1964-08-31

Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, may I beg leave of the house to draw to the attention of hon. members an event in history important to all Canadians regardless of their ancestry, but in particular to those of Ukrainian racial origin. The Ukrainian branch of the Canadian family tree has designated 1964 as Shevchenko year to celebrate the 150th anniversary of the birth of Ukraine's poet laureate and national hero, who was born on March 9, 1814.
Some hon. members will recall that three years ago, on March 10, this house honoured my compatriots by granting me leave to address it briefly on the solemn occasion of the centenary of Shevchenko's death and to commemorate the unveiling of a statue in his honour on the grounds of the Manitoba legislature on July 8, 1961. The unveiling ceremony was performed by the then prime minister of Canada, the present leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), in the presence of some 40,000 people. Hence this is the year of celebration of his birth in Canada, the United States and in the whole free world. Last June the former president of the United States, General Dwight D. Eisenhower, unveiled a magnificent statue of Shevchenko in Washington, D.C. in the presence of some 100,000 people. Our own C.B.C. showed a part of this ceremony, and it thrilled the hearts of my compatriots.
On Wednesday of this week in Winnipeg His Worship Mayor Juba is issuing a proclamation declaring the 5th, 6th and 7th of this month as Shevchenko days in Winnipeg, and during these three days thousands of Canadians of Ukrainian and other origins will converge on the capital of Manitoba for three days of deliberations under the guidance of the Ukrainian-Canadian committee. On Sunday September 6 these people will again march to the foot of his statue to pay homage to him and to dedicate themselves to the
ideals of freedom they enjoy in this land, freedom for which Shevchenko prayed and fought but which was denied him and his people in their native land.
Shevchenko was a writer and poet who proved to the world that the pen is mightier than the sword. His prophetic exhortations gave birth to and have kept alive the vision of national unity and of his people's aspirations for independence. He was a patriot of the Ukraine but he was not a narrow minded nationalist. His fiery words, for which he suffered banishment to Siberia, condemned the imperialist policy and oppression of all Slavs by Moscow.
This branch of the Canadian family are again marching to the foot of Shevchenko's monument to proclaim to all their fellow Canadians that they bring to this nation their heritage, their ideals which have guided their race through a thousand years of turbulent history, ideals and visions which Shevchenko crystallized in his poetry and whose works became their national bible. We want our fellow Canadians to share him with them, to share his visions, to share him with all who are oppressed.
Our fellow Canadians may wonder why such universal adoration is given to this man here in Canada and in the free world by those who were forced to flee from their native land but who found a ready welcome and freedom elsewhere. Their complete loyalty is to the new motherland, but they are concerned about the land of their fathers. Shevchenko gives the answer in a poem written in prison before his banishment to Siberia. May I give you the English translation:
It makes no difference to me,
If I shall live or not in Ukraine Or whether any one shall think Of me 'mid foreign snow and rain,

It makes great difference to me That evil folk and wicked men Attack our Ukraine, once so free,
And rob and plunder it at will.
That makes great difference to me.
I thank you, sir, and this honourable house for giving me an opportunity of saying these few words on such an important occasion.


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Acting Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, this is one occasion when

Question of Privilege
I find no difficulty whatever in agreeing with the hon. member for Marquette. Only yesterday I gazed at the statue to which he referred in his remarks in the grounds of the legislative building in Winnipeg. We all know that next week, when the Ukrainian-Canadian committee will be meeting, there is to be a great manifestation at that momument.
As the hon. gentleman has very rightly said, this will be a demonstration by Canadians; by Canadians who have not forgotten their origins or their past and who are demonstrating that in this new land to which they give their full loyalty as their homeland they can still maintain the traditions which they brought with them. And that, of course, is one of the bases on which our Canadian nationhood is being built.
But, as the hon. gentleman very rightly said, Canadians, United States citizens and people of the free world generally would not have the same devotion to Shevchenko if he had merely been a Ukrainian patriot. It is because he was the champion of the aspirations of all men everywhere for freedom, aspirations that are sometimes deeply submerged by tyranny, and these aspirations for freedom transcended, as the hon. member has said, narrow national boundaries, that this great poet is revered all over the free world; and that in his native land, which is not free in the sense he understood freedom, his memory is revered and keeps alive the hope that one day there too the freedom of which he spoke so eloquently, and to which he devoted his life, will reign.



MR. THOMPSON  REPORTED STATEMENT IN &quot;TIME&quot; MAGAZINE

Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, last Wednesday, August 26, the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg on a question of privilege raised a matter regarding a report in the news magazine Time, as it related to a quotation from myself, and at that time said I was either talking through my hat or I had been misquoted by this magazine article, and that I should completely dissociate myself from it because, he said, that statement was a complete falsehood. Checking on the article to which the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg referred-and by the way I have the highest personal regard for him-I find that the article quotes these words:
"Mr. Diefenbaker refused to consult with his own party or to consider any reasonable compromise himself. His proposal for unanimity would give him the power of veto, and the lack of any time limit merely prolongs the agony. He disregards completely the normal democratic process of majority rule."

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not always agree with the reporting of this magazine. In fact many times I find myself in disagreement with it, but on this occasion I find that they have quoted me, so far as I remember, exactly as I made this statement in reply to a question from a reporter for this magazine. I was not talking through my hat, nor can I dissociate myself from this statement because, as I understand it, it is a statement of fact.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is necessary to go back briefly, to review the situation by way of explanation, to August 4, the date I believe the party leaders first met in the Prime Minister's office.


Mr. Maclnnis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, the hon. member need not go beyond that statement wherein he said the Leader of the Opposition did not consult his caucus to prove himself entirely wrong. Any time spent going back to explain that situation would be completely wasted.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Malcolm MacInnis: He can be very easily proved wrong by every member sitting on the Conservative benches.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. In my opinion the hon. member for Red Deer is entitled to give a short explanation, but not to review a long historical series of incidents.


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, if the hon. member for Red Deer wishes to open this question it should be done in debate and not on a question of privilege of this kind, because that is a violation of the rules of the house. This should only be done in debate, and an opportunity should be available to him within a very short time to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sure all hon. members would like to know whether in my opinion there is a question of privilege. On June 10, 1964, I had to deal with certain statements or words uttered outside the house, and on that date I gave a rather detailed opinion, it seems to me, in which I quoted United Kingdom authorities referring to the fact that the authority of the house supersedes that of the Speaker in the case of occurrences which have taken place outside the house and that in respect of incidents which take place outside the house it is the house itself which has the authority and responsibility of resolving any question of privilege. These

reasons are set forth in detail at page 4141 of Hansard of June 10, 1964.
In the light of the circumstances as I have them at this moment I do not see that there is a bona fide case of privilege.


Robert Norman Thompson: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to make a lengthy statement, but I believe you stated at the time this question of privilege was raised that I would have the opportunity to answer for myself. All I wish to do is state the facts that are directly behind the statement found in Time magazine. My statement will not be lengthy. If hon. members do not want to hear the actual basis for the statement in Time magazine, which is true, I cannot help that.


George Clyde Nowlan: Again on a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Robert Norman Thompson: On August 4-


George Clyde Nowlan: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has a matter to raise I say it should be raised in the debate and not as a question of privilege at this time, particularly in view of the fact that Your Honour has intimated there is no question of privilege before the house at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion there is no question of privilege. There may be a serious grievance, but certainly not a question of privilege at this time.

On the orders of the day:


Mr. Speaker:: Order. If there are no further questions, before calling orders of the day I should like to refer to the matter which concerns the hon. member for Red Deer. On August 26 an alleged question of privilege was raised, and I suggested at that time, after a little discussion:
It seems to me that we should await the return of the hon. member for Red Deer.
That is to be found at page 7277 of Hansard. Later on the same page I said:
Certain allegations have been made. Let us hear both sides of the story before we reach a conclusion.
According to Beauchesne's parliamentary rules and forms citation 127 (3>:
When a statement is made affecting an honourable member which he denies, Mr. Speaker thinks that the house will feel that the honourable member has a right to make an explanation on a personal matter. He will not exceed an explanation *of the particular matter.
Question of Privilege
It seems to me at this time that it would be only right, in view of the commitment in effect given by the Chair, that the hon. member for Red Deer should make a short declaration, if he feels so inclined.


