for them, a nation of 19 million people. This editorial says the action is taken solely to satisfy Quebec. If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, why does the Prime Minister not stand up in this house and say so? Perhaps if he did make such a statement, then the rest of Canada

might consider some of the better after effects of such a move.
The editorial goes on to say:
The rest of Canada will be entitled to paraphrase some famous words of the late John F. Kennedy. We can properly say to French Canada: "Let us stop talking about what Canada should do for Quebec, and let us start talking about what Quebec is prepared to do for Canada".
Then again, Mr. Speaker, when I look at some of the reasons for the introduction of this flag resolution, I cannot help but think of Mackenzie King who always looked upon England as a country we should stay away from.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course that is not true.


William Skoreyko: It is true, and I intend to read a document I have here which will satisfy the minister's curiosity.


Paul Joseph James Martin: It is not my
curiosity; it is my knowledge.


William Skoreyko: Then, it will correct his knowledge. This editorial is entitled, "Republic of Canada", and reads in part as follows:
During much of his political life Mackenzie King feared and fought what might be called the philosophy of the imperial commonwealth.


Paul Joseph James Martin: That is different; so did the Leader of the Opposition.


John George Diefenbaker: We would like to hear a speech from the hon. gentleman on this subject.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would be glad to make one.


William Skoreyko: I continue quoting:
He had a deep distrust of centralizers in London and an unswerving opposition to an empire approach to politics, economics, trade or defence. He was determined that Canada should be a sovereign nation in full charge of its own destiny at home and abroad. To Mackenzie King must go much of the credit for the events that culminated in the Statute of Westminster.
But at times King's determination that Canada should be mistress in her own house became a suspicious obsession-
This could never be attributed to anyone else.
-as incidents in Vincent Massey's recent book of memoirs so clearly reveal. Furthermore King imbedded both the determination and obsession in the Liberal party of which he was undisputed custodian for so many years.
To the end of his life King did not seem to realize that his great battle to make Canada an independent nation had been won-at least as far as London was concerned. To the end he remained militant and wary. He bequeathed his attitude to

his party as a legacy when he departed. His successors continued to act as if the outcome were still in doubt.
I hope the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) is satisfied with this article.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I say to my hon. friend, if he will permit me, that the views of Mackenzie King with regard to the commonwealth were precisely those of Sir Robert Borden of the Conservative party.


John George Diefenbaker: Not at all.


William Skoreyko: I thank the minister for that observation. Were they the same as those of Louis St. Laurent? I continue to quote from the editorial:
Louis St. Laurent, when he was prime minister, adopted a deliberate policy of expunging symbols from Canada's past that were intimately connected with this nation's origins. The first indication was when the time-honoured designation "dominion government" disappeared from telephone directories from sea to sea. It was replaced by the phrase "government of Canada".
Then the designation royal mail was placed under a cloud and the term "Canada post" was accorded official favour. Then there was the deliberate policy of combing through federal statutes to eliminate the word "dominion". The fact that the word was scriptural and chosen by the Fathers of Confederation was overshadowed by the suspicion in certain quarters that somehow it denoted subservience. There was an attempt to force the dominion bureau of statistics to become the bureau of statistics and so on.
There seemed to be a deliberate policy of rooting out little by little distinctive terms and designations that bound the nation to its past.
Years ago Dr. Eugene Forsey asked: "Where is it all going to stop? Are we going to wake up some morning and find ourselves citizens of the republic of Canada? It looks like it. But I think there are a lot of people who don't want it."
Prime Minister Pearson's preoccupation with the flag issue and the manner in which he has brought it forward make these questions even more relevant and disturbing today. The arguments Mr. Pearson has advanced for getting rid of the red ensign could be applied with equal force to getting rid of the monarchy. Is this the ultimate goal of the policy and program initiated by Mackenzie King and carried on by his successors?
The people of Canada have a right to ask this question and to expect an unequivocal answer from Mr. Pearson and his advisers.
Then, the last line of the editorial reads:
Is the Liberal party dedicated to turning this country into a republic?
The minister of external affairs may like to answer that question. In so far as a distinctive Canadian flag is concerned, the previous speaker eloquently pointed out the reasons he felt there should be no change made. Every member of this House of Commons has
Canadian Flag
received a small pamphlet, similar to the one I now hold in my hand, from the various Legions across the country. I cannot help but refer to one little paragraph in it. There is a reference to a statement made by General H. D. Crerar, the distinguished commander of the first Canadian army in world war II. In recording an incident of great historical significance for all Canadians he recounted an official welcome accorded him on August 8, 1945 by the wartime prime minister, Right Hon. Mackenzie King. He said that as they moved away from the central entrance of the parliament buildings Mr. King turned and looked up to the peace tower at the top of which the Canadian red ensign waved and said, "And that, General, is another problem which your Canadian army solved for Canada, the matter of our national flag". The previous speaker put on the record all the information necessary with reference to orders in council 588 and 134, and I will not do that at this moment because I have very limited time remaining and I want to deal with some of the opinions that have been expressed with respect to this resolution by people not only in my own riding but all across Canada.
At the outset I must say that of the 200 to 250 letters I received in the last month, two asked me as the member of parliament for Edmonton East to support the new flag. The others asked me to support the red ensign or a modification of it. A few minutes ago I noted with some concern the lack of interest shown in this flag debate by other parties in the house, and I was particularly amazed to see there was only one Social Crediter sitting in his place when the previous speaker was on his feet. I find this difficult to understand, since I have here a copy of a resolution sent to me by the Social Credit women's league of the province of Alberta, asking me to support the red ensign. I shall indeed communicate with these women and tell them the degree to which that party has participated in the debate.
I have here a short note from a veteran of the first world war, and clipped to it is a newspaper picture of the red ensign with the words written on it "our flag." There is also another newspaper picture of the three maple leaves and the appropriate note on it says: "Reminds one of a firescreen." The letter reads:
Enclosed is a picture of the only flag we need. It covers all ethnic groups and unites all Canada. While the maple leaf is good, it does not represent western Canada-

Canadian Flag
In fact the maple leaf does not grow in western Canada.


Barry Mather: Yes, in B.C.


William Skoreyko: You do not have the maple leaf that is known to eastern Canada. If the Minister of Forestry (Mr. Sauve) were present he would be able to tell you there is no such thing as an eastern maple leaf west of the great lakes.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Nobody said it had to be an eastern maple leaf.


William Skoreyko: I said there was no maple leaf such as is known in eastern Canada, west of the great lakes.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Of course that is quite inaccurate.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Get up and make your speech.


Murdo William Martin: Have you made yours?


Jay Waldo Monteith: Not yet.


Murdo William Martin: Let me know when.


William Skoreyko: The letter continues:
-and no one group should dictate what flag we fly as representing the whole of Canada.
We are sorry the people have no chance to decide the issue, and we hope our representative will use his vote and influence in retaining the only flag for Canada, the red ensign.
Here is one that says:
If that proposed flag of the Prime Minister's is accepted, then Canada deserves to be the wishy-washy nation that flag signifies. Canada will then deserve to be a spineless satellite of any nation on this earth. It will forfeit its heritage of being a nation. That is what absence of the union jack means.
Another one says:
God forbid that a Canadian flag should ever be designed which does not have the union jack on it somewhere.
A flag is more than a cloth waving in the breeze, with colour on it, and a design. It is a language; it stirs feeling in the hearts of men; it fosters leadership; it promotes loyalty; it engenders love; men give their lives for it; women weep and remain steadfast. A flag has no language barrier- it is understood by all.
The Edmonton Social Credit women's auxiliaries council sent the following resolution to the Prime Minister:
The Social Credit women's auxiliaries council of Edmonton, Alberta, is unanimously in favour of retaining the red ensign as our national flag; or incorporating the union jack in a new distinctive Canadian flag.

I can get little response from the Social Crediters here. Here is another one:
My parents are Russian born, my blood is Russian but I am a loyal Canadian Queen loving subject in spite of all that, and it breaks my heart to see Mr. Pearson giving Canada away.
Here is another:
I want to keep the red ensign as Canada's flag.
We have just returned from a trip to Europe, and it was always with pride we saw our Canadian red ensign flying alongside the flags of other countries.
What a wealth of history is told by the symbols on our flag. No one comments on the coat of arms it bears. This ties the history of our country into one. It represents England, Scotland, Ireland and France and then has the three maple leafs for the new land. The union jack in the left top comer tells the world we are a Christian nation. I don't think there is a flag anywhere with more meaning.
Please do your best to keep it flying.
Here is a man who says what he thinks:
For my own part I say, without equivocation, that whatever parliament may do I will neither recognize, acknowledge, nor pay tribute to any flag that does not bear the union jack. Moreover, while I can respect those who want to get rid of the union jack because they hate it, I can only feel unutterable contempt for those who are so flabby and limp, so devoid of manly sentiment, one way or the other, that they are willing to "go along with" anything at all that consists with what they conceive to be to their own personal advantage. And what claim has any flag-however aesthetically pleasing-to the reverence and affection of a nation, which flag is no more than the product of a transient politician's "hankering"-hankering, mark you.
Even if it had no other history, the red ensign has marked the rallying point for the men of Canada in two great wars. Not only men of British origin but Ukrainians, Norwegians, Danes and many other races because they thought it stood for those things they believed in.
It inspired men to face the test of "going over the top" in the first great war and sustained them when-stricken, grieved but proud-their sons-in many cases the only son-failed to return from some desperate sortie over enemy territory in the second.
This is what another letter to the Prime Minister says:
I do not suppose you will read the enclosed. My purpose in sending it is that you may know that 1 do not say things about anyone in a letter that I am not prepared to say to their face.
Your argument is completely fallacious and you know very well that it is. Your friends to the south have absorbed millions of newcomers to Canada's thousands, yet never has anyone suggested changing the stars and stripes. There is no reason why we should do away with our Canadain ensign. Add a wreath of maple leafs, yes. It would make it more distinctively Canadian. But that, Mr. Pearson, is not your real purpose.
I will not deal with any more of the correspondence I have received in connection with this matter but I should like to make

one brief reference to a cartoon which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen and a reply thereto by General Charles Foulkes, former chairman of the chiefs of staff. I think it is worth putting on record. The last paragraph contained these words:
To have affection and pride for a flag and a symbol which was once a flag of battle seems to me to be misunderstood by some people. Perhaps it is because they never saw, or wanted to see, that emblem-


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


William Skoreyko: I have only a few brief comments to make before I conclude.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to the hon. member continuing his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Liberal closure.


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenleuil-Deux-Mon-tagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of taking part in this debate which has lasted already long enough, but after listening to the remarks of some hon. members opposite, I thought it my duty to express dispassionately an opinion based on reason.
Our hon. friends opposite said that they already had their flag, that Canada already had a distinctive flag with the red ensign, a flag connected with our history and the traditions of our land. If so, I congratulate them and envy them because, as for me, I have never had a Canadian flag. And I say this without the least resentment. On the contrary, I envy those who were able to fly, in the front of their house, a flag which they considered as the flag of their country.


Clément Vincent: Who gave it?


Vincent Drouin: Personally, I considered the red ensign not as a Canadian flag but as a sign that my country, Canada, was dominated by another.
England was a good colonizing power and I think we would not have fared better under France.
I never felt that the battle of the plains of Abraham was either a victory or a defeat. It was just something that happened in the history of my country. But the Westminster treaty has for me the importance of a victory because it was a decisive step towards my country's independence, and I feel that the adoption of a truly national flag will somehow
Canadian Flag
complement that treaty and constitute a symbol of independence.
My family has been in Canada for 11 generations. My ancestor, Robert Drouin, came from France in 1649. He gave up everything to settle in a new country. He did so without any second thought; he came to a new country with a new spirit just like those who, every day, get their Canadian citizenship. In fact, those people have also left their country without looking back. They came to Canada, a country they believed to be independent.
Recently, a neighbour of mine came to my place to ask me if I could get him a small three maple leaf flag like the one I had on the radio antenna of my car. I knew that he was of English origin and that he had been living in Canada for a short while only. When I asked him why he wanted to fly the proposed flag he told me: When I came to Canada from England, my native land, some ten years ago, I left everything behind. I also left the union jack and I have come to Canada as to a new country.
And he said: "Now, I am a Canadian".
Mr. Speaker, why should we, who have lived here for generations, not be as Canadian as this man? Why are some of us more British than Canadian?
As far as I am concerned, I am proud to be French Canadian. I am proud to be linked with France by cultural bonds, but I do not want any political links with France. I do not wish to see either the fleur-de-lis or the tricolor on the future Canadian flag. I want, for my country, an essentially Canadian flag, a flag which will reflect Canada's independence. And I am certainly not the only one who thinks so.
I believe that others than Canadians of French origin, or people from Quebec, will share my views. We have heard the proof here in the House. There was not a single French Canadian member, nor even any member, whether French or English speaking, from the province of Quebec, who wanted to retain the red ensign as the Canadian flag, notwithstanding the respect and admiration he might have for that emblem.
On the other hand, there are, in the house, a few dozen English speaking or new Canadian members, who unreservedly support the three leaf flag.
Our friends opposite want a referendum, to submit the question of a distinctive flag to the Canadian people. Their argument is based on the fact that there was a referendum in 1942 to authorize conscription in

Canadian Flag
Canada. They say, moreover: "If this has been done in 1942, why not do it again in 1964?"
I would like to tell them that there is an essential difference. In 1942, the government submitted the conscription issue to the Canadian people by way of referendum so as to be freed of a promise made to the Canadian people.
However, in submitting its flag resolution before parliament this year, the government is not going back on a promise, quite the contrary, it is fulfilling a promise made to the Canadian people.
When I agreed, in June 1962 and in April 1963, to run as a Liberal candidate, I then accepted the plank of the party platform concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag within two years of our accession to power.
There were many items in the party platform, some of them, incidentally, not very exciting. But still, when I accepted to be a candidate, I went along with the whole Liberal party program. And those who voted Liberal in 1962 and 1963 were endorsing the program of the Liberal party, including the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag.
Therefore, when this resolution is put to the house, I think I will be expressing the desire of those who returned me to the House of Commons by voting in favour of the threeleaved emblem.
Our Conservative opponents-I should rather say our Conservative friends, because there are no opponents in the House of Commons, at least I do not think so; there should be only men working as honestly as possible for the welfare of their country- our Conservative friends say that the threeleaved design is the project of one man, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I may say that is wrong. It is true that the Prime Minister kept his word. My hon. friends opposite may not be used to such a way of doing things, but we on this side of the house are proud of our leader who had the courage to give leadership to his party and to the government of this country, not by treading the easiest roads, but who accepted the difficulties threatening his undertaking, to administer the business of the country with his well-known sincerity and ability.
I think that when the three-leaved flag is officially adopted as the Canadian flag, we can say that never, in any country, a flag will have been chosen after so much consideration and care.
You know, Mr. Speaker, how, in most countries, a flag was adopted or replaced. During the night following the revolution, some rag was picked up, a design was planned and the next day, that was the flag of that country and all were proud of their flag because it meant freedom and independence.
What has the government done? It did not impose, as it could have done, some flag through an order in council. The Prime Minister asked a group of experts to study the some 5,000 projects which had been submitted.
He asked those specialists in heraldry to make a selection.
He said afterwards, not on his own behalf but for the government which is charged with looking after the business of the country- he is not imposing it through an order in council-that he was submitting the proposal to the approval of 265 freely elected members of the House of Commons so that they would make it the Canadian flag, not at a moment's notice, for the Prime Minister is leaving to everyone the time to voice freely his opinions on this matter. He also gives newspapermen the necessary time to express their opinions, he gives every Canadian citizen the opportunity to write to his member to voice his views.
I think that under the circumstances the 265 members elected by the Canadian people are qualified to give a flag to their country, and that is what I will do, and I will feel that I have done my duty when I vote for the three-leaved flag.


Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I am entering this debate because I think the changing of a national emblem, such as the flag is so important that every member of parliament, regardless of party and how he feels on the issue, should express his opinion and the opinions of those whom he represents in this house. To say that any member who wishes to speak on an issue as important as this is obstructing the work of parliament, that he is filibustering because he wishes to express an opinion on the matter, is to my mind a complete negation of what parliament stands for and what our freedom is. To say that we who are the official opposition should meekly fold our hands and allow this resolution to pass reminds us, and I am sure reminds the country, of a previous Liberal administration whose arrogant attitude was: "We know what is good for you; now just be quiet and take it". We have a

right to be heard. Speaking out against this white flag is the only weapon we can use to register our opposition. It is not only our right but our duty to use it to the full.
The flags of the great nations of the world have over the years been the symbol, the rallying point in times of crisis. The stars and stripes of the United States of America, the union jack and the tricolor of France have been unifying influences under which people of various racial origin and creeds have stood as one. Now the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this country proposes to force upon millions of loyal Canadians a flag which has no tradition, a flag which has been shown by recent public opinion polls to have less public acceptance than the flag we now fly. It is not a unifying influence, certainly, but a divisive one at a time when Canada is already deeply troubled by unrest in one of its founding provinces: I ask hon. members to note that it is only one province. I would point out to the Prime Minister that nine out of the ten provinces of Canada have indicated that more of their people want the red ensign than want any other flag. I would point out to the government that there are many millions of loyal Canadians, such as those in the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire, the Orange lodges, the women's institutes, the Royal Canadian Legion, the Canadian corps association and many other organizations who have gone on record as very strongly in favour of that flag which has been our recognized emblem for many years.
I would like to discuss the Prime Minister's so-called flag address at the opening of the Royal Canadian Legion convention in Winnipeg in May. I was one of those who were there that evening. Over the years I have been deeply interested in the welfare of veterans and have served on dominion and provincial levels of the Royal Canadian Legion. I was not one of those who in any way interrupted the Prime Minister. The feelings of the Royal Canadian Legion about the red ensign are well known. The Legion supports the red ensign. It supports a national plebiscite on the question. In my file, which is a very heavy one, of telegrams and letters of support for the red ensign, is one letter from the national president of the Canadian Legion supporting, on behalf of that organization, the red ensign. Another is from the New Brunswick president of the Royal Canadian Legion, an office which I once held. He is a close personal friend of mine and also supports the red ensign. The hon. member for
Canadian Flag
Victoria-Carleton (Mr. Flemming) mentioned this gentleman. He is a decorated war veteran wearing the Distinguished Flying Cross and whose brother gave his life in world war II. He has been, as the hon. member said, over the years a loyal supporter of the Prime Minister and the Liberal party.
At the opening of the Legion convention more than 1,000 veterans were present, and I would say at the most 10 or 20 registered their objections vocally during the Prime Minister's address. I do not condone that type of behaviour, Mr. Speaker, but it is surprising to me that there were not many, many more who objected. Certainly the majority were deeply disturbed. Yes, they were deeply offended. It is a tribute to the delegates that they showed the admirable self-restraint that they did.
As the Legion points out in an editorial in the July issue of The Legionary, of which I think every member has a copy:
No Legion officer on any level had been notified previously by the Prime Minister or any member of his staff that the main subject of his address at the opening ceremony would deal with the flag issue. That, in effect, he would use the occasion as a springboard for launching a national flag campaign.
The Prime Minister had given no advance notice whatever of his intent to the Legion, though obviously the press gallery in Ottawa and other news media must have been tipped off because they were in Winnipeg in full force for the occasion.
Personally, I think, as do others, it was exceptionally poor taste on the part of the Prime Minister to issue this challenge to an organization of the high standing of the Canadian Legion at its national convention. A few days later one of the most vicious cartoons I have ever seen appeared in the Ottawa Citizen. This cartoon depicts two veterans, obviously members of the Canadian Legion, apparently intoxicated. Outside the window Mr. Pearson is running along with his three maple leaf flag, and the caption underneath is, "I guess we showed him, didn't we?" The inference in the cartoon is obviously that veterans and members of the Canadian Legion are drunkards, that they are boors. It is an uncalled for slur upon an organization which is the acknowledged spokesman of the more than one million men and women who, like the Prime Minister of this country, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and many others, put on the Canadian uniform and offered their lives in the defence of that freedom which we enjoy today in this country. I have seen no apology in the Ottawa Citizen for this cartoon. I would say it is to

Canadian Flag
the eternal credit of the mayor of Ottawa, Miss Whitton, that she sent a telegram to the Legion convention apologizing on behalf of the city of Ottawa for this disgraceful cartoon.
It seems to me that we do not need a new flag to have a distinctive flag. Canada now has a distinctive flag, one that symbolizes its spiritual and cultural heritage. In 1921 the Canadian government requested King George V to order a new coat of arms for Canada. His Majesty instructed the royal college of heralds to design a suitable coat of arms, which was then placed on the red ensign. I wonder if some of those who are shouting for the end of the red ensign have taken the trouble to learn the significance of the design it bears. The couchant lion in the coat of arms was the symbol of William of Normandy-it originated in France. The red lion is the traditional emblem of the kings of Scotland, from whom it can be traced back by devious routes to the ancient tribe of Judah, which legend says founded the city of London 1100 B.C. Ireland is represented by the harp. The fleur-de-lis emblem was brought to Canada by the early French settlers. It is the emblem of a France which no longer exists-a royalist, not a republican, France. And, finally, there are the three maple leaves to symbolize the union of people of all racial origins in the new country of Canada. All our history is embodied in these emblems on the flag we now have. Since 1924 it has been the recognized emblem of Canada all over the world. Canadian troops fought under it in world war II, then in Korea, and are carrying it proudly today in Cyprus. Canadian Olympic teams carry the red ensign, and it flies over all buildings owned or occupied by the federal government or its agencies both in and beyond Canada. It has been the distinctive flag of Canada by official proclamation since 1945. Nothing can grow if it is severed from its roots. To try to cut Canada off from the roots of its traditions and its history can only have a withering effect, set province against province and culture against culture. We do not need a new flag; we need a return to the ideals and principles upon which our country was founded.
The matter of a free vote on this flag issue has been much discussed both within and without this house. A lot has been said about the freedom of members to vote as they choose, without regard for party lines. But how can it be called a free vote when the Prime Minister has stated unequivocally that he is staking his government's life on the outcome? How can members of this house
[Mr. MacRae.l
who support the government vote against the flag measure, when they know that if the Prime Minister's flag is not adopted it will mean forcing another general election on the Canadian people? On May 19 the Prime Minister stated:
I think I should make it quite clear that when the government submits to parliament a matter of policy-and this is certainly a matter of policy- the government must stand or fall on the results of the decision of the house.
Arthur Blakely, writing on the subject recently in the Montreal Gazette, had this to say-and he said it very well-on the dilemma in which certain members must find themselves on this issue;
If they vote one way, their consciences may be maintained in good working order, but their government may go down the drain. If they vote for the other side of the proposition, the government would survive while their consciences might be lost. So there it is. Liberal M.P.'s will be free to vote as they please: As long, that is, as they can resolutely ignore such considerations as the fate of their party and of their government. And all this, in the certain knowledge that they won't become candidates for immediate expulsion.
Unfortunately, we come back again and again to the all-important fact that imposition of this white flag on all of Canada will divide our nation further, and perhaps irreparably. It is true, of course, that a substantial majority of the people of the province of Quebec want the Prime Minister's flag. But I believe that what is happening in Quebec today is that a determined group of fanatical young French Canadians is attempting to erase from the history books what happened on September 13, 1759, and to rewrite the next 205 years to read, not as it happened but as they would have liked it to have happened. It is quite true that rural Quebec over the years has not progressed economically as have rural Ontario, the prairies and British Columbia. I can fully appreciate the problems, having been born in Quebec and having lived for most of my life in northern New Brunswick, where the problems are much the same although for different reasons. But I feel that much of the difficulty in Quebec over the past 200 years has been attributable to their educational system. It has been a system that trained able theologians, philosophers, lawyers and doctors; but at the same time it has failed in the sciences, mathematics, engineering and allied skills on which modern civilization travels.
What too many are attempting to do today in Quebec is to place the blame for this failure on English speaking Canada; and, Mr. Speaker, I for one-and I am sure many

others-do not accept that. Nor will we accept this attempt to destroy our British heritage. Why does the Prime Minister feel that he can ensure unity in Canada by appeasing one province and antagonizing nine others? The results of attempts at appeasement are evident to any student of history. From the Danegeld to Munich, appeasement has never worked. In my opinion it is not going to work now.
Now, Mr. Speaker, there is an amendment to the resolution before the house calling for a national referendum on the flag issue. This would give every Canadian of voting age the right to express his opinion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I be permitted to mention that there are conversations going on across the aisle, which makes it a little difficult for the speaker to be heard by the Chair.


John Chester MacRae: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Was this government elected solely on the promise it would give Canada a three maple leaf flag? I would say it was not. This was never mentioned in my constituency of York-Sun-bury. I am afraid it was only mentioned in those constituencies where it was felt it could get a few votes. There are many factors that enter into the election of a political party. We must remember, too, that this government is not in a majority position in this house; it is in a minority position. It is here by sufferance of the splinter parties, who for the most part are like the mule, without pride of ancestry or hope of posterity.
Some time in the next four years there will have to be a general election. A referendum could be taken at that time with very little expense or cost to the treasury. Furthermore, this would provide a cooling off period for emotions and tempers to subside. The Prime Minister would not be put in the position of forcing his personal choice for a flag upon the Canadian people who for the most part do not seem to want it. Here is a sensible and workable alternative to an action whose only result can be to divide our nation further.
Much of the work of this parliament still remains to be done. The Canada pension plan is still only in its formative stages. .Nothing has been done toward providing the promised
10,000	university scholarships. This promise has not been fulfilled. Nothing has been done for eastern agriculture, or in any event very little. These and many other urgent matters are awaiting consideration.
Canadian Flag
I appeal to the Prime Minister and to those who advise him, especially those from Ontario, the maritimes and British Columbia, to use their common sense on this matter to help to save Canada, not to destroy it, to keep it the great nation it has become over the last two centuries and to ensure the great future which could be in store for our children and for those generations yet to come.


Mr. Heber E. Smith (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, we have been constantly reminded in the last weeks by the newspapers and on radio and television and by our semi-silent friends opposite that we must instantly desist from discussing the flag and adopt Mr. Pearson's pennant as our national flag. I do not know what you would call this but it seems to me something like closure by public opinion or closure by public relations.
With my colleagues from the province of Quebec and with their people I can sympathize, and I hope I can understand their position. But to those zealots and others who think that they can instantly cure the imagined wrongs of the past by quick passage of this resolution I suggest that they could profit by listening a little longer.
It is quite true, I think, that the rest of Canada has in the past neglected Quebec, but I think too that our sins have been sins of omission rather than sins of commission. As long as the people of Quebec seemed to us to be content to be more or less hewers of wood and drawers of water, and as long as they did not make too onerous economic demands on the rest of Canada, we were content to ignore them. But now they are bursting into the highly industrialized second half of the 20th century and they cannot be shrugged off any longer.
Many of those in the rest of Canada who strongly support the new flag are doing so in the sadly mistaken belief that this action will quiet Quebec's economic aspirations. I do not think they could be more wrong. The flag controversy is only a symbol of much greater and deeper problems. But I think too that when we talk about this problem there is something on the credit side for the rest of Canada. Quebec's civil law, its religion and its educational system have been carefully protected by our constitution, and for the use or misuse which Quebec has made of this protection it is not the rest of Canada but Quebec and its people who must bear the responsibility.

Canadian Flag
But it is not only Quebec that is changing. All of Canada has changed. Until the end of the second world war political realities in Canada were based on an Anglo-Saxon majority and a French minority. True, the majority were probably careless of the feelings of the minority and tended rather to ignore them. But in our anxiety to right the wrongs we do not, I think, as the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) and some other members opposite have suggested, have to apologize for being Canadians of Anglo-Saxon origin.
Anglo-Saxon Canadians have their own adjustments to make. No longer are Anglo-Saxons the prideful majority in Canada. With the influx of post-war immigration it is not now a case of the English majority and the French minority but an Anglo-Saxon minority, a French minority and a new Canadian minority. This is a great, and only now recognized, emotional shock to those of us who are Anglo-Saxon either by birth or heritage and we as well as our French compatriots need understanding and patience. For that reason I think those who are impatient must listen a little longer to this emotion charged discussion of the adoption of national symbols.
Getting a new flag is not like changing traffic signs. It has to be a symbol of unity and it must have the emotional support of a very substantial majority of our people. It must have meaning for them. Unless it has, it would be better to have no flag or no national symbols at all. A flag such as the one now proposed, with its lack of aesthetic appeal and having regard to the blatantly political auspices under which it has been introduced, will be absolutely repugnant to a very large part of the Canadian population, and will be so for at least a generation and possibly longer. I think the Prime Minister is sincere, and I say that honestly, but I think he is misguided. But if he is sincere surely we can get a better solution than the one that has been presented to us now.
A flag and a national anthem, as I have said, are matters not so much of reason and logic but of emotion. Many people passionately believe that Canada must have a distinctive flag bearing no indication of either British or French heritage. Many people just as passionately believe that the union jack must form a part of any official flag. Smaller groups have equally strong views as to other designs and conditions acceptable to them.

Mr. Speaker, I notice it is five o'clock.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:
Ottawa, 13th August, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Wilfred Judson, a puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as deputy to His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, the 13th August, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to a certain bill.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier,
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General


Mr. Deputy 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 private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Before we proceed, Mr. Speaker, may I on a point of order draw the attention of the government house leader to the fact that this is the third time in succession, I think, that private members' hours have been interfered with in order to attend in the other chamber. I think it would be fairer to the private members of this house if those occasions occurred during government time and not private members' time.



PRIVATE BILLS


[Stage Direction]
Bill No. S-38, to incorporate Congregation of the Marist Sisters-Mr. Dube.

[Stage Direction]
The house resumed from Thursday, July 30, consideration in committee of Bill No. S-27, respecting the Bell Telephone Company of Canada-Mr. Brown-Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
On clause 1-Number of directors.
Mr. Brown:: Mr. Chairman, I thought perhaps I should say a word or two in answer to some questions asked by the hon. member for Timiskaming. In the debate on this subject two weeks ago I stated that I was sorry the hon. member was not present when this bill came before the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines, to which it was

Private Bills
referred. The president and some of the directors and officials of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada were present to answer all questions. I am sure they would have been only too glad to answer the hon. gentleman's questions. I understood from his speech that he was not a member of this committee, but a representative of his party was present. Of course, the hon. member could have been present and asked any questions that he wished.
As sponsor of this bill I should like to deal with his main point. He desired to know if one of the new directors would act as a liaison officer to deal with points of view and complaints of subscribers. The views of subscribers or any complaints they may have are handled by the various employees of the company. If a complaint is very important and far reaching, it will eventually come before the board of directors. It would be unrealistic, Mr. Chairman, for the directors or any director to rule on every point of view and every complaint that is received. I refer particularly to the one that was dealt with by the hon. gentleman. This was a complaint respecting a girl receiving a bill from the telephone company which she thought should have been paid by another girl who had placed the phone call. If this particular matter had come before a crown corporation, for example, I submit it would have been dealt with in exactly the same way as it was dealt with by the officials of the Bell Telephone Company. The question of how the Bell Telephone Company of Canada or any crown corporation would handle matters of this kind, I suggest is scarcely germane to the subject matter of this bill.
With respect to the question of whether additional directors, appointed pursuant to the provisions of this bill, would cause any change in the policy of the company, I would unhesitatingly say no. I believe it to be only reasonable, as has already been stated in the house and before the committee, that the growth and development of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada since its incorporation is reason enough for the company's desire to be allowed to increase its directorate from 15 to 20 members. It is only natural, Mr. Chairman, that the company after all these years might desire to be enabled to increase the size of its board of directors. The Bell Telephone Company of Canada was incorporated not long after the first long distance call ever made in the world. This call was made between Brantford, Ontario, and Paris, Ontario. The company's record and develop-20220-429
ment since its incorporation speaks for itself. I take pleasure in submitting this bill to the consideration of the committee.