Robert Norman Thompson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I was going to state that the one criticism of this newspaper article in question is that it gives the implication that the leader of the official opposition never consults with his members. I had no intention of giving that interpretation to what I said. I was speaking to a specific point that had been raised by the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg.
Mr. Speaker, the situation behind this question is that on August 4 the Prime Minister called a meeting of the party leaders to consider a proposal that had been made by the hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam, regarding a way to solve the difficulties for the immediate moment, and also give some definite formula for concluding the flag debate later on when the house would resume after a recess which he had suggested.
Without breaking any confidence that we have in respect of this meeting, I believe it is general knowledge that we could not come to any agreement. As a result I made an alternative proposal. This alternative proposal was not original with me, as I read it in a leading editorial in the Montreal Gazette that morning. It seemed a very reasonable suggestion by which all members of this house could honourably get out of the position they found themselves in, and which was becoming increasingly difficult with each continuing day of the debate.
Very briefly this suggestion was that the three maple leaves should be replaced with a single maple leaf, and the amendment to the motion bringing this to pass would be made by a member of the opposition; that the union jack be replaced by the red ensign to represent Canada's membership in and our belonging to the commonwealth, and that the Prime Minister should take steps to immediately declare all votes as free votes in the house.
We discussed this suggestion at some length, and at that meeting it was agreed that each of us would take this suggestion back to his party members. I did not regard this in any way as a matter of confidence, because one could hardly talk it over at one's own caucus on that basis so I did what we had agreed to do. I took the suggestion back to our party caucus and we discussed it. I went even further than that. I notified my own constituents that such a proposal was before us,

Question of Privilege
and recorded in the Red Deer Advocate, the newspaper of my home town, on August 8 a brief summary of what I have just said. I did this with the idea of getting a response back in order that I should have some sense of what my constituents would think about this particular suggestion.
I was dismayed some days later, I believe on August 12, when the hon. member for St. Mary stood up in this house on the orders of the day and asked the Prime Minister the following question, as reported on page 6719 of Hansard:
Would the Prime Minister agree to a meeting of the leaders of the five political parties represented in the House of Commons to discuss the Canadian flag?
That meeting would be called to reach a unanimous decision on the choice of a distinctive Canadian flag, other than the three maple leaves, which would then be submitted to the house by the Speaker, in order to dissociate that matter from any political partisanship-
-and that, within a set period.
In reply to this question the Prime Minister said:
Mr. Speaker, we have already had useful meetings with the party leaders, and I hope this procedure can be continued.
Then the right hon. leader of the official opposition rose and said:
I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker. There was no question raised at this one meeting or at any meeting regarding the nature, kind and design of a flag. I am sure the Prime Minister, in answering as he did, did not intend to leave that impression.
Mr. Speaker, I was not only confused but upset by this statement, because to me it was in direct opposition to what we all knew had taken place at the first meeting, and on which we had acted, I think in good faith, in bringing this to the attention of each of our members. I was also disturbed by the fact that many members of the Conservative party were coming to me and others of our party, asking if there had been any discussion regarding an alternative design.


Mr. Diefenbaker:: Mr. Speaker, it is not for me to rise, but if this be your ruling then I presume anyone in the house may rise and discuss this matter; because this goes far beyond the question of privilege. This is an exculpatory statement by one who finds himself in a difficult position, having learned what the people of Red Deer think of his attitude, and it is quite out of keeping with the question of privilege. We are not concerned whether he was amazed or deceived.


Mr. Speaker:: I hoped the hon. member was drawing to the close of his remarks, because
[Mr. Thompson.!
it seems to me we have had quite a long explanation of a matter which has taken too much time.


Robert Norman Thompson: I am practically through with my statement. I am not in a difficult position with regard to this matter except that on the basis of my own conscience I want the facts to be known not only to the house but to the people of the country generally. This is why-


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member again, but this is really not the time to enter into a debate. A short explanation is called for, and I am wondering whether the hon. member could bring his remarks to a close fairly soon.


Robert Norman Thompson: I will end them by saying that I mention this only because it was the basis behind the report in the press to which reference has been made. I simply say in closing that my assumption that members of the Conservative party had not been consulted in regard to this matter was verified by the admission of their leader on at least two occasions that he had not done so. Mr. Speaker, this is the explanation behind the report, and it is a statement of fact.


Mr. Speaker:: Orders of the day.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I certainly am doing my best to accommodate all members, but it does seem to me we could leave this matter where it is resting at the moment and get on with the business before the house.


Malcolm MacInnis: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, you say that we should leave it for the moment, but when is it to come up again? The hon. member for Red Deer has just resumed his seat after making a final remark that his statement is a statement of fact. When the hon. member for Queens-Lunenburg raised the question in the house he did so on the basis of the statement that the Leader of the Opposition had refused to consult with his own party or to consider any reasonable comprise. I as a member of the Conservative caucus and many other members were fully aware of the situation. This statement is an unfounded lie, and the hon. member should dissociate himself from it, because in his early remarks he said he never meant to intimate any such thing.



MR. LAING  STATEMENT RESPECTING VANCOUVER VETERANS HOUSING PROJECT

Hon. Arlhur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of personal privilege. It arises out of a series of questions addressed to the Postmaster General on Tuesday last, as found on page 7228 of Hansard, especially a question directed to him by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich which, if left unanswered by me, could in my opinion reflect upon my integrity as a member of parliament.
I have responsibilities as a member of parliament in addition to my responsibilities as a member of the government, and in respect of the Fraserview housing matter I have such responsibilities and intend in the future to discharge them as a member of parliament. I made a commitment at the time that I would do my best to obtain an adjustment in the selling price of the properties. An adjustment has been made in the selling price of the properties, and since the decision was taken by the government I will stand by it.


John George Diefenbaker: What properties?


Arthur Laing: Fraserview housing. I think these are matters where the interpretation of what is right must be made by oneself and the defence of one's integrity must be made by oneself. I thank the house for giving me the privilege of doing so.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the meetings of the house leaders do not always produce conclusive results. We had a meeting this morning, part of which will have to be adjourned to a later date, but I am pleased to report that we agreed on at least one thing which is of importance both to the members of the house and their families, and the staff of the house. All the leaders, in the names of their respective parties, have agreed to the suggestion of the government that this house should not sit on Labour day. I therefore ask for an order of the house: That when this house adjourns on Friday September 4, 1964, it shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. the following Tuesday, and that the relative standing and provisional orders be suspended in relation thereto.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?
Questions


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: By leave of the house it is so ordered.



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. Barnett: 1.	For each of the last ten years, how many people in Canada have been convicted of bank robbery and sentenced to serve terms in the penitentiaries of Canada?
2.	How many persons are currently in the Canadian penitentiaries as a result of convictions for bank robbery?
3.	What is the average length in years of the sentence they are serving?
4.	What is the estimated cost per person, per year, for maintaining these persons in penitentiaries?
5.	What is the estimated annual amount taken from banks in bank robberies?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: 1. In the Canadian penitentiary service, for treatment and statistical purposes, the crime of bank robbery is classified as armed robbery.
People in Canada have been convicted of armed robbery and sentenced to serve terms in the penitentiaries of Canada in the following numbers for each of the last ten years for which statistics are available: 1954, 159; 1955, 171; 1956, 147; 1957, 93; 1958, 192; 1959, 187; 1960, 268; 1961, 294; 1962, 229; 1963, 204.
2.	Statistics are not at hand on the numbers of persons in the penitentiaries by the types of crimes for which they were convicted.
3.	The average length in years of sentences served by persons who have committed crimes of armed robbery is 4.2 years.
4.	The estimated cost per person, per year, for maintaining these persons in penitentiaries is $2,800.
5.	This information is not available.


BRUSHING CONTRACTS, WABAMUN INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Horner (Jasper-: Edson):
1.	Since 1961, how many brushing and sale of right of way contracts have the Paul's band of Indians of the Wabamun reserve entered into, and the value of each contract?
2.	Have there been any claims made for unpaid debts with regard to or arising out of these brushing contracts?
3.	Has the Indian affairs branch made any attempt to see that the claims were just and fair, and if settlements could be made, and, if so, what steps were followed?