Mr. Temple:: I should like to speak on this bill because of the fact several references have been made to Northern Electric Company and the fact that there has been a lack of competition in so far as Northern Electric is concerned. Allegations have been made that Northern Electric pretty well have things their own way. The reason I take an interest in this matter is that we have a plant of Northern Electric Company in Belleville. I make it a habit to go through my riding as often as I can and visit the various manufacturing plants in order to ascertain their problems and find out as much as I can about matters pertaining to these various industries. I have come to know something about the operations of the Belleville plant of Northern Electric.
As I have said, there has been some talk in this committee about the lack of competition which Northern Electric has, as a subsidiary. I want to talk about something Northern Electric does in connection with which they have a great deal of competition in the United States market. The Belleville plant of this company has manufactured and sold to the United States two items which alone have brought in over $2 million worth of sales. This is good for Belleville and it is good for Canada. One of these items is a television routing apparatus which was designed by Northern Electric in Canada and supplied by the plant in Belleville in competition with other United States electronics firms. It was sold to the Columbia Broadcasting System and installed by Northern Electric in New York city. I might add that this year the company is selling more of these items in various United States centres.
The other item is the parametric amplifier, which again was designed and manufactured by the Belleville plant. These amplifiers are used in tropospheric scatter systems. They are exported to the United States for incorporation by Radio Engineering Laboratories into their scatter systems, which are sold on a world wide basis. Tropospheric scatter systems permit multichannel telephone, teletype and data transmission without line of sight restrictions. Now, this is the sort of thing which Canada needs, and it is somethng that Northern Electric is doing. We all know, Mr. Chairman, that we need more exports, we need more United States dollars to help with our balance of trade problems. These things

Private Bills
are being provided by Northern Electric. They are imaginative; they are scientific; they are going ahead; they are doing a good job, and also they are creating a great deal of employment at home. I myself know, so far as the Belleville operation is concerned, that it is a very good one. They are entering into competition, and with some insight and ingenuity they are coming out on top.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to support the bill presented by my hon. friend from Brantford (Mr. Brown).


Mr. Caouetle:: Mr. Speaker, we do not object to Bill No. S-27 being passed, as the hon. member who has just resumed his seat said; however, I think he is wrong in saying that the Bell Telephone Company, a private enterprise, has competition in Canada or in our province.
The Bell Telephone Company is now a monopoly and when we hear a very dear friend of the hon. member, Hon. Rene Levesque of the province of Quebec, saying that the Bell Telephone Company has to be nationalized in order that the control of that public service be eventually resumed in our province or in Canada, I think the hon. member should consult his bosom friend, Mr. Rene Levesque, before making such statements.
We do not object to the Bell Telephone Company having 20, 25, 35, 50 or 1,000 directors-a request for 20 directors is now being made-we have no objection to their number being increased to 1,000 or 10,000 it matters little to us, but we must understand the reason for the existence of the Bell Telephone Company. We, of the Ralliement Creditiste, are undoubtedly in favour of private enterprise and we necessarily want to give it full freedom, as long as there is competition to safeguard the rights and the interests of consumers and of people in need of its services. However, we are against trusts. There is federal legislation against trusts that might be set up or be in existence in this country. This act has not been enforced, not only in the case of the Bell Telephone Company, but in many other cases also.
Mr. Chairman, Bill No. S-27 comes to us from the Senate.
Earlier, at five o'clock, the private members' hour, private bills were called. At that time it was said that such and such a bill was allowed to stand at the government's request, and finally we came to Bill No S-27.

Mr. Chairman, all those bills come to us from the Senate, from the other place. I believe that we should not, as responsible members elected by the people, accept any bill from the Senate.
The Senate is a place made up of gentlemen, former politicians, from one party or the other, who are not elected by the people, who have never represented the people since they were summoned there. And yet, they are now trying to rule the roost so far as selecting the legislation to be presented to the House of Commons is concerned.
A little earlier, a bill to incorporate a bank and another to incorporate the Congregation of the Marist Sisters were allowed to stand so that we could finally reach Bill No. S-27 entitled: An Act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada.
Mr. Chairman, I do not know what is going on between the Senate and the government- besides there are not many ministers here now and I do not know what happened. However, we firmly intend to stop the passing of all bills that will come to us from the Senate as long as the bill of the premier of British Columbia to incorporate the Bank of British Columbia is not passed by the Senate.
I solemnly declare that we do not intend to let the Senate tell us what to do in the House of Commons, because not a single senator has been elected by the people whereas we and you, Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. The hon. member for Villeneuve will surely agree that his remarks go far beyond the scope of clause 1 of Bill No. S-27 under consideration.
His comments are interesting, to be sure, and hon. members are no doubt listening to them with great attention, but under standing orders, the hon. member is not allowed to go beyond the scope of clause 1 of the bill now under consideration.


David Réal Caouette: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Once again I will abide by standing orders which forbid my going beyond the scope of clause 1 of Bill No. S-27. I just wanted to point out that since the senators, for whom I have a great deal of respect, are not elected representatives of the people, we will object as long as necessary to any bill from the Senate submitted to the House of Commons.


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


David Réal Caouette: Definitely.


Stanley Ronald Basford: In the position he has just announced that his party is taking, I am wondering whether he has had any agreement with Premier Bennett to take this viewpoint?


Lucien Lamoureux: The question asked by the hon. member for Vancouver-Burrard (Mr. Basford) is also beyond the limits of the bill and out of order.


David Réal Caouette: You asked whether Bennett let me do this or-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order please.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, I was not out
of order, but a Liberal member was. As usual, all Liberal members, as well as the Minister without Portfolio, are out of order.
Mr. Chairman, Bill No. S-27 says:
Whereas The Bell Telephone Company of Canada has by its petition prayed that it be enacted as hereinafter set forth and it is expedient to grant the prayer of the said petition: Therefore Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:-
I shall now read clause 1:
The business of the company shall be managed by a board of not less than five nor more than twenty directors, as may from time to time be determined by resolution of the shareholders, and each such director shall be the proprietor of at least ten shares in the capital stock of the company, or such other additional number of shares, not exceeding forty additional shares, as the shareholders shall by any resolution passed at any annual general meeting, or special general meeting, from time to time determine: and the said board of directors shall be elected and hold office as hereinafter provided; and a majority of the said directors shall be residents of Canada."
Mr. Chairman, this concerns the operations of the organization of the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, within the boundaries of Canada.
It is all very fine to read in the bill that a majority of directors shall be residents of Canada, but nobody is or will be surprised to hear that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada is a subsidiary of the Bell Telephone Company of America, a branch of that American company. Even if we have a Canadian majority of directors, officers and shareholders in the Bell Telephone Company of Canada, this corporation is, nevertheless, under the control of a parent company, a master company, in the United States. This means that our telephone system, in Canada, is still under American control.


Auguste Choquette: Hear, hear.
Private Bills


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member for Lotbiniere says: Hear, hear.
Why try to mislead the public with bills like this one? Why do the hon. senators-most of them former politicians accept to submit to us a bill like Bill No. S-27, to make people believe that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada will, henceforth, be controlled by a Canadian majority, which is untrue, because the Americans still control that company?
Mr. Chairman, I want to point out that I have absolutely nothing against Americans. But let us stop making believe that by moving bills as insipid as the one now before us, we shall take over control of our economy, of our administration and of our assets, etc. It is absolutely false to pretend that the Bell Telephone Company of Canada will be controlled by a Canadian majority, even if it had 20 directors, or even 1,000 of them.
Mr. Chairman, I will now conclude my comments on Bill No. S-27 because other hon. members intend to say a few words about it.
However, I wish to say that bills coming from the Senate do not interest us any more and that we will do our utmost to prevent their passing because we do not want to be told what to do by people who are not elected by the people.


Auguste Choquette: Will the hon. member for Villeneuve allow a question?


David Réal Caouette: Yes.


Auguste Choquette: The hon. member seems to be against companies controlled by Americans. As a good car salesman, could he tell me who controls the Chrysler Corporation of Canada?


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, it affords me great pleasure to answer the question of my hon. friend from Lotbiniere. The Chrysler Corporation of Canada is controlled by the Americans, like Ford and General Motors. He probably owns a General Motors car.


Lucien Lamoureux: I do not think the question of the hon. member for Lotbiniere is in order.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Chairman, may I point out just the same, on a question of privilege, that I have been advocating for over ten years the establishment of a wholly Canadian automobile factory? If we do not have such a truly Canadian company at the present time, the Social Crediters are not to blame, but rather the Liberals and the Conservatives

Private Bills
who have never done anything to develop our own resources.


Auguste Choquette: I rise on a question of privilege-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. There is no question of privilege.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Chairman-


Lucien Lamoureux: Order. I cannot recognize the hon. member. If he wishes to speak, he must in the first place resume his seat.


Auguste Choquette: May I have the floor?


Lucien Lamoureux: The hon. member should take his seat. He has expressed the wish to speak on a question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Villeneuve. Before he does so, I wish to point out that the Chair is of the opinion that there is no question of privilege. If the hon. member wishes to take part in the debate, he will be recognized in due time.


Mr. Peters:: I am grateful for the intervention of the hon. member for Villeneuve, for whatever reason, because it gives us an opportunity to say something about the affairs of the Bell Telephone Company, and if the situation continues a good many more members will probably have the opportunity to say something on this subject.
The sponsor of this bill mentioned the fact that I am not a member of the committee on railways, canals and telegraph lines but that I have the right to attend the meetings of that committee and ask questions. I believe this could only be done in exceptional circumstances; it is not the normal practice of committees to allow people who are not members to raise a number of questions at committee meetings.
The sponsor has been very fair in saying that the directors would be willing to answer a number of questions. My objection to this bill would be removed if a suggestion made by my hon. friend from Comox-Albemi last week were taken into serious consideration. Although there has been a change over the years, the New Democratic party still has an interest in seeing that government control is exercised where a public utility is involved. This does not always mean nationalizing particular industries, though it is believed that in the field of communications, as in other fields of public utility, this is desirable. The suggestion put forward by the hon. member for Comox-Albemi was that the five new directors should be appointed by the govern-

ment rather than by the company. This would take account of the fact that the public has not always been well represented on the board of directors of the Bell Telephone Company. I believe this situation would be remedied, provided the government were to appoint the new members. I do not believe it is necessary for us to control this company, even thought it is a public utility, but I think it is necessary for the people who use a monopoly utility to have some voice in its operation.
I know the government has often been accused of being a bit socialist-of adopting some of the policies of the N.D.P. To some extent it is tarred with the same brush as the N.D.P. If this is true to some extent, and if members of the Liberal party are willing to accept the accusation, it seems to me this is an excellent occasion upon which to do so, and if the mover of this motion before us would rise and assent to this bill being sent back to the committee, with his blessing, for the purpose of having the government negotiate with the company with regard to these five new directorships, it would I think meet my requirements.
My objection is that these five new directors do not seem to be in a position to guarantee that the reforms I have previously indicated will be achieved. The sponsor, in rising to reply to previous questions, referred to the case I mentioned of a young lady living in Ottawa. I do not think she would object to my using her name, but there is no point in doing so. Suffice it to say her member of parliament is a lawyer who has been interested in this case, as have other lawyers. This claim No. 29159-707, was before the board of transport commissioners in 1962, and no reply has been received to the legal arguments which were put forward. I am of course not a lawyer and cannot tell the committee much about this case, but it is headed:
In the matter of the application and complaint of... concerning the general regulations governing the furnishing of telephone service and equipment by the Bell Telephone Company of Canada and further concerning certain wrongful and unlawful acts and omissions by the company in furnishing telephone service and equipment to her.
Then reference is made to sections 34 and 35 and section 353(1) of the Railway Act and it continues:
An order declaring that rule 31 of order 81007, of the 11th March 1953, as amended, which provides, "31.

If objection in writing is not received by the company within thirty days after a statement

of account is rendered, such statement shall be deemed to be correct and binding upon the customer".
And so it goes on. I will not abuse the privileges of this house by reading it all, but I am sure that those who have been applying for this extension of the number of directors are well aware of this case. The law being what it is, and lawyers being what they are, I can appreciate the delay. But what I cannot appreciate and what the hon. member sponsoring the bill should be highly indignant about is that these principals have asked him to make the explanation which he made this afternoon without fully informing him about this case before the board of transport commissioners and of the fact that they had done nothing about it.
This complaint has been made in a proper manner and I think the hon. member has been imposed upon and denied a courtesy which should have been afforded him. He should feel very indignant about the matter, and so should all of us. I think the company are being deceitful by not replying and have not been very frank with the hon. member sponsoring the bill, as well as with other members of this committee. They are abusing the very rights they are asking for by being unwilling to give the proper information. If a member is asked to reply he should be fully informed of the facts. I think that the principals should look at this claim, because it personifies the problem I am raising.
I have received many complaints from areas which are served to the effect that the individual subscriber's rights are not being honoured and that he is not being given a fair shake by the Bell Telephone Company. If more directors are to be appointed we should know why they are asking for additional members. We should also consider that the government itself has a responsibility in the matter. I know the Liberal government is not going to nationalize the Bell Telephone Company or the telecommunication services of this nation.


David Réal Caouette: The banks want it.


William Arnold Peters: I do not care who wants it, they are not going to do it. This should be carried out not only on a national scale but a provincial scale. This has been accepted in Saskatchewan and in Alberta, and I think it has also been accepted in Manitoba. We are not asking for anything nationally which has not already been accepted by many provinces with assistance given in others.
Rather than asking a private member to sponsor a bill which affects the economy of
Private Bills
many citizens in Canada and eliminates rights which should be those of every subscriber to a public monopoly and particularly where an individual is denied the right to complain to the board of transport commissioners, it would be more acceptable if the government were to finance the appointment of these five new directors so that the government itself would have some say in the operations of the Bell Telephone Company, which for the present at least would satisfy me and many of the people I represent. If the hon. member wishes to rise and say that this is so I am perfectly willing to accept it. If he or any of the ministers wish to refer the matter back to the committee for further consideration, I am happy to suggest that that action be taken.
It is interesting to note that one of the problems which will have to be considered by the board of directors, a problem which you and I should also be considering, is the situation which develops between the Bell Telephone and Northern Electric Company. In the act establishing the Bell Telephone Company the company was limited to a 6 per cent profit. But are they limited to that profit? I'll say they are not. Northern Electric comes along and says they need some more money from Bell, and that money is transferred. Then that money is distributed to the board of directors of the company, who are the same as those of the Bell Telephone, which company we said could not obtain more than 6 per cent profit. This is a violent abuse of the law.


Lucien Lamoureux: I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member, particularly in view of the fact that there are only a few minutes left before his time expires, but he, and other members before him have referred to the relationship between the Northern Electric Company and the Bell Telephone Company. I wonder if the hon. member would enlighten the Chair on how this is encompassed by clause 1 which is now before the committee.


William Arnold Peters: The board of directors in the Bell Telephone Company are identical to the directors in Northern Electric Company. Northern Electric Company is a wholly owned subsidiary of Bell. What is done by the directors in the parent company appears to be almost the same as what is done by the directors in the subsidiary company. I really do not think you can separate the two. In effect they are the same body.
Mr. Chairman, I would just like to point out some of the things the subscribers will

Private Bills
be turning to the board of directors to decide. This has reference to the fact that we decided by law this company was not to make an exorbitant profit; yet it has done this by its ownership of Northern Electric. Do they charge the subscriber a reasonable rate? A letter written by a member to the dominion bureau of statistics just recently, on July 31, elicited the reply that the Bell Telephone Company in Montreal charges $6.46 for a private line; in Ottawa, $5.46; in Toronto, $6.03. What about the provincially owned telephone companies? In Winnipeg the charge is $3.90; in Regina, $3.90; and in Alberta, $3.50.
Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting money is not being made by the provincial telephone companies, but I am suggesting that the subscribers of Bell Telephone Company are paying twice as much for the service they receive as are subscribers of other systems of public utility. We attempted to deal with this by providing in the original law for a limit of 6 per cent on the profits of this company. This was to provide a monopoly, utility service at a reasonable cost to the subscribers- and this has not been accomplished. I am in complete agreement with our increasing the board of directors by five; I would agree that we should increase the board by 15 if necessary, provided we stipulate that the new directors are appointed by the government. If this is done, Mr. Chairman, I think we will be able to support wholeheartedly the motion that is before us, because the motion will carry out the intention of the original act in regard to the limitations that were provided therein. I suggest that anything less is unfair, unreasonable and should not receive the support of members of the house.
The mover of the motion has suggested that this matter should have been discussed in committee. I will therefore resume my seat, with the expectation that the hon. member will move that this subject be referred back to the committee for discussion of the matters that obviously were not before the committee when they considered this bill previously. If this is done, I think it will allow the company to provide the answers that they may well have to some of the questions we have raised.


Mr. Brewin:: Mr. Chairman, on this occasion I have some pleasure in supporting the hon. member for Timiskaming. He did refer in rather unkind terms to my profession, but I know we are not sensitive and I forgive him

for that. I am not prepared at the present time to support this bill, for a number of reasons. I am not a member of the committee but I have read the proceedings of the committee very carefully and I do not think the reasons given for increasing the number on the board of directors carry any weight whatsoever; so much so that I wonder whether they are the real reasons for presenting this bill.
This bill, as hon. members know, is to permit an increase of the board of directors from 15 to 20. Mr. Vincent, the president of the company, gave evidence before the committee and was asked a question by one of the members of that committee as to the reason for requiring a greater number of directors. He asked whether 15 was not sufficient for the entire administration. Mr. Vincent replied:
We should have a little more leeway. We should be able to do things.
The hon. member for Quebec East then asked, "What things?", and Mr. Vincent replied:
Things we want to have.
He did not at any time specify clearly what he wanted to have. He did go on to say:
We might want-I would personally like to have a seat on the board so that our vice presidents could take turns on the board for a period of six months, for instance, so that the directors could have an opportunity to get to know our officers.
Surely, Mr. Chairman, the Bell Telephone Company is able to arrange that its vicepresidents and directors become acquainted with each other without the necessity of coming to parliament and asking that the board be increased in number to this extent.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: They could have phoned each other.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I think that problem could have been looked after in some other way. Then Mr. Vincent said:
So there would be one seat for the vice presidents who would be appointed director in turn for a period of six months so that they would have an opportunity to get to know our people. It is a good thing, it would be a good thing if our vice presidents could know the people who are there.
But there is no explanation given as to why some other method could not be found, rather than coming to parliament with this bill in order to achieve this objective. Mr. Vincent said they should have a little more leeway. Leeway for what, Mr. Chairman? I am assured that there are a number of large, very well managed companies in this country, with boards of directors of 15 or less, which handle a tremendous amount of business. I

think an hon. member put on the record earlier in this debate the business connections of the present directors. They were very, very extensive. Mr. Vincent suggested that some of these directors might not be there all the time; but I think we all know that a group of perhaps eight or nine people sitting down can do quite as much business, and as efficiently, as a group of 17 or 18. Therefore, Mr. Chairman, no particular reason was advanced for the necessity for this bill in the evidence presented to the committee. The hon. member who introduced the bill did not take any great pains to tell us why it was necessary, either. He said, "Well, the Bell Telephone Company has grown in size since 1927, when the number of 15 was first established".


James Elisha Brown: Mr. Chairman, I might remind the hon. gentleman that it was 1880.


Francis Andrew Brewin: I am afraid the hon. member is wrong. I am relying on the evidence given by the president of this company, and at page 421 of the evidence given before the standing committee Mr. Vincent said the date was 1927. The hon. member for Quebec East asked:
You were allowed 15.


Clément Vincent: We have had 15, from 1927 on we have had 15. Before 1927 there were not always 15.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I think the hon. member would have to acknowledge that Mr. Vincent, the president of the company, probably knew what he was talking about when he gave this evidence to the committee.


James Elisha Brown: What I meant was that the number of 15 directors was made allowable in 1880 on the incorporation of this company.


Francis Andrew Brewin: It was made allowable, but they did not seem to find it necessary to have 15 until 1927. In any event, Mr. Chairman, it does not really affect the basis of my argument, because they got along up to 1927 without this number of directors, although as we have been told their business was increasing all the time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am informed that a messenger is on his way from the other place.
Progress reported.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bill:
An act to provide for the revision of certain fiscal arrangements with the provinces and to provide adjustments of fiscal arrangements and taxation provisions consequential upon the provision of youth allowances to parents resident in certain provinces.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to the provisions of standing order 3 9A, it is my duty to inform the house that the question to be raised at 10.30 o'clock this day is as follows:
The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan): Airports; Toronto; meeting respecting monopoly of taxi service.
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 by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Heber Edgar Smith: Mr. Speaker, at five o'colck I was discussing the differences of opinion between the various groups who are proponents of one form of national symbol or another, and I was pointing out that there are two large groups in Canada who are deeply involved in this matter.

Canadian Flag
There are those who say a flag must be completely distinctive and there are those, almost equally large in number, who claim that any national symbol must bear some evidence of our history and, if possible, our British connection. Having regard to the controversy that has raged, these two groups may at this time seem absolutely irreconcilable; but I am not so sure of that. However I am sure of one thing, and that is that to impose absolutely the wishes of one of these groups on the other is not an act of unity but an act of disunity.
Emotions cannot be controlled by legislative fiat. The losers in such a decision could be just as opposed and as bitter as ever to the adopted design, and Canadian unity, which after all is presumably the reason for our adopting a national symbol, would suffer a disservice. Discussions on the flag are not new. They have been going on for many years, but during those years conditions in Canada have changed, and changed greatly.
No longer does the cry that was sometimes heard, that an Anglo-Saxon majority was imposing its will on a French Canadian minority, have much validity because Canada, much like this House of Commons, is now a country of minorities; and this will be, whether we like it or not, a continuing fact of Canadian life. Other conditions are changing too-


David Réal Caouette: That is not right.


Heber Edgar Smith: It is right. Canadian developments in these days of rapid communication, no matter how much some of my friends might not like to know it, have been and are being greatly influenced by our giant neighbour to the south. Economic patterns are changing and changing rapidly, and this is affecting our cultural lives. It is no longer just a struggle to protect French Canadian culture or English Canadian culture, but it is going to be a struggle to maintain a Canadian culture and identity; and in this struggle, whatever our racial origin, we must try to be together and work together. We must not further divide ourselves unnecessarily over a question such as is involved in the selection of a flag or an emblem; and all Canadians, in parliament and outside it, have a share in the responsibility for not facing these problems earlier.
If the matter brought forward by the Prime Minister had been introduced in a less partisan political way I think most of the bitterness that has now arisen could have been avoided. Perhaps it is still not too late to

repair some of the damage done to Canadian unity, but I know it is possibly too late for an ideal solution. It is possibly too late for a long drawn out solution, or for a conference of the type that would be long drawn out, but surely it is not too late for a compromise that will leave feelings less embittered than they are now.
I am sure that if a small committee of the house were appointed it could quickly produce some formula for national symbols that would bring together, rather than divide further, the Canadian people because, make no mistake and have no illusions, we are being divided over this issue. However I am sure something can be done that will repair some of the damage and avoid further damage.
In closing I would like to commend my proposal to the Prime Minister and to the leaders of the parties that they try earnestly to consider some conference method, some quick conference method, or some alternative similar to a conference, that will solve the problem and get Canada off the collision course on which it now seems to be.


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (Queens-Lunenburg):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise to participate in this debate on the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), and I welcome the opportunity to place on the record my views, and the views and opinions expressed to me in recent months by my constituents, relative to the flag proposed by the Liberal party as a national flag of Canada. I also wish to present my views on the proposal made by my leader that a plebiscite be held to determine this issue. In my opinion this is the only method that will guarantee that Canadians have a voice in settling this problem.
This afternoon I thoroughly enjoyed the remarks of the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. MacRae), a holder of the Military Cross for outstanding bravery beyond the call of duty in world war II. He speaks with the courage of conviction earned on the battlefield, and in my opinion he made an outstanding contribution to the debate.
I have received numerous letters and petitions on this controversial subject, and without exception all these letters have requested me to endorse the retention of our present flag, the Canadian red ensign, or a modification of the ensign containing the union jack in the corner. I have not received one letter from my entire constituency, which totals some 50,000 people, requesting my sup-

port of the white flag containing red maple leaves proposed by the Prime Minister. I therefore believe it is only proper that I take this opportunity to raise the objections of my constituents, especially of those who have written to me, outlining their concern over the flag that is proposed by the administration.
So that my own position will be abundantly clear, I stand for the retention of the old symbols, the distinctive Canadian red ensign which today flies from the peace tower. The day may come when in the course of unity we may be required to accept some change, but I would always hope our flag will contain some symbols of our past traditions.
I cannot help but ask the question, why is the Liberal party introducing this divisive symbol to parliament at this time? No doubt in reply some Liberal member may say it was an election promise to be carried out within two years of taking office. But surely this administration, which has made so many wild promises in order to regain power, has some sense of responsibility to the electorate. I would like to know the yardstick used by the Liberals to measure the priority of their promises. Mr. Speaker, the promise to bring in a distinctive national flag is only one of many promises which were made during the last election campaign. What about the promise to institute a medicare plan, the promise to improve unemployment insurance and the promise to establish portable contributory pensions? The Liberals were going to promote freer trade by co-operating with other free world countries to reduce trade barriers. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), speaking in Milford, Nova Scotia, undertook to improve trade between Nova Scotia and the West Indies, but to date no action has been taken. In co-operation with the provinces, the Liberals were going to see that more low rental homes were built; they were going to improve retraining programs and pay supplementary benefits in cases of long term unemployment. The Liberals were going to review our civil defence policy, too. However, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) had other ideas and today the militia, which was to have been the nucleus of our civil defence force, is seriously weakened in numbers.
The Liberals promised to establish scholarships to help young people obtain a university education. They were going to introduce a national health plan. All these and a score of other promises were made, but to date no action has been taken. It is therefore not the real answer to this question to say that a 20220-430
Canadian Flag
promise is being implemented. We must look for a deeper meaning if we are to understand the Liberal motive for the course which is being followed.
In my opinion Canada's flag should be a symbol of unity. But the proposed flag or design presented on the resolution now before the house has already created widespread disunity and discontent throughout Canada. The reason is easy to understand. First of all, many Canadians have raised objections to the three maple leaf design, on the grounds that it bears no relation to the history and culture of our past and contains little promise for the future. In the second place, they raised strong objections to the method used by the Liberal government in bringing this issue before parliament.
This government has no clear mandate to provide Canada with a new flag and it is not being brave or courageous by endeavouring to impose its wishes upon the great majority of Canadians. The hon. member for Argen-tueil-Deux-Montagnes (Mr. Drouin) speaking this afternoon, said his leader showed courage in bringing in the maple leaf design. If this is courage, then it is a courage bom of despair. I would remind this government that it is still a minority government with the right to rule only as long as it commands support in parliament. The government undoubtedly has a right to introduce this type of resolution, but when doing so it should have stated clearly that the vote, when taken, would be a free vote. I say this because what we are considering now is an issue of the heart, not of the head. If there were a free vote, members of parliament, who are elected to represent as closely as possible the viewpoint of their constituents, could express themselves freely in debate and vote according to the wishes of their constituents. This would be for the parliament of Canada its finest hour. This would be representative government in the best sense of the term.
However, that is not the policy of the government. I would like to think that at one time it was the intention of the Prime Minister to allow a free vote. In support of this statement I would refer to Hansard of May 12 where hon. members will see the following recorded on page 3164:


Robert Carman Coates: Will the right hon. gentleman give an assurance that when the design for the proposed new national flag is presented to parliament all members of this house will have a free vote, and that the defeat of the design would not be considered a vote of nonconfidence in the government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: When the time comes to submit the decision of the gov-

Canadian Flag
ernment in this matter to the House of Commons I would hope every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictates, and that there would be no question of confidence or non-confidence in a party sense.
Later the Prime Minister had second thoughts about this. Some of his image makers said: You cannot do this; it will result in another defeat; you must put on the whip; you must get out the lash; you must cram this down the throats of the Canadian people whether they like it or not; if you don't, you will be charged with another retreat. In any case, when the leader of the New Democratic party (Mr. Douglas) raised this question again on May 19, as recorded on page 337 of Hansard, he had changed his mind. This is how the exchange reads:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he considers a free vote to be one in which the members have an election pointed at their heads like a gun.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the members have had an election pointed at their heads like a gun in respect of every decision that has been made in this house on policy matters since we took over the government. I have pointed out and I think I should make it quite clear, that when the government submits to parliament a matter of policy- and this is certainly a matter of policy-the government must stand or fall on the result of the decision of the house.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: You are happy about it, are you?
Then, to continue quoting the Prime Minister:
But we have gone out of our way, and I have gone out of my way personally, to let the members of this party know that in a question so personal, so close to their conscience, so deep in their emotions, as a flag, a member of the Liberal party, in voting against the decision submitted by the government, would not be read out of the party for so doing.
Well, hon. members opposite have at least that much to go on. They know that if they stand up and vote as their consciences dictate, at least they will not be voted out of their party. But let me return to what the right hon. gentleman said:
This is a matter of policy.. .the government must stand or fall on the result of the decision of the house.
The Prime Minister has presented his flag design and he has indicated that unless the resolution before us receives majority support he will consider the vote as being one of non-confidence in his government and plunge this country into another federal election. Only the Prime Minister has this power. He is the only one who can call an election at this time. If he were to do so it would, in

my opinion, be nothing short of an election of frustration. If he had a majority of members to back him up in the House of Commons, regardless of the size of the Conservative following it would be our responsibility to bring the request of the people of Canada before this house. It would be our responsibility and we would have to discharge it; there would be only one course open to the Prime Minister if he had a majority, and that would be either to implement closure or to close down the house and call another election. But in his present minority position any election he may call would be nothing short of an election of frustration.
This is the threat. This is the club held not only over the heads of government supporters but also over the head of each member who holds a seat in the House of Commons: Either vote for this resolution or there will be an election. In my opinion no vote on the proposed resolution regarding the flag can be called a free vote, nor will it give a clear indication of what any member is thinking, regardless of where he sits in the house, if he is threatened by the Prime Minister with another federal election should the motion fail to carry.
This is nothing short of political blackmail. Some Canadians are asking us as a responsible opposition to do everything in our power to prevent another election. At the same time they are asking us to do everything in our power to prevent the Pearson pennant from passing the house. I ask the Prime Minister: Is he not aware of the necessity to improve understanding among our different racial, religious and cultural groups as quickly as possible? Is he not aware of the serious cleavage in Canada today which threatens to pull up by the very roots the tree planted by the Fathers of Confederation almost 100 years ago? By introducing this flag resolution at this time the Prime Minister has stirred up racial differences between the two great founding races of the country which will set back the clock of national unity by at least 50 years. I ask the house, is this the price the Liberal party is prepared to pay for its flag? It is evident to me that the Liberal party has not realized that it cannot pull down the Canadian red ensign without men rising to its defence.
By order in council dated January 26, 1924 the red ensign was dedicated as the Canadian flag, the distinctive emblem of Canada. That was over 40 years ago and it served as a distinctive flag for our Canadian forces during

the second world war. During this 40 year period Canada has earned a place of esteem among the nations of the world. When you visit foreign countries in which the Canadian government owns property the Canadian ensign flies over that property reflecting the prestige which is enjoyed by Canadians everywhere. Man's roots go deep. We cannot arbitrarily destroy the symbol which represents our loyalty and affection, not for the Queen of England but for the Queen of Canada. She is our Queen as well. We cannot arbitrarily destroy the symbol of old France, the fleur-de-lis which is on the red ensign at present. We cannot arbitrarily destroy a flag which in toto represents our membership in the commonwealth of nations.
We are not being presented with a new flag, Mr. Speaker, because Canadians generally are demanding a change. When speaking with my constituents they ask me: "What does the Liberal government and the Liberal party find wrong with the old flag? Why do they want to pull it down? Why do they want to destroy the symbol that truly represents our varied traditions and cultures?" I could bring into this house, as I am sure every other hon. member of the Conservative party could, thousands of letters received from our constituents in support of the red ensign. I have brought only a few. I should like to read into the record one written by Mr. J. D. Dexter to the editor of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald on May 25. He says:
Just about everything has been said concerning the Canadian flag by the two sides, those of us who would keep the union jack in at least part of the design, and by those who would be satisfied with anything except the union jack. It now seems that "a banner with a strange device" will be forced upon us.
One thing that should not be forgotten, however, is the shameless impudence of those "representatives" who would undoubtedly vote servilely as their government tells them; many must well know that this will be against the wishes of the great majority of their constituents. They are perfidious toadies, allied with a lunatic splinter group from Quebec.
Is there none in the Liberal party with the courage and honesty to vote as his conscience tells him? It should be an honour to be read out of this particular government, and is the only way to be respected and remembered.
That is one of the mild letters which I have received, Mr. Speaker. I have received others. One from Mr. Norman Swain says this:
May I add my vote to the millions of Canadians who favour retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag.
Being ex-air force like yourself, I can look back on many sad and also happy moments when the red ensign proudly flew to make us mindful
Canadian Flag
of just why we were waging the war. Let's not
simply kick it aside like a worn out shoe.
It's high time we called a halt to concessions to the one province in ten.
You know the breed of the people on our south shore better than I. It will be a long time, if ever, when you can tell those mothers who lost sons in the war, those hardy fishermen who sailed under the ensign, that in order for them to be true Canadians it is necessary to change our flag.
Get on with the business of the country and stop fooling around with matters like the flag issue, designed to appease one province, and which is making Canada the subject of cartoons throughout the world.
This is a telegram I received:
Strongly urge you stand for referendum or national plebiscite on flag issue. No matter what outcome such high handed action by minority government although brave not to be tolerated.
Finally, one from Mr. Lee Crooker dated July 28, 1964:
The proposed destruction of our Canadian flag is the greatest crisis since confederation. It is greater than confederation. It will bring shame on every one of us and destroy all national consciousness.
Canada expects that the official opposition of which you are a member will take whatever steps are necessary to prevent this outrage.
This, Mr. Speaker, is our responsibility. We must present these views on behalf of our people who are calling out to us. They cannot come to Ottawa. They cannot stand up in this house and speak what is in their minds and what is in their hearts. They have charged us with this responsibility. And not only us in the opposition; they have also charged hon. members opposite. But they sit silent and will not portray the true thoughts of the people who elected them and sent them here. I hear a remark from the other side and I sincerely hope that an opportunity will be provided for the hon. member to make a contribution on his feet.