Questions
4.	Has there been any meetings with the Indian affairs branch, the chief and council of the band, and a Mr, Couch?
5.	Was there a meeting between the three parties concerning the debt owed Mr. Couch on March 21, 1963; were minutes kept of the meeting; and was general approval given at the meeting authorizing the collection of debts owing Mr. Couch?
6.	What is the total amount in the band funds of the Paul's Indian tribe at the Wabamun Indian reserve?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. Since 1961, the Paul's band has approved of the sale of the following rights of way: (a) in August 1961 to Canadian Delhi Oil Company for a pipe line right of way across part of Buck lake Indian reserve 133C in the amount of $2,029; (b) in September 1961 to the Calgary Power Company for a power line right of way across the Wabamun Indian reserve 133B in the amount of $12,560; (c) in June 1963 to the municipal district of Stony Plain for widening a road through the Wabamun Indian reserve 133A. For this land the band is being paid at the rate of $100 per acre but the total amount will not be determined until the final survey has been approved.
Paul's band did not enter into any brushing contracts directly with the purchasers of these rights of way. However, the purchasers agreed to employ members of the band in any clearing and brushing operations which were undertaken.
2.	Credit was apparently advanced to individual members of the Paul's band by Mr. J. C. Couch, a storekeeper of Highvale, Alberta, in anticipation of being paid from wages received from brushing and clearing operations, interest payments, and other sources of income. Mr. Couch subsequently advised that a number of individuals had failed to settle their accounts with him and he asked for assistance in collecting the amounts owing.
3.	As the arrangement for credit between Mr. Couch and the Indians concerned was a
private matter, it was made clear that the Indian affairs branch could not assume responsibility for payment. Mr. Couch was also informed that the Indian affairs branch could neither use the funds of the band for the settlement of individual debts nor direct that treaty moneys, interest payments, pension cheques and other moneys payable to Indians be used in payment of their debts. However, arrangements were made through the Edmonton Indian agency office for Mr. Couch to meet the band council and members of the band in an effort to assist him to have the accounts settled.
4.	Yes.
5.	A meeting was arranged between the band and Mr. Couch on March 21, 1963, at which the superintendent of the Edmonton Indian agency was present and minutes were recorded. At this meeting the Indians authorized Mr. Couch to attend a band meeting on April 30, 1963, when cash payments were being made so as to give him an opportunity to approach those owing him and arrange settlement of their outstanding accounts.
6.	The total unexpended balance as at July 29, 1964, is $341,037, comprising a capital account of $326,204 and a revenue account of $14,833.


BANKRUPTCIES
Mr. Peters: 1.	How many bankruptcies have been registered with the superintendent of bankruptcy for the years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962, 1963, 1964?
2.	How many in each industry in the designated years?
3.	What was the average value in each category in the designated years?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: 1. The following is the total number of bankruptcies in Canada reported to the superintendent of bankruptcy for the calendar years 1959, 1960, 1961, 1962 and 1963 as well as the approximate total for the first four months of 1964: 1959, 3,238; 1960, 3,641; 1961, 3,511; 1962, 4,297; 1963, 5,189; 1964, 1,965.
2. The number of bankruptcies estimated by the dominion bureau of statistics in each industry is as follows;
Year	Primary industries	Manufacturing industries	Construction industries	Transportation communications and other utilities	Trade	Finance, insurance and real estate	Services1959	81	374	449	76	906	36	3071960	100	323	619	129	1,229	65	3631961	86	285	470	113	1,234	69	4021962	93	326	573	143	1,496	82	4771963	111	365	714	166	1,634	110	577

Questions
3. The average value in each category estimated by the dominion bureau of statistics in the designated years is as follows:
Transportation	Finance,
communications	insurance
Primary Manufacturing Construction and other	and
Year industries industries industries	utilities	Trade real estate Services
(thousands of dollars)
1959	
36.5	61.9	48.7	18.3	35.5	150.7	28.81960	
481.5	71.0	58.6	33.5	37.0	115.7	27.31961	
91.8	65.6	50.4	28.7	37.5	74.3	28.91962	
45.9	88.9	48.4	40.4	35.3	163.2	34.61963	
42.9	89.2	56.3	41.1	37.5	246.8	39.5


FACILITIES FOR CIVILIAN AIR TRAVEL, B.C.
Mr. Barnett: 1.	What, for each fiscal year since such expenditures began, are the amounts spent in British Columbia west of the Cascades for the construction, maintenance and operation of facilities for civilian air travel, including both ground facilities and air navigation aids?
2.	What, in addition to amounts included in the above, is the estimated cost of facilities constructed originally for the Department of National Defence which have since been transferred to civilian use?
3.	What is the estimated annual value of facilities provided for civilian air travel at Comox airfield, in so far as such expenditures are not made directly through the Department of Transport?


Maurice Lamontagne: 1. Expenditures by the Department of Transport for fiscal years commencing 1945-46 on construction, operation and maintenance of airports and air navigation aids, west of the Cascade mountains in the province of British Columbia, are as follows:
Fiscal Year	Amount
1945-46	$ 274,000
1946-47	462,000
1947-48	1,014,000
1948-49	1,206,000
1949-50	1,140,000
1950-51	1,131,000
1951-52	1,855,000
1952-53	3,224,000
1953-54	1,905,000
1954-55	1,821,000
1955-56	3,597,000
1956-57	3,762,000
1957-58	4,945,000
1958-59	9,540,000
1959-60	9,458,000
1960-61	5,568,000
1961-62	8,554,000
1962-63	9,067,000
1963-64	5,687,000
20220-471	
2.	In so far as the Department of National Defence is concerned:
Location
Estimated Cost
Abbotsford Cape St. James Massett Patricia Bay
Port Hardy (does not include buildings transferred to C.A.D.C. in 1944 and 1946)
Prince Rupert Sandspit
Sea Island, Vancouver Sumas
Tofino (does not include buildings transferred to C.A.D.C. in 1946 and 1949)

3.	The facilities at station Comox are for military use and there has been no extension of these facilities to provide for civilian air travel. Landing and other fees are recovered in accordance with D.N.D. aerodrome fees regulations, PC 1962-70, 18 Jan. 62.


ROY FAIBISH
Mr. Francis: 1.	Does Mr. Roy Faibish hold any position at the present time with the C.B.C. or with any branch of the government, or any crown corporation and, if so, what is the nature of Mr. Faibish's duties and responsibility?
2.	Did Mr. Roy Faibish appear as a witness before His Honour Judge Harold W. Pope acting as a commissioner under part 1 of the Inquiries Act?
3.	Has Mr. Faibish issued any public statement in connection with the following statement in the report of His Honour Judge Pope's inquiry (page 45) "It is also rather difficult to Justify the action of Mr. Faibish in ordering the payments to be made when he apparently had no knowledge of the information in the hands of the director which caused him to feel that any investigation should be made"?

Questions
4.	If Mr. Faibish did issue a public statement in connection with the above findings of Judge Pope, when was it made and what is the text of it?


Maurice Lamontagne: I am informed by the Canadian
Broadcasting Corporation and the office of the privy council as follows:
1.	Yes, Mr. Faibish is engaged on a term contract basis in the television service of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as a program researcher, script writer, film director, and interviewer.
2.	Yes.
3.	The government is not aware of any such public statement.
4.	Answered by 3.


COMPLETION OF KINGSTON PENINSULA TRAIL, N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What is the anticipated date of completion of the Kingston peninsula trail under the roads to resources program in the province of New Brunswick?
2.	How many miles of road remain to be rebuilt?
3.	How much money will it cost to complete this joint program?


Arthur Laing: The planning and scheduling of all works under the roads to resources program is a responsibility of the provincial government. The agreement signed with the province calls for completion of all projects by March 31, 1969.
2.	The total length of the Kingston peninsula loop is 40 miles. To date, 22 miles have been reconstructed and 16 miles have been paved. The province has not requested approval for any additional work and the only work outstanding is the completion of the Devon Construction Co. Contract for grading of a 10.8 mile section between Chapel Grove and Bayswater. This contract is 60 per cent complete.
3.	The estimated cost of the work on this road is $2,000,000 and the total value of the claims which have so far been submitted and paid is $1,154,532. Of this amount, the federal government has paid $556,050.