An hon. Member:: One of the trained seals.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Quite frankly I find it difficult to answer these questions which have been raised by my constituents because it seems that the Liberal party has designed a new flag in an effort to create a following among those who dislike the Canadian ensign because it reminds them of our connection with Great Britain. We cannot destroy the past through legislation, but we can through the passage of this flag resolution make our future progress as a nation more difficult.
Some of the Liberal supporters have said that we have a need for a distinctive flag, and that this is why this resolution was presented. Canada adopted the red ensign with the dominion badge for its merchantmen in

Canadian Flag
1892, just 25 years after confederation. The arms of the four provinces that united in 1867 formed the great seal of the dominion. The present arms, which date from a royal proclamation of George V dated November 21, 1921, include a shield containing the traditional emblems of England, three golden lions on a red field; of Scotland, red lion rampant on a gold field; and of Ireland, gold harp on a purple field. It also contains the emblem of France, three golden fleurs-de-lis on a purple field, thus incorporating into the flag that still flies here the one French flag that in ancient times flew over Canadian soil.
From its use on merchant ships, the Canadian red ensign moved, with widespread international recognition, to the position of our flag abroad, superseding the union jack. This was written into law in 1924 when parliament enacted legislation providing for the wearing of the ensign on any Canadian building abroad. At home the ensign is the national flag by authority of an order in council dated September 5, 1945. This order says it is appropriate to fly the ensign on any occasion when it is desired to mark its Canadian significance.
Now, what did General H. D. G. Crerar, the distinguished commander of the first Canadian army in world war II, say when recounting an official welcome to him in Ottawa, as put by the Canadian Legion magazine for March, 1963? He stated:
As we moved away from the central entrance of the parliament buildings, Mr. King the then prime minister 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 matter of our national flag".
The Canadian ensign was suitable for prime minister King, and I would like to ask, why is it not suitable for Prime Minister Pearson? What does the Canadian Legion have to say about our present flag? They say:
The Canadian red ensign has grown out of Canadian history. Why now reject that history? All the parliamentary votes at Ottawa cannot blot out the truth that it was under the red ensign in two world wars that Canadians of all racial origins risked and gave their lives for those values which the red ensign symbolizes.
The great Edmund Burke warned that a people who ignore their past, will have no future. Those who believe that maple leaves alone, or other symbols related merely to geography, are sufficient for a Canadian national flag, are suggesting that Canadian nationhood has been determined by purely materialistic factors. It is true that the Canadian physical environment has affected the development of Canadian nationhood and Canadian characteristics. But Canada's soul is rooted in the

flow of history which came out of western, Christian Europe. Spiritual and cultural death is the end of a nation cut from its roots. And the Canadian red ensign does symbolize those roots.
I believe that epitomizes the thoughts of many Canadians and I am glad to have this opportunity to place it on the record. I ask the Prime Minister to look upon Canada as a great tree having twin trunks that represent our French and British ancestors. Our tree has many grafted branches representing Canadians of other national origins, and as an entity I believe it can grow larger and stronger and provide shade and comfort for those less fortunate than ourselves. I ask him, and I ask the house, what could be more distinctive for a Canadian flag than one representing the two great founding peoples of Canada? On this issue the Prime Minister has been given a golden opportunity to provide leadership, to show evidence of his statesmanship and establish unity throughout the entire length and breadth ef this nation. In my opinion, it is not too late to make the changes that are necessary.
While I honour and revere our present flag, the Canadian ensign, I believe it could be modified to give more reasonable representation to Canadians of French origin. The easiest way to accomplish this change would be to remove the shield in the field of the red ensign and replace it with a large, gold maple leaf on which there was superimposed the fleur-de-lis. I am convinced that a flag containing these symbols would be accepted as a flag of good design and as a reasonable compromise by most Canadians. This would not be just a flag of maple leaves, which I understand are found in greater numbers in the states that border us to the south than in some of the provinces in Canada; in fact, there are provinces in Canada in which there are no maple leaves. This would be a flag that all of us could proclaim as a symbol of our unity, the ideal flag for a country like ours.
Tonight, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but wonder, where are the supporters of this maple leaf design? Where are the two members for Halifax, Nova Scotia? Why have they not spoken on this issue? They receive the same mail as I receive, and certainly this must indicate to them that their constituents want them to speak out in favour of our present flag. When are we going to hear from the Minister of Labour (Mr. MacEachen), the hon. member for Inverness-Richmond? When are we going to hear from the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart)? Is their contribution to this important issue

going to be one of silence, which is all we have had from them to date?
I wish to take this opportunity to challenge the Prime Minister to carry out at least one of the promises he made to the Canadian electorate during the last election campaign. He promised 60 days of decision and a bold, decisive government. Well, his 60 days of decision were a bitter disappointment to many Canadians; but he can still provide bold, decisive government. I challenge him to stand in his place today, or tomorrow, and free the Commons from the sword of Damocles that is hanging over its head in the threat of a general election if the flag resolution fails to pass.
I challenge him to tell the House of Commons that the vote on the flag resolution will be a free vote, with members in all parties voting as their constituencies and their consciences dictate, without fear of a general election if the flag resolution is turned down. I approve of a plebiscite on this issue and predict that if a plebiscite is held the results will be most surprising to the Liberal party. It is perhaps the only way that Canadians who feel they have been robbed of their right of expression on this issue can have their views properly presented as members of this great nation. The selection of a new flag design could then be a choice made of the people, and I believe the majority view should be accepted. However, Canadians will have had their plebiscite right here in the Commons, through their freely elected representatives, if the Prime Minister would give us a free vote. Should the maple leaf design submitted by the Prime Minister be approved under these conditions, then I am sure Canadians generally will accept-they will be forced to accept-the rule of the majority.
However if it is rejected I hope the Prime Minister will seriously consider the proposal I have put forth for a distinctive national flag, which I believe Canadians generally would accept since it would satisfy every desire of our multiple religious, racial and cultural background, and it would eliminate the confusion and disunity which is created at present by the two flag resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Bran-don-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale).


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Quack, quack.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I have been listening to this debate during the past two days, and it seems
Canadian Flag
to me it is strangely reminiscent of the atmosphere that prevailed on the government side of the house back in 1956. It was a Liberal government in those days, too-during the famous pipe line debate. I was a member of the House of Commons at that time. The situation was different inasmuch as the government of that day had an overwhelming majority and it used that overwhelming majority like a steamroller to subvert the basic rights of parliament. When I rose to speak during that pipe line debate I was received in much the same way as I was received tonight, with cries of "Carried" from the government side of the house-and the government side of the house today is again occupied by the Liberal party. There is a difference, however; it has not the great big steamroller majority that it had back in 1956. But it still seems to be saturated with the spirit of complacency, indifference and arrogance which prevailed during that tragic pipe line debate which brought such disastrous results to the parliament of Canada.
There is something else in the atmosphere of that time which is reminiscent of the atmosphere that prevails tonight. The government backbenchers were dedicated to a conspiracy of silence. The very word parliament means to talk and discuss. Yet the supporters of the government sit in silence, do a little jeering from time to time, shout "carried" from time to time, but make no constructive contribution to this important subject which is not only dividing the parliament of Canada but is also dividing the people of Canada from sea to sea. During the rape of parliament back in 1956 I could not understand how the government backbenchers could sit in silence on that occasion, and neither can I on this occasion when a subject is under discussion that is loaded with emotion and concerns the basic values and ideals, the symbols that are identified with our traditions, with our parliamentary institutions, with freedom and liberty, which are at stake at the present time.
I want to spend the few moments at my disposal tonight discussing the amendment to the Prime Minister's motion. There is a fundamental purpose in the amendment. As has already been indicated, it is to provide an opportunity to the government and the Prime Minister in particular to find a convenient face saving device to get them out of the difficulty into which they have stumbled. I cannot believe that a man with the international background of the present Prime Minister of Canada could have de-

Canadian Flag
liberately set out to deal with this controversial and divisive issue in the almost absentminded fashion in which he has proceeded up to the present time. I believe he has stumbled into this difficulty in much the same manner as the government stumbled into its problems with the budget, stumbled into difficulty over the Canada pension program and generally have stumbled along in an unplanned, haphazard fashion which I do not have to emphasize during this debate tonight because it has been commented on by many of Canada's leading journalists as well as by the hon. member for Port Arthur (Mr. Fisher), who also doubles as a journalist.
I think it results from a lack of firm leadership on the part of the Prime Minister and I think it results too from the fact of his diplomatic training. In the world of diplomacy you almost have to be a chameleon. You have to be all things to all people if you are going to bring about the kind of reconciliation that he has been so successful in achieving during his years as a diplomat representing the Dominion of Canada. I think too of his background, as it was pointed up the other day in a little exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, when he indicated that the Leader of the Opposition had once been a Liberal and the Leader of the Opposition shot back that the Prime Minister had once been a Conservative. I think his difficulty results from the fact that he has fallen into bad company. He was once a Conservative. I am sure those Conservative instincts must still be there, but he is surrounded by bad company at the present time. It is interesting to note that a convert to a political party is always more extreme than those who are born into that party.
As another illustration of this point I would refer to the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill), who spent most of his formative years in the province of Manitoba and was a Conservative, but now has become an extreme exponent of the worst aspects of Liberalism. I am also reminded of Sir Winston Churchill, that great parliamentarian, who changed parties twice. He was a Conservative, became a Liberal and then in his more mature years he returned to Conservatism and wound up his parliamentary career in a blaze of glory.
The reason I interject this thought is that what the Liberal government is doing in dealing with this important issue is typical of their attitude toward Canada and confederation down through the years. It is the old divide and rule formula. As a western mem-

ber I have been subjected to this right from the days I first entered parliament. At that time-and they are great sloganeers-they used the slogan: A vote for Dinsdale is a vote for Drew, is a vote for Bay street, is a vote for duplicity. This is the sort of divisive tactic that they pursued in my early experience in politics, and they are still using it today. I have an advertisement here which goes back about 10 years in Canadian politics. It reads in part as follows:
Manitoba now receives $23 million yearly under the dominion tax agreement. Drew would scrap this to fatten the money bags of Ontario and Quebec.
This is the old divide and rule formula which has been used with such a devastating effect on national unity in this country. At the bottom of the advertisement you are urged to vote Liberal. This formula, applied by the sort of company the Prime Minister finds himself in at the moment, found expression in a rule or ruin policy during the period when the Liberals were in opposition, at which time they downgraded Canada in the eyes of the world for the sake of political expediency. I read recently an interesting speech by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) which was delivered on Friday, June 26, to the British-Canadian trade association at the Seignory club in Montebello. On page 7 of his speech there is this interesting paragraph:
Shortly thereafter I visited Britain to discuss with the government a number of trade matters, and also to try to break down the psychological barrier that seemed to have been created by giving some reassurance about the underlying trend of conditions in Canada and the growing opportunities for sales in this market.
Who created the psychological barrier? The hidden persuaders of the Liberal opposition of those days. And so I could go on with the campaign gimmicks, the party slogans imported from the United States such as "get the country moving again", the comic books, the pigeons, etc., etc. These tactics are being repeated in the government's handling of the very delicate issue of the flag. They have resorted to the same divide and rule tactics.
They have attempted to destroy the opposition leader in a personal assault. They have allowed themselves to become the representatives of the extreme forces in this country, and I shall be dealing with that in a moment. They have brought in the flag with typical Liberal arrogance, without having it passed upon by a parliamentary committee and without any referral to the other groups or other parties in this House of Commons. Even worse than that, it was never even dis-

cussed by the members of the house supporting the government. It is a personal flag, it is a party flag.
The only political parties that have had personal party flags were parties like the nazi party, which had its personal party flag. This flag is a complete break with Canada's past. Again, the only countries that have resorted to this tactic in adopting a flag have been Soviet Russia, nazi Germany, and more recently Dr. DuValier who is in charge of the new government of Haiti. They have adopted a flag which has completely repudiated their past because they have emerged out of a revolutionary rather than an evolutionary process.
I believe these tactics have been deliberately designed to irritate the House of Commons. We have had no Easter recess-the first time that I can recall in the 14 years I have been here that parliament has not been granted a recess. We have not had any summer recess. If there is any procedure that is designed to irritate and disturb the House of Commons, it is this procedure of forcing parliament to operate under pressure on controversial issues. Perhaps, sir, it has been done deliberately to keep members of parliament out of touch with their constituents, because in this Ottawa hothouse experience we sometimes live in an Alice in Wonderland environment. Of course, it makes it more difficult for members who come from the more remote parts of Canada. We have not been able to get back to our constituents in order to feel the pulse at the local constituency level, particularly on an issue like this. It is political expediency of the worst kind which almost borders on the political philosophy espoused by Machia-velli of the middle ages.