IMMIGRATION OFFICES ABROAD
Mr. Dionne: 1.	How many immigration offices are maintained abroad by the Department of Citizenship and Immigration?
2.	How many persons are employed in each office and what is the salary of each?


Hubert Badanai: 1. 33.
2.	See attached schedule.
Location and salary of Canadian immigration staff abroad
Annual
Number	salary
Location	of staff per person
London, England
Bristol, England
Liverpool, England
Leeds, England
49 (Total)
1	$11,800
1	7,860
1	7,020
2	6,720
3	6,420
1	6,090
1	5,880
4	5,700
1	5,340
3	5,100
1	3,900
1	3,975
3	3,705
1	3,570
1	3,165
1	3,030
2	2,895
6	2,490
1	2,220
1	2,310
3	2,130
2	2,625
1	2,040
1	1,950
3	1,590
2	1,500
1	1,320
5 (Total)	
1	7,020
1	5,700
1	2,490
2	1,590
12 (Total)	
1	7,320
1	5,880
1	5,700
1	5,340
1	5,100
1	2,760
2	2,490
1	1,770
2	1,680
1	1,860
11 (Total)	
1	6,720
2	5,340
1	5,100

Questions
		Annual			Annual
Number	salary	Number	salaryLocation of staff	per person	Location	of staff	per person2	2,895	Berlin, Germany	4 (Total)	1	2,220	1	7,0201	2,040	1	3,3261	1,770	1	2,9342	1,590	1	2,869Belfast, Ireland	5 (Total)	Hamburg, Germany	7 (Total)	1	$ 7,020	1	$7,3201	5,700	1	5,1001	2,490	1	3,3912	2,040	1	2,934Glasgow, Scotland	17 (Total)	1	2,5821	7,320	1	2,7262	7,020	1	2,2951	6,420	Athens, Greece	10 (Total)	1	5,760	1	7,3201	5,520	1	5,5201	5,100	1	3,9701	3,570	1	3,6831	3,030	1	2,8421	2,895	1	2,7951	2,490	1	2,4671	2,400	1	2,4201	1,770	1	2,0431	1,680	1	1,6943	1,590	Berne, Switzerland	4 (Total)	Cologne, Germany	50 (Total)	1	7,020The Cologne es-	1	8,730	1	3,152tablishment includes	1	7,470	2	2,80710 employees who	1	7,320	Brussels, Belgium	9 (Total)	handle immigration	1	7,020	1	7,020matters originating	1	6,420	1	5,100in Stuttgart and	1	5,760	1	4,200Munich and sur-	2	5,700	1	3,703rounding areas	1	5,520	1	2,940where we have been	2	5,340	1	2,621authorized to oper-	2	4,532	2	2,523ate on a part-time	1	4,336	1	2,034basis only.	1 1	4,260 3,554	Copenhagen, Denmark 8 (Total) 1	7,3205	3,391	1	6,4201	3,326	1	5,5201	3,130	1	3,6603	3,065	1	3,3973	2,934	1	2,9991	2,869	1	2,8211	2,726	1	2,5542	2,690	Helsinki, Finland	3 (Total)	4	2,654	1	6,4201	2,618	1	4,5783	2,367	1	3,6061	2,331	Hong Kong, B.C.C.	22 (Total)	6	2,295	1	7,3201	946	1	7,0201	864	1	6,720
20220-471J
Questions

		Annual			Annual
Number	salary	Number	salaryLocation	of staff	per person	Location of staff	per perso2	5,340	1	1,5871	5,520	1	1,9571	5,880	2	1,8881	5,730	Madrid, Spain	5 (Total)	1	4,410	1	7,0202	2,401	1	4,7101	2,213	1	2,2721	2,213	1	1,7252	1,930	1	8823	1,836	Rome, Italy	33 (Total)	1	1,516	2	7,3201	1,742	1	6,7201	1,139	3	5,7001	1,459	1	5,100Lisbon, Portugal	9 (Total)	1	5,3401	7,320	1	4,2001	5,100	1	3,6401	4,200	1	3,2503	2,289	1	2,8991	2,018	1	2,8171	1,928	1	2,6051	969	1	2,499New Delhi, India	10 (Total)	1	2,9232	7,320	1	2,5521	3,900	1	2,5011	2,437	1	2,2631	2,301	1	2,6441	1,827	1	2,3581	1,420	1	2,2631	360	1	2,3111	336	1	2,1201	287	1	2,215Oslo, Norway	3 (Total)	1	2,1721	7,320	1	2,2141	4,518	1	2,0001	3,622	3	1,919Paris, France	27 (Total)	1	1,8772 3	8,040 7,320	1	1,6211	6,720	Stockholm, Sweden	4 (Total)	1	6,420	1	6,9602	5,520	1	4,1231	5,700	1	3,5901	4,410	1	2,6571	3,481	Tel Aviv, Israel	6 (Total)	1	3,018	1	7,0202	3,153	1	3,9001	2,690	1	2,2551	2,412	1	1,9551	2,875	1	1,8791	2,597	1	1,3031	2,351	The Hague, Holland	11 (Total)	1	2,105	1	7,3202	1,796	1	6,420[Mr. Badanai.l	
Number	Annual salary
Location	of staff	per person
	1	5,340
	1	5,314
	1	3,101
	1	2,467
	1	2,086
	1	2,593
	1	1,706
	1	1,326
	1	1,072
New York, U.S.A.	3 (Total)	
	1	7,680
	1	5,100
	1	3,900
Chicago, U.S.A.	3 (Total)	
	1	7,020
	1	5,340
	1	4,200
Denver, U.S.A.	3 (Total)	
	1	7,320
	1	5,340
	1	4,200
San Francisco U.S.A. 3 (Total)		
	2	6,420
	1	3,750
Vienna, Austria	10 (Total)	
	1	7,020
	1	5,700
	1	5,100
	1	3,296
	1	2,864
	2	2,720
	1	2,504
	1	2,360
	1	2,000
Cairo, Egypt	7 (Total)	
	1	6,420
	1	5,520
	1	4,200
	1	3,900
	2	1,577
	1	1,339


ARDA PROJECTS, BRUCE COUNTY, ONT.
Mr. Loney: What projects in the county of Bruce under the ARDA program are being considered at this date by the Department of Forestry?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: To date, the province of Ontario has submitted the following project proposal which involves both the counties of Bruce and Grey: Project No. 6025, acquisition of 4,800 acres of a high wildlife potential area for the establishment of a managed hunting area for
Questions
public use, located in the townships of Amabel and Albemarle.


NATIONAL DEFENCE STANDARDS FOR CONCRETE BLOCKS
Mr. Smith: 1.	What standards are required by the Department of National Defence for concrete blocks made by the autoclave method?
2.	Are the same standards required for concrete blocks made by methods other than autoclave?
3.	How many manufacturers of autoclave blocks are there in Canada known to the Department of National Defence?
4.	What are the names and addresses of these companies?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Associate Minister of National Defence):: 1. The standards required by the Department of National Defence for concrete blocks cured by the autoclave method are those contained in American society for testing materials specifications C.90 and C.129 for load bearing and non-load bearing block respectively. In addition the maximum allowable shrinkage is 0.035 per cent and the moisture content on delivery is limited to 30 per cent of the total potential absorption of the blocks.
2.	Yes.
3.	Twelve.
4.	(a) Canada Iron Foundries Ltd., Montreal, P.Q., (b) Capital Concrete Products Ltd., Iroquois, Ont.; (c) Cindercrete Products Ltd., Regina, Sask.; (d) Cooper Block Ltd., Toronto, Ont.; (e) Day & Campbell Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.; (f) Deeks-McBride Ltd., Vancouver, B.C.; (g) Edmonton Concrete Block Ltd., Edmonton, Alta.; (h) General Concrete Ltd., Hamilton, Ont.; (i) Hoffman Concrete Products Ltd., Gatineau Point, P.Q.; (j) Primeau-Argo Block Co. Ltd., Cooksville, Ont.; (k) Ocean Cement, Evco division, Vancouver, B.C.; (1) Schell Industries Ltd., Woodstock, Ont.


STRAY CATTLE, SUFFIELD EXPERIMENTAL STATION, ALBERTA
Mr. Horner (Acadia): 1.	How many men are employed by the army at the Suffield experimental station to control stray cattle in the main operating area?
2.	How many head of livestock have been impounded each year from 1957 to 1963 by the army?
3.	What is the pound fee charged and total amount of fees collected?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: 1. The number of civilians employed by defence research board at the Suffield experimental station during pounding period varies from 2 to 10.