An hon. Member:: It is renaissance.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: No renaissance here, I assure you.
The Prime Minister's attitude has been one of political provocation right from the start. As the Globe and Mail has said, and this has been quoted many times, it was deliberately designed to set Canada on a collision course. There was a challenge issued for the opposition to bring in a want of confidence motion on this issue. Some have been interpreting the flag debate as an attempt on the part of the opposition to precipitate an election. This is the last subject which should be used as a basis for an election in this country. This is why the opposition is introducing an amendment for a referendum to make it
Canadian Flag
possible for the government to get out from under the impasse in which it finds itself, and to avoid the collision that has been referred to by many commentators in this nation.
The attitude, the belligerent attitude if you will, with which this subject has been introduced by the government suggests that it hopes that the present house of minorities, this divided house, will split on the issue. They will capture one province in toto and then press ahead to divide the rest of the country in a desperate attempt to get an overall majority. This is why I say we are dealing with Machiavellian politics on this issue. Hypocrisy is also involved because it was said this was an election promise. This aspect has been dealt with adequately. Many silly things are promised during an election campaign, and this is a quotation from the Prime Minister himself. It certainly was not in my campaign. My campaign dealt with the propaganda issues like deficit financing, wheat sales to China, Diefendollars and all the other gimmicks with which we in the Conservative party had to wrestle. The very fact that a two flag resolution has been introduced too is indicative of hypocrisy. We are being given a flag that repudiates the past on the one hand, and on the other hand we are going back to the union jack, which is directly concerned with Canada's colonial period. This is hypocrisy. This is political subterfuge of the most despicable kind.
It reminds me of the tactics that were used in South Africa where, in response to the extreme element in that commonwealth country the government decided to bring in a distinctive flag. They could not decide on a distinctive flag, so they brought in a two flag resolution, a distinctive flag plus the union jack denoting connection with the commonwealth. It was not long before someone moved in the house that there was no longer a necessity for the union jack. The prime minister agreed and that was the end of the symbolism denoting the connection of that country with the commonwealth. We know the story of South Africa only too well since that time. You cannot appease extremism by this sort of tactic of appeasing the extremist viewpoint.
The suggestion that this is extremism is not my idea at all. It is not the first time this subject has been up in the House of Commons. I am going to quote from an editorial appearing in the Winnipeg Free Press back in 1954 when a Liberal backbencher introduced a resolution for a distinctive flag. The government very wisely withdrew itself from

Canadian Flag
any connection with the private member's bill. Here is what the Free Press had to say about that particular period in Canadian parliamentary history:
Only two small remnants of extremism survive the earlier controversy. On the one hand, there are still some extreme "loyalists" who want the union jack alone, but to this there are overwhelming practical objections, besides the fact that citizens of the United Kingdom understandably show no enthusiasm for having their flag used by Canadians. On the other hand, there are those who want a flag that does not contain the union jack at all. The Canadian people have continually shown by their actions that the majority feels otherwise. Hence the red ensign has been for all practical purposes our national flag since confederation. Notwithstanding the lack of formal authorization, it has ousted all competing flags. It has withstood every effort to discard it. And it surely will withstand any future effort, for this is the standard under which Canadian soldiers were proud to fight and die in both world wars. It is by consent of parliament in 1946 our national flag "until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag." The other day it was consecrated as such on the altar of Westminster Abbey.
In the result it may be said that the Canadian flag question is now settled, finally and irrevocably, except for formal recognition by parliament.
Surely the time has come for this final step. Parliament at the next session should declare the red ensign to be our national emblem.
That is what the editorial in the Winnipeg Free Press said back in 1954 when this issue was before that parliament.
We are catering to the extreme elements on both sides of this question, on one hand repudiating our past by bringing in the maple leaf flag with no symbols of our heritage, and on the other hand going back to the union jack. It was a two flag resolution. Now it has been split into two resolutions which I think is symbolic of the split in our country on this issue.
The Kingston Whig-Standard of Saturday, May 16, had this to say:
As recently as February of this year Prime Minister Pearson said publicly there is more to this flag issue than simply satisfying the desires of those who make the most noise. It now appears that the noisy faction has got to him.
The final paragraph is this:
Mr. Pearson has issued a challenge to Canadians. He is betting on the weakness of parliament to sustain him in his decision to sell us out. This is a bitter day for Canada.
I know this is a device that has often been resorted to in parliament. Members of parliament in their desire to get home in the withering heat of July have often left their places of responsibility in the House of Commons, particularly those of us from remote 
parts of the country, but not on this basic issue. We are here to discuss it in all its important aspects.
The fact that the government has capitulated to the extreme viewpoint in Canada is also revealed in the way this matter was initially introduced to Canadians, not through the House of Commons but by an insult to the Canadian Legion. I used to be the parliamentary secretary to the minister of veterans affairs, and in that capacity it was my privilege to attend the opening ceremony, on Sunday evening, of the biannual national meeting of the Royal Canadian Legion. It was always understood that was not an occasion for a political speech, that it was a semireligious, dignified ceremony.
I can understand the response of the legionnaires on that occasion. Some of them indulged in booing, and a good many of the papers said it was a shame to boo Canada's Prime Minister under these circumstances. Mr. Speaker, I was in England at the end of the war in 1945 and I followed the post-war election there. I heard Sir Winston Churchill speak in Wembley stadium. I heard that great man, who led the free world through the holocaust of world war II, booed by a large section of the audience. They were not booing him; they were booing the domestic policies that he represented.
Was Winston Churchill vexed? Did he stand on his dignity and say, "You should not boo the prime minister of the United Kingdom?" No. He turned to the section of the audience booing him and he said, "Let's get it over," and he led them in a great booing chorus, and he won the meeting from that point on.
A journalist, Mr. Bill Smiley, had this to say about that particular episode in Winnipeg:
By the way, I think the Canadian Legion has had some pretty shoddy treatment from the daily press because of its espousal of the ensign, and it's less-than-enthusiastic reception of the Prime Minister, at the Winnipeg convention.
What's wrong with an organization standing up for something it believes in? Everybody else does it, from hog producers to folk singers. But the Legion was suddenly made the butt of a vicious and slanted attack in certain dailies.
The men who did the dirty work in two wars were suddenly catalogued as a group of reactionaries, or as one daily put it, a "bunch of old soldiers", trying to tell the rest of Canada what flag it should have.
I must congratulate the Legion for its responsible response to the attack made on it in sections of the press and in some other circles in Canada. In its own publication, The Legionary, it showed a great sense of responsibility-this is in its July issue-when

in a special editorial the editor said, in reference to the number of letters it had received:
Most of the letters, about 85 per cent, are in favour of the retention of the Canadian red ensign as our national flag. Practically all of them, however, whether pro or con, are of a highly emotional and critical nature, and in the interest of national unity The Legionary refrains from printing any of them.
I think it would have been much better for national unity if this issue had never been precipitated into the arena of public discussion under the present circumstances. It was done in the presence of a group of Canadians who, above everything else, must be aware of the significance of symbols. It was the sacrifices of these men and their colleagues in world wars I and II which made the ensign Canada's distinctive flag. Surely the flag that has been the symbol of the values and ideals that made this nation great, having gone through the bloodshed in two world wars, should have received the kind of distinction that is demanded by the resolution put before the house by the Prime Minister?
Just briefly I want to indicate what the ensign stands for. We have had its history outlined. It became Canada's distinctive flag after the sacrifices of two world wars. In 1919 Canada discovered its soul at Versailles where the then Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden, insisted that Canada be represented as a separate nation. This came about, I think, because of the upsurge of reasonable nationalism that had been contributed to by the influx of a great wave of immigrants who came to this country in the early part of this century, immigrants such as the hon. member for Hum-boldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), who was quoted this afternoon by my colleague from Victoria-Carleton. These immigrants came to this country to get away from the narrow nationalism that was turning Europe into a bedlam, and they appreciated the positive nationalism that was afforded to them under the aegis of the ensign and all that it represents.
I could quote the late prime minister, the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, who made a specific promise that any flag in this country would contain the union jack. I could quote the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and I heard him speak in this house whenever the issue came up when he was prime minister. He would say, "I am in favour of a distinctive national flag, but unfortunately some of my fellow Canadians are not of the same viewpoint, and so long as I am prime minister I will do nothing that will divide this nation."
Canadian Flag
That is the responsible attitude that any leader must adopt if we are going to evolve to our full stature of national unity.
Why is this such an important issue? Before I go into that I can also refer back to the parliamentary committee of 1945 which made a specific recommendation for a distinctive flag, the ensign with the golden maple leaf in the fly to which might be added a superimposed blue fleur-de-lis, recognizing the traditions of our past. We do not have to be adamant on this point, because if we are to resolve this matter at all it will be on the basis of typical Canadian compromise. As a westerner from Manitoba, the home of No. 1 Northern Manitoba wheat, I think the gold maple leaf would be a symbolic reminder of the golden prairies which are contributing so much to the well being of the Canadian economy at the present time. Certainly a maple leaf has little symbolic significance to us.
This is a vital issue, because flags symbolize those values and those ideals which undergird the spiritual life of this nation. The heart craves some tangible expression of the intangible and this always emerges out of the past. Why are flags kept in cathedrals? It is because peoples of all nations recognized their importance as symbols of underlying values.
The ensign could not be more representative of those values because it comes about-particularly the union jack in the corner-by bringing together the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick. St. George was a Macedonian, a symbol of chivalry; St. Andrew was a Jew who became the patron saint of Scotland; St. Patrick was a Roman who went to Ireland as a missionary to spread among the Irish the civilization he had learned in France. These men were not chosen because of their racial or national backgrounds. They were chosen because of the ideals they represented and the deeds they had accomplished. Britain was a melting pot made up of Angles, Saxons, Piets, Scots, Normans, French and many others. Unity came out of diversity because of a dedication to common ideals. Canada, too, must evolve unity out of diversity and this can only be done by dedication to the spirit of tolerance, the spirit of fraternity which was referred to by Cardinal Leger recently when he spoke in support of the ecumenical movement which is now sweeping Christendom. These values and ideals are symbolized by the crosses in the jack-and the very name "union jack" derives from the fact that James VI of Scotland who became James I of England loved to sign his name

Canadian Flag
Jacques, French being the language of the court at that time.
There is something of deeper significance in this attempt to destroy the symbols of our past. I think it is associated with the materialism of the nineteenth century. The intellectual movements which came out of the nineteenth century counted many which gave rise to a distortion of scientific principles. The science of eugenics, for example, was blown up into the theory of the superiority of certain races which has plagued the twentieth century. The fact that we keep talking about the founding races and bringing race into this discussion is I think, a reflection on this age; it is something we should have long grown out of in this country. Someone has said that man attempted to destroy God in the nineteenth century as a result of which, in the twentieth, he is in great danger of destroying himself. If you destroy the symbols, if you remove the symbols which go back to the foundation of western civilization, which go back to the crusades, which are identified with the slow evolution of our political institutions, how long will it be until the facts upon which those symbols are based are also destroyed in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I do not intend to deal with the maple leaf as a symbol. It has its place on buttons, badges and other things of that kind where it has been used to good effect. Dr. Eugene Forsey has placed the matter in proper perspective. He says: "A government which is firmly committed to the absolutely bicultural character of our country is yet proposing a flag which contains not the slightest reference to any culture whatsoever-not even agriculture."


An hon. Member:: Very funny.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: Someone across the way says "very funny". It is not funny. It is tragic.


Mr. Bigg:: You fellows speak better sitting on your rear ends-why not stand up and make a speech?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) says it is very funny. It is tragic that a government should adopt this hypocritical approach to such an issue. I try to be as charitable as I can, but there is only one explanation: It hopes to split the country and get a majority.


Mitchell William Sharp: It has split your party, though.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) talks about splitting parties. He and his friends have been trying to split the Conservative party, east against west, using divide and rule methods.
My time is running short and I must bring these remarks to a conclusion. The Liberal party has talked about a new approach to politics, one without partisanship and all the other nasty things which are identified with our political system in Canada. I say that in their approach to this issue they are attempting to re-open all the old divisions. They are playing party politics with a vengeance. Ramsey Cook, who gave the public a little book last year entitled "John W. Dafoe and the Politics of the Manitoba Free Press" had this to say:
Based on the careers of Arthur Melghen and Mackenzie King it would appear that something other than honesty and integrity is required for success in Canadian politics.


An hon. Member:: Agreed.


Walter Gilbert Dinsdale: I agree wholeheartedly with that. As a westerner, I know what the Right Hon. Mackenzie King did to divide that part of Canada.
It is not good enough to deal with this matter from a narrow, partisan standpoint. You may win Quebec, but you divide the rest of the country. That is obvious, so why proceed on a collision course, on a headstrong, partisan course which will have such a divisive effect on the progress Canada has made toward national unity? Our traditions and our history are not a private preserve for the Prime Minister and the Liberal party to exploit or repudiate as their whim or fancy may dictate.


Mr. J. C. Munro (Hamilton East):: In one
sense this seemingly interminable debate on the question of a distinctive Canadian flag possesses pathetic undertones. That this question could and does engender such seeming fervor can only be interpreted as a manifestation of our frustrations as a nation. As a nation, in recent years, we seem to be floundering. We have not found a sense of direction.
This observation would not, I think, apply to our French Canadian compatriots. One often hears of the so-called mistrust of English speaking Canadians towards the new ideas, aims and aspirations of the Quebec renaissance, of Quebec revolution, if you like. I believe all too often this mistrust is mistaken for simply envy. Quebec seems to have emerged from the morass. They seem to have acquired a sense of direction. They seem

to have a destiny to realize. The new vitality of Quebec is one of the most encouraging signs indicating that perhaps our apathy has run its course. The destiny of French Canada is inexorably interwoven with ours and cannot be realized alone. How else to explain the repercussions of this movement in Quebec upon the rest of Canada?
The strange paradox is that many of our English speaking commentators on and observers of the political scene who would extol the virtues of the Quebec development often are the very ones who would deplore an extension of this movement on similar terms to the rest of Canada. The Canadian body politic is starting to flinch, to rid itself of its complacency and apathy, a complacency and apathy albeit more apparent than real. If one welcomes this change, then English speaking Canada can in no small measure owe its new awareness to the sometimes rude jabs emanating from Quebec. Perhaps the rest of Canada has decided to set aside any niggardly resentment and take the development in Quebec as a cue to the initiation of our own re-thinking. True it is that the glamour of the new direction in Quebec should not mesmerize us to the point where we are unaware of the possible damage and repercussions which would arise. However, the attempt to equate the flag resolution with a desire to accede to the desires and aims of Quebec- a very questionable hypothesis in any event -is a telltale sign of an underlying resentment on our part, a feeling we can ill afford to indulge any longer.


Mr. Hamilton:: Tom Kent should write more legibly.


John Carr Munro: This tedious and often exasperating discussion-I am sorry, I did not hear the comment of the hon. member.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I was just asking the parliamentary secretary to tell Tom Kent to write more legibly.


John Carr Munro: This tedious and often exasperating discussion of the flag is fast becoming a great Canadian Preoccupation. Standing alone this question does not deserve such great attention. That there is something of far deeper significance behind this resolution no one will now deny. Perhaps it is our collective desire to go to our own internal brink for one last time, with the desperate hope that the exercise will either kill or cure us as a nation. Does not the whole debate as it is waged here and throughout the country have a fatalistic quality that is unmistakable? Those who
Canadian Flag
would champion the red ensign instinctively know that they have lost. But lost what? Lost the debate in the commons? Lost a great Canadian controversy? Lost just the battle but not the war? The fact that such champions are forcibly arguing for at best a referendum and at least a general election is perhaps one of the great examples of internal political and moral brinkmanship in our Canadian experience.
Let no one misunderstand me. I am not attributing any base motives to those who would champion the cause of the red ensign. They feel deeply. Theirs is a course of action to which they are totally and utterly committed. After all, was it not this side that brought this issue to the forefront by advancing the flag question in the form of a government resolution at this time? No, I am not being critical of those who would fight for the retention of the red ensign, but rather I agree with those Canadians who think that another trip to the brink is precisely what this country needs.
Alas, one thing all this has proved is that the flag debate has unquestionably debunked the theory of those Canadians who would insist that we as a people no longer desire to indulge in introspection, no longer desire to deal in terms of a Canadian identity. To state that Canadians are not deeply troubled over the question of a Canadian identity, Canadian aims, Canada's role, Canada's destiny as a nation, is to be oblivious to the facts.
There are those who say that the discussion of the scope and direction of a Canadian nationalism is a futile and wasteful thing, outdated in this age of international co-operation. This line of thought has been forcibly advanced by many of our leading scholars and intellectuals.
May I refer to a remark made by a man deserving a great respect, Professor Frank Underhill. He said:
I think we are heading, wherever you look now, towards a rather mean, petty, parochial nationalism.
It is true that Professor Underhill expressed this sentiment in the context of his expressed concern for foreign control, but I feel his statement is no less applicable here. I expect that this flag question will after much turmoil be resolved. I expect we will have a distinctive flag. I believe that during this current process of resolving the matter, and irrespective of the outcome, it can be taken that Canadians have once more served notice