Questions
2.	1957, 500; 1958, 125; 1959, 103; 1960, 101; 1961, 1,322; 1962, 1,588; 1963, 62.
3.	The pound fee is now $1 per head per day. Total pound fees collected are $1,125.10.


LIGHTHOUSE DESTRUCTION, ADVOCATE HARBOUR, N.S.
Mr. Coates: Was the old light house and other buildings associated therewith at Advocate Harbour, N.S. destroyed by officials of the Department of Transport and, if so, for what reasons?


John Whitney Pickersgill: The old wooden building became unsafe to continue to support the automatic light and, as it was beyond economical repair, it was replaced by a steel tower.


TRADE WITH JAPAN
Mr. Deachman: 1.	What was the total value of goods imported from Japan in 1963?
2.	What was the total value of exports to Japan in 1963?
3.	What was Canada's trading position or balance with Japan for 1963?


Mr. Jean-Luc Pepin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Trade and Commerce):: 1.	The total value of imports into Canada from Japan during the calendar year 1963 was: $130,471,048.
2.	The total value of exports from Canada to Japan during the calendar year 1963 was:
Domestic	$296,009,645
Re-exports	$ 1,885,829
Total	$297,895,474
3. The balance of trade between Canada and Japan during the calendar year 1963 was: an export balance of $167,424,426.


DEPOSIT OF INCOME TAX DEDUCTIONS IN LOAN AND CREDIT INSTITUTIONS
Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi): With reference to an announcement by the Minister of National Revenue to the effect that 300,000 Canadian employers will now be able to deposit, at their local banks, their employees' monthly income tax deductions, will the government take steps to allow small and average employers who deal with the caisses populaires and the credit unions to deposit these income tax deductions in their savings and credit co-operatives?
2. Will an agreement to this effect be made with the federations of caisses populaires and credit unions?


Hon. E. J. Benson (Minister of National Revenue):: 1 and 2. This arrangement extends only to those organizations carrying on

banking business under a federal charter and which have clearing facilities.
The caisses populaires, credit unions and others which extend checking privileges to their customers may arrange with the particular bank through which such cheques are cleared to process the remittances.


GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT AND ANNUAL INVESTMENT
Mr. Lalulippe: 1.	What was the gross national product in Canada for the years 1934, 1944, 1954 and 1964?
2.	What was the total annual investment in Canada during the years 1934, 1944, 1954 and 1964?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1.
Gross national product at market prices:
	millions
	of dollars
1934	3,984
1944	11,850
1954	26,871
1963	43,007
1964	not available
2.	
Total private and public investment in Canada:
millions of dollars
1934	404
1944	1,343
1954	5,721
1963	9,312
1964	not availab
[Text]


TRADE WITH RUSSIA AND CHINA
Mr. Mather: 1.	What was the total value of goods imported from Russia in 1963?
2.	What was the total value of goods imported from China in 1963?
3.	What was the total value of goods exported to Russia in 1963?
4.	What was the total value of goods exported to China in 1963?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1.	The total value of imports into Canada from Russia during the calendar year 1963 was $2,313,012.
2.	The total value of imports into Canada from mainland China during the calendar year 1963 was $5,146,500.

3.	The total value of exports from Canada to Russia during the calendar year 1963 was:
Domestic	$150,122,556
Re-exports	20,070
Total	$150,142,626
4.	The total value of exports from Canada to mainland China during the calendar year 1963 was:
Domestic	$104,737,695
Re-exports	251
Total	$104,737,946


* IMPORTS OF NEW FLAGS FROM JAPAN
Mr. Valade: 1.	How many tri-leaf flags, such as the one suggested by the present government, have been imported into the country from Japan or elsewhere?
2.	What is the name and the address of each of the importers?


Jean-Luc Pepin: 1. Flags are not classified separately as such in import statistics, and hence no figures are available. Imports are recorded of the material, but this is not broken down into the use to which the material is put.
2. Unknown-see answer to part one.

imports of new flags


Mr. Crouse: Will the Minister of Trade and Commerce advise if quantities of the three maple leaf flag have been imported into Canada from (a) Japan (b) other countries and, if so, what are the numbers and value of imports referred to in (a) and (b) above respectively?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Flags are not classified separately as such in import statistics, and hence no figures are available as to quantity or source. Imports are recorded of the material but this is not broken down into the use to which the material is put.


PRICES OF GOVERNMENT PUBLICATIONS, OTTAWA
[Stage Direction]
Question No. 1,759
Mr. Fisher:: 1.	Is the store which sells government publications in Ottawa retailing the main report of the Rowell-Sirois commission at $6.50 when its basic price is listed at $5 and, if so. for what reasons?
2.	Is the Creighton study for the same commission selling at $2 when its marked price is 75 cents and, if so, for what reasons?
3.	Is the first volume of the Glassco commission report selling at $7.75 when its marked price is $6 and, if so, for what reasons?
Questions
4.	On whose authority are prices increased on government publications above the list price?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State):: 1. Effective January, 1963 a 30 per cent across the board increase in selling prices was applied to all government publications.
2.	The selling price of the Creighton study was originally set at 75 cents per copy when printed in 1940. The price of $2 was set on the reprint made in 1963 based on higher printing costs and in line with the pricing policy.
3.	Same as (1) above.
4.	Approved by T.B. minute 604954 of January 17, 1963.


SHORE IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM, YARMOUTH, N.S.
Mr. Crouse: Is the government giving consideration to carrying out an improvement program along the shore line between the new government wharf and the Bluenose ferry terminal at Yarmouth, Nova Scotia and, if so, when will this program be commenced?


Hon. J. P. Deschaielets (Minister of Public Works):: Yes, the matter is now under investigation but it is not yet known when the work will be carried out.


ELECTRIC LAMP TENDERS, SCARBOROUGH TOWNSHIP, ONT.
Mr. Scott: 1.	Has the government received representations from the township of Scarborough public utilities commission, or from the township of Scarborough, itself, regarding the possibilities of an infraction of the Combines Investigation Act concerning tenders for electric lamps and, if so, what was the nature of the response to them?
2.	As a result of these representations, was an investigation ordered under the provisions of the Combines Investigation Act and, if not, what other action was taken by the government?
3.	What are the results of the said investigation pursuant to the terms of the act?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: 1, 2 and 3. Such representations have been received from the public utilities commission which has been advised of the position taken by the director of investigation and research under the Combines Investigation Act on the subject of identical tenders as set out at pages 23-24 of his annual report for the year ended March 31, 1961, and in his testimony before the standing committee on public accounts of the House of Commons on December 6 and 9, 1963. The general practice, however, is that no information is given out as to whether a

Questions
particular inquiry has been or is being pursued with respect to a particular group of companies or individuals unless and until a report is published.


CONSTRUCTION OF CAUSEWAY, LABRADOR-NEWFOUNDLAND
Mr. Cole (Chicoutimi): Does the government propose to study and carry out the construction of a causeway between Labrador and Newfoundland which would join this province to the continent and to build a section of the trans-Canada highway, railway lines and electric power installations there, at the same time improving the climate of the gulf, the St. Lawrence and the Saguenay river regions, all of which at lesser cost than the St. Lawrence seaway project?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: No.

inspection of north by members


Mr. Fairweather: Are plans being considered which would enable members of parliament to participate in an educational and fact finding inspection of the Yukon and Northwest Territories so that they can share the advantages derived from such an experience by the recent trip of ambassadors and senior government officials?


Mr. John N. Turner (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: The minister returned last night from a working, fact finding, nine day tour of the Yukon and Northwest Territories. He was accompanied by six foreign ambassadors to Canada, the president of the Canadian Labour Congress and seven leading Canadian businessmen, in addition to some of his departmental officials and advisers. The purpose of the trip was to engage their collective experience in appraising Canada's policy in the north and to acquaint them with northern problems. The minister is considering including members of parliament on such a trip in the future.
Concerning the manufac- Jan. 24, 1963.
ture, distribution and sale of
drugs


OWNERSHIP OF WHARF, YOUNG'S COVE, N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	Is the wharf at Young's cove, Grand lake, New Brunswick owned by the government of Canada or of New Brunswick?
2.	If the wharf is owned by Canada is it available for purchase by private individuals?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. By the government of Canada.
2. This is under consideration.
civil defence policy


Mr. Fairweather: Will the Minister of Industry take an early opportunity on motions to make a statement about the government's current attitude toward civil defence and if the provincial and municipal responsibility in this regard has undergone any fundamental change recently?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: statement regarding the government's current policy in regard to civil defence will be made at the time of the study of E.M.O. estimates by the house in committee of supply.
The provincial and municipal responsibility toward civil defence has not undergone any fundamental change recently. They are requested to continue planning with a greater emphasis, however, being placed on their capability to cope with peacetime disasters.
The hon. member may wish to refer to minutes of proceedings and evidence Nos. 7 and 8 of the special committee on defence which contain a detailed statement which I made to the committee as well as a considerable amount of information about various facets of the program.


REPORTS OF RESTRICTIVE TRADE PRACTICES COMMISSION
Mr. Priitie: What is the status of the several reports of the restrictive trade practices commission to the Minister of Justice for the year 1963-64?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Reports received from the restrictive trade practices commission during the period January 1, 1963, to August 31, 1964, the date on which each was submitted and action taken thereon are as follows:
The recommendations contained in this report together with those in the recent report of the royal commission on health services are receiving careful study and any decisions will be made known in due course in the proper way.

Of an alleged combine in the Dec. 16, 1963. matter of a call for tenders by the town of Duvemay for the construction of sewers and water mains
Concerning the sale of Feb. 7, 1964. plumbing and heating supplies and related products in the city of Montreal and elsewhere in the province of Quebec
On the production, distribu- Feb. 26, 1964. tion and supply of newspapers in the Sudbury-Copper Cliff area
Concerning the distribution, June 24, 1964. supply and sale of plumbing supplies and related products (Alberta)
Road surfacing in Ontario July 13, 1964.
Inquiries of the Ministry
Informations have been laid and the date for the preliminary hearing has been fixed for October 20, 1964.
The report and evidence have been referred to counsel with instructions to proceed with the prosecution or other proceedings unless he comes to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient.
The commission concluded that there had not been any reprehensible monopolistic practices and therefore no abuse of a monopoly position. After discussion with counsel to whom the evidence was referred, it was decided that no proceedings would be instituted.
Preliminary discussions have been held with counsel who is being instructed to proceed with prosecution or other proceedings unless he comes to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient.
The report and evidence have been referred to counsel with instructions to proceed with prosecution or other proceedings unless he comes to the conclusion that the evidence is insufficient.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Mariineau (Ponliac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege with regard to oral question No. 1,429 put on the order paper July 6 last concerning an inquiry announced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) about the interdependence of various areas of Canada.
I respectfully submit that the Prime Minister's office could easily answer this question and that there is no conceivable reason why no answer has yet been given.


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to bring the hon. gentleman's observations to the attention of the Prime Minister's office to see whether something can be done along the lines he has suggested.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Finance in connection with reports in the press to the effect that over the week end in the Montreal area a group of individuals in search of arms met resistance. Can he say whether those who were apprehended were members of the F.L.Q.? Is he in a position to say what steps the federal government is taking in view of the apparent resurgence of subversive activity and the evidence of determined and well organized forces working against law and order? Is he able to say whether any of those arrested or being sought, if not already arrested, were allied with any subversive groups in the past?


Guy Favreau: know the right hon. gentleman made a lapsus. I must say I am pleased to note, in the interest of Canada, that I have not been promoted to minister of finance.

Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: I apologize to both
ministers.


Guy Favreau: I have had occasion to discuss this matter this morning, and at this moment I am in a position to give the following information. This is a Montreal city police investigation, and assistance is being rendered by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Four men have been arrested by the Montreal city police who have not as yet released the names of those individuals; the names will not be divulged before the coroner's inquest has taken place. Investigation is being continued toward the apprehension of the one man who escaped.
In view of the stage which the investigation has reached at this point I do not think I would be justified in divulging more than I have just said.


John George Diefenbaker: I was wondering what possible reasons there might be for the minister not being able to tell us whether those individuals who have been arrested are or have been members of any subversive organization. If they were, that would naturally bring them within the ambit of the right of the mounted police to investigate.


Guy Favreau: One will readily understand that if a request is made, or was made, by the police authorities immediately responsible, that is the Montreal police-although, I repeat, the R.C.M.P. are lending all possible assistance-it would not be proper for me to release any information with respect to the persons arrested, especially as one arrest still has to be made. I would point out also that the names of the parties arrested have not yet been divulged.



VISIT TO OTTAWA BY NEW ZEALAND OMBUDSMAN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Robert Norman Thompson: My question is also directed to the Minister of Justice. It follows some three questions I have asked in the course of the past few weeks of either the minister or the Secretary of State and relates to a distinguished guest who is visiting Canada at the present time to speak to the bar association in Montreal. I am referring to Sir Guy Powles, the New Zealand ombudsman. Are arrangements being made for Sir Guy to meet with the committee on privileges and elections? Has an invitation been extended to him?


Guy Favreau: Sir Guy Powles has been communicated with, and I am pleased to advise that arrangements
[Mr. Favreau.)

are being made for him to meet with members of the committee on privileges and elections on Wednesday, September 2, at 3 p.m. There is still some formal confirmation to be obtained from the New Zealand authorities, but tentatively the engagement is set for that date.



HAL BANKS-INQUIRY AS TO WHEREABOUTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Revenue and perhaps in his absence the acting minister might reply. Hal C. Banks is still a Canadian, for income tax purposes, and as it now appears that Banks has no intention of returning to Canada, at least voluntarily, has the minister taken steps to see that the assets belonging to this man are not entirely removed from Canadian jurisdistion?


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Acting Minister of National Revenue):: I wonder, Mr. Speaker, if I could take this question as notice.


David Vaughan Pugh: In taking it as notice, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the minister that time is of the essence, and these assets may well vanish out of Canada just as the body of Hal C. Banks has vanished.


George James McIlraith: I am quite appreciative of the hon. member's question and its implications, Mr. Speaker.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice on the same subject.

Mr. Speaker, would the Minister of Justice have fresh news concerning Mr. Banks' whereabouts?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I must say I have no more news now than I had the last time I replied to questions in that connection. However, I have much more information about Mr. Banks' house, which has not yet disappeared from Canada, than I have about Mr. Banks himself.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister got in touch with the real estate agent who looks after selling Mr. Banks' property?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I am not personally in charge of the investigation, but I

will say that all necessary steps are being taken to ensure that Mr. Banks does not evade directly or indirectly our Canadian laws; we are doing all we can to prevent him from doing so.


John George Diefenbaker: As part of the running account regarding Mr. Banks-


George Clyde Nowlan: Who is running?


Mr. MacEwan:: Mr. Banks.


John George Diefenbaker: -is the minister in a position to say whether after all this time the R.C.M.P. have been able to ascertain from the department of immigration of the United States if the ambulant Banks went to the United States; and if so, when?


Guy Favreau: In relation to the running account on one who is running, I am not in a position to submit further information on the question which has just been put. As soon as some is obtained I will volunteer it to the house.


John George Diefenbaker: Does that answer mean that the government of Canada, with all the forces it has at its command, has not yet found out from the United States authorities whether Banks crossed the line into the United States? Is that what the minister means? Because if it is, it shows there is not very much anxiety as to the whereabouts of Banks.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to enter into debate with the right hon. gentleman, but there are limits to the information which is available about the number of persons crossing the border from Canada to the United States. It is quite plausible that this type of information is much more difficult to obtain in a definite fashion than on the surface would appear.


Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Might I address a related question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I should like to ask the minister, now that it would appear that at long last Mr. Hal Banks has disappeared from within our borders, what steps, if any, is the minister taking to make sure that he never comes back again to Canada.


David Vaughan Pugh: They are taking every step. [Translation]


Hon. Rene Tremblay (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already mentioned it to the house, any 20220-mi
Inquiries of the Ministry American citizen can leave Canada without having to submit a report to the immigration authorities.
On the other hand, as Mr. Banks has the status of a Canadian resident, Canadian immigration officers have been instructed to ask him, when he returns to Canada, the reason why he left the country. We will then be in a position to know, from the answers given by Mr. Banks, how his leaving the country could affect his Canadian resident status.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Does the minister expect Mr. Banks to be back soon?