Canadian Flag
on their political leaders that they desire a policy of enlightened nationalism.
Any discussion in the political arena of nationalism, especially a Canadian nationalism, leaves the politician open to immediate ridicule. Such activity on his part is seen as nothing more nor less than that action of a rather ruthless political opportunist, succumbing to the irresistible temptation to seize a time-tested weapon in order to reap rich political rewards.
On the premise that the best defence is attack, may I say that the constant refrains by many of the commentators on the Canadian political scene are distastefully smug, an ego-satisfying device to identify oneself with the conventional wisdom of the so-called intellectual elite, to identify oneself with the enlightened. The answer to a more definite scope and direction of a Canadian nationalism must be found. If it is to be found it undoubtedly lies between the two extremes. The important thing is we must try to find it. The flag issue is simply another price we Canadians would pay to be Canadians; just another hesitant step in our cautious groping to find a truly national purpose.
Of the many Canadians who are prepared to take this step, are there not those who wish that they were more aware of its direction? How much more so, then, must this feeling sway those Canadians who are not as yet prepared to take that step, who desire knowledge of where the step will lead us.
Can we be too critical of those who before depriving themselves of a cherished possession would desire to know that with which it is to be replaced? To say that the replacement will be a distinctive symbol, three maple leaves on a field of white bounded in blue, is an answer too patently superficial. If it is to be replaced with something new let us have a general idea of the dimensions of this newness, of its fundamental meaning. Many surely will acknowledge how much more readily those Canadians who still resist the implementation of this resolution would accept it if they but knew the real ingredients of its substitute.
Our caution, as exhibited in this issue, brings to mind a point made by Professor Kilborn in his book "The Firebrand", a point he seems to have made more as an afterthought. When our country's only armed rebellion, in the early part of the nineteenth century, ignominiously suffered humiliating defeats, it left an indelible mark on our Canadian character. This is the point Professor Kilborn makes that I think is of con-

siderable interest. This, he claims, left us a cautious people, suspect of any emotionalism; a people resolved to settle its problems by travelling the safer road of pragmatic compromise. No ringing declarations for us; no high sounding protestations of faith and allegiance for us.
Does not this present resolution somehow disturb this pact we have made among ourselves? This resolution would squarely confront and challenge this historic legacy. Nor, as some unhappily believe, does it lend itself to solution through the good old Canadian way. We are boldly dealing with a matter on the order paper which is not subject to our typical Canadian treatment. Too slavish adherence to the device of compromise has left Canadians with a festering sense of unfulfilment. Like a bandage too hastily applied, it covers up the wound before the air gets in and often as not the wound never properly heals.
I am not extolling the virtue of soul searing, emotional orgy, but rather the necessity of seeing this debate on the flag as it is encompassed by the many other problems and circumstances we face as a nation; problems of which we are now at last aware; problems that all too often are given the old Canadian treatment, that of burying them in our subconscious and hoping against hope they will fade. They have not faded; events have nurtured them; they are bursting their enclosure; they are stridently emerging into our consciousness. Any further attempt to entice them back into the recesses of our national soul are attempts we undertake at our peril.
What are some of these encompassing problems and circumstances that reflect so strongly on this question of a distinctive flag? We know that no modern industrial country has ever allowed so large a portion of its industry to fall into foreign hands as we have. I would include in this our natural resources, owned by non-residents to a frightening degree-a type of foreign ownership which to all intents and purposes is irredeemable. Predicated upon this premise that Canadians cherish their independence, dare we delude ourselves that such a development has not imposed severe limits on that independence; that it has and will cut drastic inroads into our sovereignty; that it constitutes a constant pressure area to prompt ever greater economic and political assimilation to our southern neighbour?
One striking thing about this flag issue is the bitter ironies that it has pointed up. One such bitter irony is now evolving; that is the thought that so absorbed will we become in

our internal wranglings, in nourishing our resentments-resentments that are invariably the aftermath of the application of the old Canadian treatment-that we will ignore the real threat to our over-all sovereignty, the threat of foreign domination. I fear that this type of reaction feeds on what is our legitimate desire for a vent for our collective frustrations. We are in a somewhat similar position to the wife beater. He picks on his own because the boss gave him a bad time at work; but he does not change his job.
Another bitter irony is the current attempt to becloud the issue by the effort of many to convince the Canadian people that any manifestations of nationalism on their part are not only belated but are primitive expressions of a backward people. So elevated do we regard ourselves in the hierarchy of sophisticated nations that such an observation is particularly galling to our self-esteem. It would not be inaccurate to say that such a suggestion has found a fairly wide acceptance in our country today. The really unfortunate thing is that it has little merit. The ironic connotation is that its most ready proponents would seem to be among our corporate leaders and our heady left-wing intellectuals. At last they have found a sentiment which they can espouse in common, and apparently with equal enthusiasm. A galling aspect of this particular irony is the fact that the common sentiment would have to be the very sentiment that would undermine those national aspirations that some Canadians may at last be ready to express. I think in this context I can do no better than quote the thoughts of Michael Barkway on the subject some years ago when he undertook to deal with this problem:
One (argument) is the pose of sophisticated realism which asserts that the conception of national independence is out of date in this nuclear age, and, therefore, Canada should not worry about preserving its independence from the United States. All that needs be said about this slippery bit of semantics is that the premise, in any sense in which it is true, is also trite; and that the conclusion does not follow from it. It is true that the growing interdependence of the world in the world in the nuclear age necessitates increasing limitations upon the sovereignty of all nations. But the chance of getting such limitations universally accepted will not be increased, but reduced, if Canada surrenders its independent voice to one of the superstates.
The same offence against logic invalidates the argument when it is presented in its alternative form under a cloak of superior idealism. In this form the premise is that national barriers must yield to a universal community of man and a world government. Its false conclusion is that Canada can hasten "the day of the Lord" by sacrificing its independence, not to a world authority, but to the
Canadian Flag
one superstate which happens to be very powerful, very rich and very near. This merely confuses Canada's absorption by the United States with an ultimate kingdom of heaven where all lambs will be cherished by all lions and there shall be no night.
He goes on:
I don't want to labour the elementary and obvious confusions but so much Canadian thought about independence is so confused that they cannot be ignored. We cannot begin to talk sense until we get rid of the half-baked idea that it is somehow vaguely immoral to assert Canada's will to independence.
Later on Mr. Barkway brings back to our memory a prophecy made many years ago by Henri Bourassa when he stated that if a movement toward annexation ever started in Canada it would be led by "the imperialists of Toronto". This line of reasoning leads one to the historic note that has been drawn to our attention by Douglas V. LePan. In one of his papers, Mr. LePan was warning that Canadians are prepared to pay some price to preserve their national independence but there was a limit to what they are prepared to pay; and then he reminded us of the somersault performed by some of the signers of the annexation manifesto in 1849, signed by many of the very people who had been most vocal in defending Canadian independence and who suddenly became most anxious to exchange it for union with the United States.
The third ironic element that has emerged during our discussion on the flag debate is the often repeated criticism being levelled at the Prime Minister to the effect that his timing was exceedingly bad in bringing in the flag resolution at this time.
When, I ask, could there be a more propitious time? Twenty or even 10 years ago? Surely not. Those were times when we still basked in that affinity with the United Kingdom, arising from the close attachment during world war II and for many years thereafter. To bring in this resolution in those times would have provoked near havoc.
If the argument is that the timing was premature, then would it have been more appropriate to have delayed this resolution to say 10 years from now? I think not. If I may appropriate a phrase uttered by the leader of the New Democratic party, the hon. member for Bumaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas), it would seem that perhaps 10 years from now the more suitable Canadian flag would contain "the insignia of a beaver clutched firmly in the claws of an eagle". Would not a resolution such as the one before us today if brought in at such a time be

Canadian Flag
well accorded that widespread mockery which it may have richly earned and deserved?
Even now the bald fact that many of those who oppose this resolution are rather resigned about the whole thing has an ominous ring. The mere fact of the relatively peaceful discussion of such a resolution now taking place would indicate that to many of our people it is not regarded as a bold new step in the context of a Canadian awareness but a quiet acceptance, an acceptance based on that feeling that perhaps it does not much matter anyhow. What irony, that we Canadians are determined to take a step, for many years regarded as inevitable, only when the taking of such step would be devoid of much of its meaning.
If one of the motivations behind the design to establish a distinctive flag for Canada is the hope that it will stimulate a national pride, one wonders whether the timing is not perhaps too late. Is there not in this country a concurrent discussion generating much heat over the issue of federalism versus sectionalism? Right at this moment are there not many Canadians gravely concerned that the increasing demands of the provinces in jurisdictional matters are sapping the strength of our federal authority? One cannot help but wonder whether the cries of the provinces for more autonomy are not in some degree a reflection of that instinct for survival that tells us to get out of a burning building while there is still time.
Perhaps the reason that the aspirations expressed today are more of a parochial or provincial nature is akin to the feeling that a home owner has when his house is overencumbered. Why needlessly spend the energy in bringing about extensive changes? Is it not more practical to get out and build a new one from the ground up? Perhaps some of this discussion on my part is unduly pessimistic. My only personal hope and prayer is that it is.
I for one wholeheartedly endorse the resolution without amendment and respect and admire the Prime Minister for bringing it in at this time. I support it more for what it can mean than what it is.


Siegfried John Enns: Would the hon. member permit a question before his time expires?


John Carr Munro: Certainly.


Siegfried John Enns: During the course of his very learned observations, which were listened to with much care on this side of the house he made the statement that this was really an

excellent time to introduce discussion of a flag and asked why we should postpone it for 10 years. There has b'een no suggestion by anyone that it should be postponed for that length of time but rather just for a matter of months. So I would ask the hon. member why he should want to make that kind of remark.


John Carr Munro: In the over-all history of the Canadian nation I think we must deal in terms of years. When we consider what an appropriate time is, surely we consider that in the context of this year or next year. Surely we do not consider it in terms of two or three weeks or two or three months from now. The fact of the matter is that we have gone this long without a flag. The fact remains that I think it has been injurious to our national aspirations to have gone this long without a flag, and my only point was to establish that now is as good a time as any other, if it is not too late already.


Mr. K. H. More (Regina City):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak at this time in this debate I want to make it clear that under any circumstances I would have sought to speak on a matter of this importance to Canada and its future. The fact that we are in the month of August and have not had the normal holiday period does not compromise my views in any way. It does not compromise me in my desire to do the duty which I feel I was elected to do by the people of my constituency.
I have had to fight not only serious illness but economic challenges in order to make my way in my lifetime, and in some years I had no holidays. I forwent them to meet the challenge facing me at that time. Equally as much as in the case of personal experience I believe there is a challenge to this parliament and to the people of Canada in the flag debate, and I forgo any hope of a holiday and sympathize with no one for having to forgo a holiday so that debate in this parliament, which is what this parliament is for, may take place.
I do not intend in my remarks to belittle anyone who has spoken in the debate, and there have been members on the other side who have spoken. I do intend to put forward my views on why this debate is taking place now, and on the serious misjudgment of the Prime Minister in having it take place now and forcing it to a conclusion in the dictatorial fashion in which he has started out. I think this is responsible criticism. Although there are those who differ with me and ap-

plaud the Prime Minister for bringing the matter forward, I think I have justified criticisms to offer with regard to his conduct in bringing it forward and imposing it on parliament in this fashion. I hope I will be given a hearing as I express, without any malice, my criticisms in this regard.
The debate before the house arose out of a motion proposed by the Prime Minister, which motion was proposed in one part and has since been divided into two. The motion now before the house is in these words:
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.
I know that the matter under consideration before the house is the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker). Mr. Speaker, the levity I hear on the other side indicates to me the attitude of many over there who choose to sit silent, not use parliament for its intended purpose and belittle those who feel it their duty to take part at this time.
In my experience or in my reading of parliamentary history of Canada, I do not know of any serious proposal that had to do, not with the economics of this nation or any subject upon which you normally pass judgment as a result of full consideration, but a matter dealing with emotions relating to the background of the people getting together to form confederation, that has been brought forward in such an arbitrary fashion as the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has seen fit to do in presenting this resolution. It is claimed by the Prime Minister and those who speak for the government that the Liberal party had a mandate from the people of Canada. I ask where and when that mandate was given. Certainly I have taken part in four election campaigns during recent years. If a mandate had been indicated at all it would have arisen from the presentation the Liberal party made to the country in the general election in 1962 and again in the general election of 1963.
In both of these election campaigns the Liberal forces of this country did all they could to defeat me. They had the hierarchy on the front benches in my constituency. They were there between elections and they were brought back in the 1963 election campaign.
I do not boast about the results. They have
Canadian Flag
been a deep satisfaction to me because I have lived in this community for over 30 years. The results were substantially in my favour. I think under the circumstances in which the election campaign was conducted I can, in all humility, feel very gratified indeed that the community in which I have lived for that period has seen fit to give me its support. I say the Liberal party had nothing to do with it. They marshalled their forces at the federal level. They were going to win Regina City. They had all their forces in Regina City, but at no time during the election campaign did any one of them mention the Liberal party stood for a new, distinctive Canadian flag which contained no symbol related to the past. They did not say that they would, if they were given a majority, introduce a distinctive Canadian flag. The Liberal candidate in the constituency never mentioned it, and certainly I never offered it to the electorate in any way, shape or form. I believe there are other constituencies in Canada in which the Prime Minister spoke, and in which members on the front benches spoke, in which they did not mention that one of the major planks in their platform was a distinctive Canadian flag. They did not mention that one of the major items with which parliament must deal in a particular session, regardless of the period of the session, would be the distinctive flag. What I have said cannot be repudiated.
It is passing strange, too, that the throne speech that was to herald the great 60 days of decision when everything the Liberal party had promised the electorate was going to be achieved, made no reference to the flag being introduced in this session of parliament. This fact gave heart to some of the people who stood for the Canadian red ensign. Members of the Legion, as pointed out in The Legionary, were given hope that this matter would not suddenly be forced into the realm of politics and partisan action. What changed the Prime Minister's mind? What brought on this sudden haste? What compelled him to make this a major issue in this session and completely disrupt the affairs of this parliament? We would like to know. I think the people of Canada would like to know.
I wonder if it is because of the extremist voice of Quebec? I wonder if that is what it is? I suggest this because in a speech delivered by the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) he made a reference to this subject. I am sorry to see that he has left the house because I do not like to refer to remarks made by other members if they are not present. I hope the hon. member will

Canadian Flag
forgive me. The Minister without Portfolio made a speech outside this house referring to the flag and praised the Prime Minister for his courage. I do not intend to quote him, but he can correct me if I misinterpret one of the remarks he made. He said: Let us get on and settle this flag business, when we get the new, distinctive flag the Prime Minister has put before parliament, we will hear no more of extremism in Quebec, we will stop the saboteurs, these bombers, these disrupters. What utter nonsense to say that a new flag, a piece of cloth, will settle them. Is this the reason for the sudden change? The Prime Minister had a reputation for sound judgment, and I do not challenge his services to Canada. What changed the character of this man all of a sudden? On what basis does he thrust this issue into this session of parliament at this time and say: You do this, or else? What has happened to this man? If the reason is the one suggested, then it is utter nonsense. This is no basis for choosing a flag for a country, because that problem appears to have some depth and the very strong feelings of the extremists cannot be settled overnight.
Is this a message that the Minister without Portfolio thinks the people of Canada can accept as the true reason for this flag issue being brought before parliament at this time? No, my friends, I do not accept it and my mail indicates that hundreds of thousands of people in Canada do not accept it. I was born and raised in Canada. I have lived more than half a century. I was raised in a little town in the west. My roots and my family's roots are deep in Canada. My people pioneered the west. We lived in a community in Saskatchewan that had no great services and did not have all the amenities of life that we enjoy today. We lived in a mixed community. Predominantly it was Protestant. We had only two churches, a Methodist and a Presbyterian. We had some Roman Catholic families-not many, but two that I can remember very well, because we were close to each other and played together. We had a Jewish family and we had a Chinese family. We had no problems of separatism, no problems of prejudice. These people joined us at our churches at times because they were Christian people and the Christian message coming from whatever source was interesting to them. Their own church was not available and transportation was not easy. On occasion, they joined with us.
I remember well as a lad going to the Orange celebrations on July 12. I remember