René Tremblay: We all hope so, Mr. Speaker. [Text]



ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. My question relates to a former member of this house who is esteemed by Canadians from coast to coast. I refer to Hon. M. J. Coldwell. Are the reports correct that the R.C.M.P. has investigated Mr. Coldwell? If so, when and why?


Guy Favreau: In view of the interest which I knew the house would have in this matter I asked the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to look up their files. A thorough search has been made, and I am pleased to report that never has the R.C.M.P. investigated Mr. Coldwell or found cause to do so.


John George Diefenbaker: All of us are delighted to hear that, because it looked to me like a form of slander on the part of the person who made the statement, of a nature beneath contempt.
I would ask the hon. gentleman this. Did Macdonald, at the time he was allegedly associated as an undercover man with the R.C.M.P., take an oath of secrecy?


Guy Favreau: This, as the right hon. gentleman will agree, is a totally different question from the one which was just put to me by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As far as this question is concerned, I must stand by the answer I gave last week; because whatever answer I might otherwise give would either expressly or implicitly confirm

Inquiries of the Ministry or deny any allegation made by Mr. Macdonald.



ARTS, LETTERS AND SCIENCES TORONTO    CANADA COUNCIL GRANT TO CREST THEATRE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: have a question for the Secretary of State. In his absence perhaps I might address it to the acting minister. Has the Secretary of State made representation to the Canada Council toward continuing its grant to the Crest theatre, Toronto, the pioneer in modern Canadian theatre and the training ground for many of our stage and television personalities?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I will be glad to bring this matter to the attention of the Secretary of State so that he in turn may bring it to the attention of the Canada Council. The hon. gentleman will realize that the constitution of the Canada Council is such that the government can do nothing except pass on representations.



COMPLAINT RESPECTING CONDUCT OF PROTECTIVE STAFF

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. J. Chester MacRae (York-Sunbury):: wish to address a question to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as leader of the house. I would have preferred to address it to you, Mr. Speaker, but the rules forbid my doing so. It is in connection with a letter which appeared in the Saturday, August 29 edition of the Ottawa Citizen over the name of Mr. John Thompson, assistant editor of the Lake of Two Mountains Gazette. In this letter statements are made about the protective staff of the House of Commons. They are referred to as "pompous asses", as using threats and intimidation, abusive language, and so on.
In view of the fact that this staff deals with up to 15,000 people a day, and all of us who have been here for a number of years have found them to be competent and courteous, will the minister investigate these charges with a view to refuting them?


Guy Favreau: do not think I need make an investigation in order to refute these charges. I do so right now.


Mr. Speaker:: I should like to make one statement of fact. The average attendance this summer has been in the neighbourhood of


6,000 a day. Frequently on week ends it has reached well over 15,000 a day, and the overall attendance has approached 700,000 tourists this year as compared with half a million last year.



INQUIRY AS TO ABSENCE OF MINISTERS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister. Would he tell the house how many of the 13 ministers absent today have gone to Charlottetown?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I think most of the absent ministers have gone to Japan. The Prime Minister has gone to Charlottetown and my hon. friend the Minister of Justice really should have gone with him, but his devotion to the house was such that he is not going until tomorrow.


Paul Raymond Martineau: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Would the minister say where the other ministers who are absent have gone?


John Whitney Pickersgill: I would be glad to take a census, Mr. Speaker, and let the hon. gentleman know tomorrow. Most of them are here.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether I might be permitted to supplement the answer I gave a few moments ago. I should have added that my hon. friend the Solicitor General did not go to Prince Edward Island with the Prime Minister. He is there to receive him, as I am sure all hon. members would consider appropriate in the circumstances.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Postmaster General. Last week I addressed a question to the minister asking whether his department was giving consideration to making illegal the distribution of "hate" literature without the return address being on the outside of the envelope, and the minister said he would give a report to the house on this matter.


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, the investigation is not completed. In further reply to the hon. member, however I might say that there is a quasijudicial investigation involved in all these

cases. You have to know the contents of letters before you can determine whether or not their contents are scurrilous or indecent in character. Since you cannot find out what is inside until the letter is open it is very difficult to legislate in this particular field. The matter is under careful consideration not only by my department but by the Department of Justice. However, since each case really has to be determined on its own merits, it is practically impossible to give any general answer to this problem.



AVAILABILITY OF STAMPS BEARING LIKENESS OF QUEEN

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Haslings-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Postmaster General. Is there any reason why in various post offices the only 5 cent stamp available is the one with the three maple leaves on it, and customers cannot get stamps bearing the Queen's head?


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question I can only say that the three maple leaves appear in the Canadian coat of arms, and I think it is proper that they should appear on a stamp. It is the emblem of Canada and the base on which our coat of arms rests. This issue has gone out as the first of a series of 13 which feature the floral designs of the provinces and the territories. The maple leaves design is the first of this series and we have already had the trillium of Ontario and the garden lily of Quebec.


An hon. Member:: Don't forget B.C.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: No, B.C. is on my list, as well as the violet of my native province of New Brunswick, the trailing arbutus-may-flower-of Nova Scotia and the dogwood of British Columbia. All post offices should have, in addition to three maple leaves stamps, a supply of stamps with the Queen's head on them, but I will certainly look into the matter as suggested by the hon. gentleman.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: A supplementary question. I thank the Postmaster General for his answer, but he assured me similarly a couple of weeks ago. However, during the past couple of weeks the city of Hamilton has been flooded with the new stamp, and at the main post office and at two branch post offices there are no 5 cent stamps available except the ones bearing the maple leaves.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: The hon. gentleman will remember that when he put the question
Inquiries of the Ministry some 10 or 12 days ago I said that if he or any other member of the house or any other person has information that stamps with the Queen's head on them are not available to let me know. To date I have received no such communication from any member of the house.



ISSUE OF NEW STAMP WITH INSCRIPTION &quot;QUEBEC LIBRE&quot;

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I should like to direct to the Postmaster General. A question was asked of the Postmaster General about the use of official mails in Quebec without the necessary stamps. I understood the minister at that time to say he was going to look into this situation and possibly report further.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, so far as I know there is no free use being made of the mails, other than by franking privileges enjoyed by members of parliament and a right of use conferred by statute. There is a free mailing privilege given by statute to certain newspapers in respect of mailings within specific distances of their places of publication. I have had no notice of any situation such as that referred to by the hon. member, but if he will give me particulars I will be glad to look into it.


Hon. Theogene Ricard (St. Hyacinihe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw to the attention of the hon. minister the fact that I gave him a sample of the situation the other day.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member has read Hansard he should know that I gave him an answer.



CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT-SALES TO RUSSIA BY CANADIAN SUBSIDIARIES OF U.S. COMPANIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I was intending to address my question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, but I trust I will get an answer from the appropriate minister here today. In view of the fact that American owned Canadian manufacturers of heavy construction equipment have been instructed by their United States parent companies not to sell the Soviet union any of their products which appear on the United States embargo list, which

Inquiries of the Ministry action has also prevented this Canadian industry from being represented at Moscow's current exhibition of construction and building machinery, will the minister inform the house of the government's attitude toward this unwarranted interference in Canadian affairs, and whether a protest has been forwarded to Washington?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: I think the attitude of the Canadian government is well known, namely that Canadian corporations should be free to sell around the world, governed by and in accordance with Canadian government policy; and that there is and will continue to be the most strenuous resistance to endeavours of outsiders to control the sales activities of manufacturers of Canadian products. I am not aware of the particular circumstances raised by the hon. gentleman and will be glad to have them looked into.



NON PARTICIPATION BY CANADA IN GHANA FAIR

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, a question was directed by the hon. member for Wellington South to the Minister of Trade and Commerce on August 26 relating to participation by Canada in the forthcoming trade fair at Accra.
In response to the question raised by the hon. member I wish to inform him that serious consideration was given to the invitation to participate in the trade fair to be held in Accra in February, 1965. A relevant consideration was that in February, 1962, the department held an all-Canadian trade exhibition in Accra on behalf of 87 Canadian manufacturing firms. In the light of this, and having in mind the need to ensure maximum results from our trade fair exhibits and the relative priorities of the Canadian export community in the Canadian trade fair program, it was not considered appropriate to participate in this particular fair.