how I fully misunderstood things because we used to have some speakers coming from Ontario. I could not understand why one Canadian would say the things about other Canadians that some of these people said. It was particularly embarrassing to me in my early youth when I was forming opinions, because we took one of the Catholic families with us to these celebrations. They came along readily because the celebration took in the whole community. In spite of these messages, no prejudice existed or developed in this community. I am glad to see it has been reduced here. Perhaps, as a result of those speeches, I can understand the feelings of my French Canadian compatriots. They have never been expressed in my family and I hope the time will never come that they will be expressed by anyone. We all want to be Canadians and to get along together as Canadians, but if the Minister without Portfolio is correct, that this flag is an appeasement of an extremist element, no matter on what side of the fence it is, then it is a shame it is being thrust on this parliament at this time.
During my lifetime we have had only one flag in Canada, the Canadian red ensign. I grew up under it. It flew from every building in my little home town when the occasion demanded it. I have seen it flown throughout Canada, and I never knew there was any feeling that Canada did not have a flag.
Today when I see the efforts being made by the government I wonder what it has in mind as the aims and objectives of Canada, and how far it has departed from the original intent of the Fathers of Confederation. I listened to the last young speaker with great interest. He belittled the efforts of those of us who want to maintain something of our traditions and carry them forward in the building we will do in the years ahead.
I entered public life actively as a candidate late in life. I may say I was active throughout my life because I was brought up to consider this part of my duty; but in 1957 I had a challenge thrown to me and I entered public life as a candidate. I certainly did not enter it to come to a parliament to take part in and witness the dissolution of the aims and objectives of the Fathers of Confederation, and of the nation we have built during our first 97 years. Because this seems to be the trend that is being followed by this government, I intend right now at the start of it, on the question of the flag issue, to fight it with all the strength I possess, not because I think a flag should be maintained at all

costs but because I think Canada should be maintained at all costs. The intent of the Fathers of Confederation should be in all our hearts, should be what we are here to work for and to which we should honestly seek to contribute.
No superficial symbol, a piece of bunting or anything like that, will contribute to the building of this great nation unless in our hearts we have an understanding, with prejudice removed, and unless we have one aim and objective, whether we are of French extraction, Irish extraction, British extraction, Ukrainian extraction, or whatever. We should have one purpose in mind-to work to build a new nation that will enhance the respect of the individual and increase the freedom he enjoys and has enjoyed in this country under the present flag.
A symbol should firmly express the determination in the hearts of the people of the country to work towards a common objective. I say that this determination is in the hearts of the Canadian people as I have met them, sought conversations with them and discussed amicably the problems we jointly face. It is there now, but it will be destroyed in large measure by the implementation of this resolution which the Prime Minister has so arbitrarily forced on this parliament, and demanded that it deal with on the basis that if it does not accept it there will be an election.
I think I have proven beyond possibility of defence or repudiation from the government side that at no time during the campaigns of 1962 and 1963 did the Liberal party offer, in a manner that would impress Canadians in all parts of Canada, a platform that contained this great plank of this new flag. There were other things it did offer in all parts of Canada that all Canadians understood, and though the Liberal party did not receive the majority of votes or return to office with a majority of members, similar proposals were made by other parties whose combined votes indicated the majority of the people supported them.
In particular I remember the Liberal party's undertaking that it would immediately seek to negotiate with the United States a way out of our nuclear commitments, to remove nuclear weapons from Canadian soil and Canadian military operations in every sphere. This was a plank and platform offered to Canadians in every part of the country. It was a plank which was supported by the majority of Canadians. It is a plank the govern-
Canadian Flag
ment should be dealing with now in honouring its commitment to the Canadian people.
The Liberal party has been loud in its criticism of other governments and people for commitments it said had been made, but it has never found or produced any evidence in this house that such commitments had been made. I say it is a shame that the government delays carrying out this undertaking to the Canadian people. If there was one single item of priority in the Liberal platform, on which it got votes in the election of 1963, it was this plank and platform to negotiate a way out of the so-called nuclear commitment. However, as revealed in answers given to questions on orders of the day, we know that no negotiations are taking place and that the government is doing nothing about the matter at this time.
On the question of priorities, we have got a flag debate, even though the government has no mandate from the people to proceed with its flag. No selling job was done by the Liberal party to show it would take this action which today has such priority. Now we are going to be bludgeoned into facing a decision on it. You smile over there, but you cannot deny this. I doubt if you ever said to the people in your constituency that you stood for a plank and a platform that would do away with the Canadian red ensign in two years, and replace it with this proposed design.
The hon. member who preceded me referred to remarks made some time ago by a certain writer relative to foreign domination. Well, we have got foreign domination in the acceptance of the United States demand that we arm ourselves with nuclear weapons. I do not understand the hypocrisy and nonsense in this regard. To me the Minister without Portfolio may have spoken the truth, and I think it should be made known to the people of Canada.
1 go further and say there can be only one reason for the haste with which the Prime Minister is demanding a final vote on this question of the flag, and that is to use it as a red herring, to try to get the people to forget that the Liberals' 60 days of decision resulted in a further 120 days during which practically all their decisions were repudiated, not by the people of Canada but by the government itself, because it made them in haste and without full consideration of their consequences. I believe time may yet demand some changes in the distinctive Canadian flag we have had for over 75 years. But I be-

Canadian Flag
lieve the need for such changes will be made evident, not by managed news leaks but by natural developments.
I am receiving a tremendous amount of correspondence on this issue-more than 1,700 individual pieces of mail along with the usual flow of lobby material which all members of parliament receive on every subject. Of all these writers, there were only seven who wanted the Canadian red ensign dispensed with. There were 13 who indicated that their preference was for the union jack alone. The remainder all asked that the Canadian red ensign be retained-the flag of their lifetime, the distinctive Canadian flag which has been recognized on no fewer than three occasions. Although this correspondence cannot represent everybody in my constituency, I am sure Mr. Gallup would consider that it is an overwhelming indication of what the people in my area, at least, desire. Perhaps this situation has come about because the Prime Minister did not say clearly to the people during the last election that this was one of the planks of his platform. Perhaps the people were taken somewhat by surprise and were unprepared for this confrontation. I do not know.
I might take up a great deal of time by reading some of this correspondence. I have listened to many of the speeches which have been made in this house and I have heard other hon. members reading from the correspondence which they have received. All I need say in this regard is that I have had letters from wives of servicemen, from mothers of sons who were killed in action, from ladies who have lost not only their sons but their husbands as well. And the tenor running through all these messages is this: Please stand up and fight for our flag, which is the only reminder that we have of the sacrifices made by members of our families in two world wars. I am ashamed that those who seek to have their way with regard to this flag question should seek to demean the opinions expressed by those who do not feel as they do. I think this indicates the weakness of the whole argument put forward by those who say that the majority of the Canadian people want a new flag with none of our traditions attached to it. I cannot understand anyone taking part in a debate if his proposals are so negative that his only contribution must be to demean opponents who put forward ideas different than his own. I think the caricatures of the Canadian Legion for its stand on the flag question will take Canada many years to live down. I do not

think it is proper to joke at the expense of people who have made sacrifices and who have offered to make the supreme sacrifice. I do not think people who have honestly made their views known to the government should be demeaned by a cartoon such as the one published by the Citizen with regard to the Legion's stand on this question. Those who for their own purposes laugh and scoff at letters written by sincere and honest people, members of whose families have made the supreme sacrifice as members of the armed services, and who wish to retain the red ensign for that reason should be ashamed of themselves. We may not agree with them, but if they honestly feel that way, and have so expressed themselves, they do not deserve to be scoffed at.


An hon. Member:: Who is scoffing at them?


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: It has been done in this house.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Kenneth Hamill (Ken) More: It has. If the hon. member wants to make a speech, let him get up on his feet and not sit silent and refuse to carry out his obligations to his constituents and to parliament. There have been quite a few occasions on which members opposite have given me the odd lecture on conduct in this chamber, but I will stake my conduct against the conduct of those who have sought to lecture me and bring me to order. I had a little experience in conducting business and taking part in public meetings before I came to this house, and I have not been given to interruption. I have been given to listening to members while they advance their arguments in this house and taking what they say into consideration, because I believe that is what this house is for. All I ask in return is that I be given the same consideration in return. And if the hon. member, or any hon. member, disagrees with the arguments I am putting forward or the position I am taking, he will have at least an audience of one when he rises properly to make his own observations here in this house.
I say it is a shame to this nation that the opinions of people who have given everything to this country should be demeaned. I should also like to refer to the I.O.D.E. because I believe this organization also has given great service to our country. Its members, too, have taken a position which honestly expresses their views and, while it may not be the opinion of others in Canada, it should be recognized as an honest and sin-

cere expression of opinion, and as such it should be given consideration.
I think there has been a mistake in judgment in bringing this issue before the house at this time. I will go no further in criticism of the Prime Minister, because of his distinguished services to this country, services which I recognize. But I believe that whoever advised him, whoever put him in the position of making a one-man decision on a matter of such great importance as putting forward a flag design of the nature now before us, and forcing it upon parliament, has placed him in a most unpleasant situation.
As I say, 1 have had over 1,700 personal letters on this matter. I do not dare to stand here and say they represent 65,000 voters in my constituency, but I have tried as far as I have been able to find out the views of my constituency. This matter was brought in at a time when the press and radio and television of this country were full of the news of bombing in Quebec, death in Quebec, destruction in Quebec, the burning of the flag in Quebec, the destruction of a monument to a historic figure in Canada. This resolution, brought before parliament at a time when these messages from Quebec were received throughout Canada daily, has not found very fertile ground, to say the least. Under the circumstances, this effort by the Prime Minister and by the government has been interpreted widely throughout Canada-I think I am being fair although I do not want to emphasize it-as nothing but further appeasement of a minority in Canada, even though that minority is one of our founding races. I think this was most unfortunate and was not to be desired. However, this I put forward as being the truth, and I am afraid that nothing that can be said will cover up the fact that the extremists have seized the public limelight and given the matter great publicity across the country. The action by the Prime Minister and his government has not brought forth the spirit of unity which is desired.
Surely any change of this nature can only be justified on the basis that this would result. First of all, I challenge every hon. member of this house to remove prejudice from his heart and to come forward and work with but one desire in mind, a desire to build a better Canada. Having done that I think that many of these other things will come in due course.
However, not having done that, and that not being the case, I believe the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition is
Canadian Flag
the only way this present situation can be resolved, so that whatever final solution this parliament adopts it would be one of permanency and one accepted by the Canadian people. I have heard it said tonight that this flag is a must with this government; that it is something they must do; that it was an obligation they had. I should like to ask, does that make it permanent? Knowing of the divisions in the country and the voices of many thousands of people, I wonder whether in the near future there might not be a change of government and some other government might have an obligation to change the flag. Is this the kind of solution we want to a problem of this nature? I say no. I say that in the matter of the heart, not of the head, in the matter of emotions, not of statistics and dollars and cents, a solution, to be permanent, even with parliamentary action taken, must be a solution that the Canadian people have determined upon by their own voice. To me, that voice can only be heard through a referendum.
The words of the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition are as follows:
"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."
I believe this is the form of action which must be taken to bring unity to this country and to have a flag that we know that the people of Canada accept. I am not in my own mind completely satisfied with the wording of the amendment that we have before us. I think we need to have further clarification. We need to know what the plebiscite would be on. Therefore, at this time I wish to suggest a subamendment. I wish to move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the words:
"and that in such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following:
1.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?
2.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
3.	Are you in favour of the three maple leaves design?
4.	Are you in favour of a one maple leaf design?
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that it would have been better had a plebiscite been taken before
6808	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion this question came to parliament to determine the desire of the people for a new flag. I believe that at that time the plebiscite could have been one which would not have aroused any emotions or been a political football or party matter. It would simply have asked: "Are you in favour of a new Canadian flag?" But because the government has taken action I believe this opportunity has gone past the board.
I submit that having now selected a design which has been put before parliament further action by parliament should not be taken, but that this plebiscite be held. I suggest that it is important that the questions I have suggested be placed on the plebiscite in order to determine which design the people want.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps before the hon. member's time expires-it has just about expired now-and before we reach 10.30 I should read the subamendment as proposed by the hon. member. It is moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More), and seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk (Mr. Stefanson):
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the words:
"and that in such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following:
1.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?
2.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
3.	Are you in favour of the three maple leaves design?
4.	Are you in favour of a one maple leaf design?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the house under provisional standing order 39A deemed to have been moved:


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon I had occasion to address an inquiry to the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Transport in connection with the monopolistic ground service for passengers that is rendered at Malton airport, primarily into the city of Toronto. On June 22 the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam made a number of inquiries of the Minister of Transport, and I myself had a 12-part question addressed to him bearing on the sub-


ject of this service from and to Malton airport as it affects the city of Toronto. The burden of our complaint was that taxicabs were not allowed to render service to and from Malton airport, despite the fact that the monopoly now existing and which refers directly to taxi service is held by a company that does not own a taxi, does not render taxi service and is not licensed as a taxi service.
The matter was brought up today deliberately because of a large advertisement which appears in today's Globe and Mail as well as today's Toronto evening Telegram and the Toronto Daily Star. This advertisement has been inserted by Air Terminal Transport Limited, operators of this monopolistic service. They have written the advertisement in such a way, full of inaccuracies and innuendoes, that I considered it a matter of privilege; but rather than raise the point this afternoon I thought I would discuss it at this time.
The remarks I made here on July 31 are quoted in this advertisement. In those remarks I pointed out that I do not expect to have transportation service available to me if I arrive at a railroad station in a distant city, or if I arrive at a bus terminal in a distant city, or if the car should break down at the city limits; and I could see no reason why an air traveller should expect to have such service waiting for him upon arrival. Are our airplane travellers a favoured few, that the government must provide them with taxicab service immediately they set foot on the ground? Air Terminal Transport Limited have quoted accurately enough from the remarks I made on July 31 when I pointed out that I had taken taxi service in Boston, Kansas City and New York city at various times; but they have quoted me completely out of context, as though I was complaining of the taxi service that was rendered. I do not think their case can be very strong if it is necessary to mislead the readers of the three great Toronto newspapers in this manner.
Another interesting point in connection with the advertisement these papers carry is the fact that in it there are four different mentions of "bus" and "limousine" service, but not once do they use the word "taxi". It is this very word "taxi" that is the cause of all the complaints at the present time, because in the agreement entered into secretly by the Department of Transport, under the Hon. Leon Balcer, and this company the word "taxicab" or "taxi" appears 11 times. We

have been complaining that when there is a contract which mentions the word "taxi" 11 times, there should be some taxi service involved. The company evidently realizes the inaccuracy of their actions in not operating taxis when they hold a taxi exclusive franchise from the government, and in this advertisement which appears in today's papers they do not use the word "taxi" in referring to their own operations, but refer exclusively to "buses" and "limousines". They also state that they have an agreement with the Department of Transport that stipulates "we must provide ground transport 24 hours a day".
I would like to point out that the agreement does not require that service whatsoever, in connection with ground transport. The agreement, in clause 10, says:
That the lessee shall maintain at the said airport a sufficient number of buses, limousines and taxis, 24 hours each day, to accommodate passenger traffic to and from the said airport.
Yet the president of this company, in a statement made to the Toronto Globe and Mail following a meeting with the council of the township of Toronto, made the statement that his firm is living up to its contract with the federal government. I point out that they are not living up to clause 10, which states that they must maintain a sufficient number of buses, limousines and taxis, and they are not living up to clause 13. Clause 13 of the agreement requires:
That the lessee shall keep records of the number of passengers carried to and from the said airport in the buses, limousines and taxis of the lessee and, annually within 15 days after the first day of December, shall furnish to the minister a statement, certified by a responsible officer of the lessee, of the number of such passengers carried
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion in the buses and limousines of the lessee, and a similar statement of the number of passengers carried in the taxis of the lessee.
They do not furnish any statement of the number of passengers carried in the taxis of the lessee, as is proven by the fact that in answer to my question of June 22, when I asked how many passengers were carried by bus, by limousine and by taxi, as required by clause 13, the reply came back, as will be seen at page 4542 of Hansard, giving the number of passengers carried by bus, the number of passengers carried by car, and absolutely nothing under the heading of taxi. When this president says they are living up to their contract with the government, I state flatly that they are breaking clause 10 and clause 13 continually and have not yet been checked up by the Department of Transport.
They make the further claim that the opposition to the present monopoly is being engendered by a taxicab operator falsely claiming to represent all of Toronto's taxicabs and that there is only one company objecting. I make the statement to the house that on three different occasions I have met with representatives for 1,100 taxicabs in Toronto involving seven different firms.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member as his time has expired.


Jean-Charles Cantin: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the hon. member may I say I will be very glad to bring his remarks to the attention of the Minister of Transport on his return.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.38 p.m.

Friday, August 14, 1964