ESTABLISHMENT OF PRICES FOR WHEAT AND COARSE GRAINS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, on August 25 the hon. member for Melville asked how soon the Canadian wheat board might release the purchase prices for wheat and coarse grains. I am glad to be able to say that the Canadian wheat board have advised that information on
[Mr. Herridge.l

prices has been forwarded to the elevator companies, and this information should be in the hands of all elevator agents at the beginning of this week. Agents will make payment to producers for quantities of grain in storage since the beginning of the crop year as soon as the information on prices is received.



PUBLIC SERVICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Remi Paul (Berfhier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Acting Prime Minister. Does he know if the Prime Minister received, last Friday, from the national association of employees of the unemployment insurance commission, in convention in Toronto, a telegram of protest against the recent salary increases granted civil servants? If so, can he tell the house if the government intends to do something about the request of that important group of civil servants?


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to look at that question and see what reply can be made tomorrow.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Danforth (Kent, Onl.):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture, but in his absence perhaps the parliamentary secretary will take it as notice. My question is based on local reports of last week concerning the proposed closing of the dominion entomological laboratory at Chatham, Ontario, by the Department of Agriculture. My question is, will the minister assure the house that no firm decision will be made by his department in this regard until ample opportunity has been given to the local agricultural groups affected to present to the minister the reasons for their opposition to the closing of this laboratory?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank the hon. member for his question. I will bring it to the attention of the minister on his return.



ATTENDANCE OF FORESTRY MINISTER AT RURAL REDEVELOPMENT MEETING

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
J.-H.-Théogène Ricard: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Forestry.
Could he tell the house whether he attended during the last week end an organization meeting of a rural redevelopment committee?


Maurice Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, Saturday and Sunday I was in Gaspe to attend the first general conference of the regional council of economic development for the Gaspe peninsula and the Magdalen islands.



BRIDGES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Acting Prime Minister in his capacity as spokesman for the Atlantic development board. Since Saint John has an application before the board for assistance for a harbour bridge, and since we learned today that Halifax has decided in favour of a second bridge, would the minister check on the Saint John application and see whether grants for second bridges could not be made to both these major cities? I ask this because the board, although Conservative formed, is becoming more liberal every day in its distribution of contracts.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I do not need to make any check; I know quite well the status of the matter. The Atlantic development board has made certain recommendations to the government which are under active consideration at this very moment. That is with respect to Saint John; there has been no application with respect to a second bridge in Halifax.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scoff (Danforth):: Mr. Speaker, I had a question for the Minister of Labour
Inquiries of the Ministry but I notice that neither he nor his parliamentary secretary is in the chamber at the moment. Perhaps the Acting Prime Minister would ask the minister to give the house an explanation as to why the members of the international typographical union now on strike in Toronto are being refused eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I could not answer that offhand, but I will be glad to draw the matter to the attention of the minister.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether arrangements have been made, or are being made, for special training for troops from Germany or others of our NATO allies at Camp Shilo, Manitoba.


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, there are no arrangements that I know of. There are some negotiations, however, in respect to the possible testing of some equipment in a winter environment.


Gordon Minto Churchill: May I ask by whom?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: By the German army.



REPORTED DISCLOSURE OF INFORMATION TO COMMUNIST AGENCY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Associate Minister of National Defence. Will he make inquiries about a statement made by a Mr. Macdonald to the effect that a wireless operator in his department would have given secret information to a communist agency in this country?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen Mr. Macdonald's statement, but I shall be glad to investigate.
7468	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question either to the house leader or to the Acting Prime Minister. Will the government consider giving the house the assurance, when the votes on the subamendment and the amendment which are now before the house have been taken, that there will be no motion, on the government side at any rate, for the previous question before the various parties have had an opportunity by amendment to test the house on alternative designs? I have in mind such proposals as those from the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska, the hon. member for Danforth, and so on. I ask my question in the belief that if there were this kind of assurance there might be a willingness to let some of the votes take place.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, all I can say is that the hon. gentleman has put a hypothetical question which normally would not be answered at all, but the hon. gentleman had the assurance of the Prime Minister before this debate began that there would be an opportunity for all hon. members to express the views they wish to express. It is a fact-a notorious fact-that some of the hon. gentleman's friends wish to propose a design different from the design proposed by my right hon. friend. I would not like to think that a Liberal government would want to deny them the chance of doing so, any more than a Liberal government would want to deny to any hon. member in any part of the house the chance to express in a vote his views on this matter.



IMMIGRATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address a question to the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. Has the minister been informed that Canadian citizens of Italian origin of military age, who on occasion return to Italy for a holiday, have been thrown in "chokey" if they did not answer the call for military service in Italy?


René Tremblay: No. Mr. Speaker, I


am not aware of that, but I will make an inquiry and report to the hon. member.



VETERANS AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Chester MacRae: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Veterans Affairs. Has the minister's attention been drawn to a statement made by Mr. Calvin Macdonald that the Department of Veterans Affairs has listed him as a communist and because of this he has been unable to obtain work for two years? I ask this question of the minister because this is completely foreign to this department and its objectives.


Hon. Roger Teillel (Minisler of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have no knowledge of the circumstances, but I will certainly make an inquiry into them.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Whitney Pickersgill: Mr. Speaker, I should like in my capacity as Minister of Transport to reply to a question the hon. member for Bruce asked me a few days ago-which will be found at pages 7062 and 7063 of Hansard-about the Maitland Clipper, which the hon. member said was removing antique wrecks of historic value from the waters off the shores of the Bruce peninsula.
I am informed that this ship is under charter to Treasure and Salvage Divers Limited, and that they have been informed that the Canada Shipping Act does not enable the department to grant or withhold permission to engage in salvaging, but any wreck recovered must be delivered to the receiver so that it may be disposed of in accordance with the Canada Shipping Act. I am also informed that the activities of the vessel are under careful surveillance.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to address a question to the Minister of Justice in his position as

house leader. Will he consider bringing forward the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and the Department of Justice at an early date so we may look into matters of major importance concerning new Canadians, in the light of certain policies of the government that in my view put us on the verge of being a police state? Would he arrange for early discussion of these estimates?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the estimates of the Department of Citizenship and Immigration have been called already and they have been discussed. I think it is in the interests of the country that I should pursue the policy I have begun to apply of calling a new department each Friday so that members will have the chance to deal with important and urgent questions with respect to each of the departments at least for one day, pending such time as we finally dispose of the estimates.


Harold Edward Winch: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the minister call his own department?


Guy Favreau: I am afraid my own department is not entered yet, and the supply motion in this respect has not been presented to the house. I should like my estimates to be included, and as soon as the next supply motion comes forward I think they will be.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, August 27, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government he authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
Gordon Harvey Aiken: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this marathon debate in the sure and certain knowledge that many of the points I wish to make have already been made, and that some of my brilliant ideas may have already been committed to the permanent record; but I think my ideas on this subject should be placed on record. I shall be using half an hour of parliament's time, whatever that
Canadian Flag
represents in money, and as repetition has always been rather abhorrent to me I hope I shall not say again many of the things that have already been said. Yet I am not completely out of sympathy with the prolongation of this debate until some semblance of sanity takes command of the situation.
For those who are not completely satisfied or not satisfied at all with the proposed flag, what other alternative is there but to continue to raise objections to the form in which this flag is proposed and to indicate that one more member at least has very strong views in this regard? I recognize, Mr. Speaker, that there is a certain amount of impatience in the country, in the press and even among members of the house with the extension of this debate beyond what seems to be a reasonable time, and on an issue that has nothing to do with our economic or social problems. I share this impatience, but the alternative of total surrender appeals to me even less.
The Prime Minister, who achieved public notice originally for his diplomatic ability, seems to have found one issue which he cannot or will not negotiate. I can understand his fears with regard to giving in a little and then a little more and finally becoming overwhelmed with objections to his plan. I see the position of the Prime Minister at the moment as somewhat like that of the driver of a team of runaway horses, hanging onto the reins with both hands and afraid to let go one hand so he can pull on the brake which would save him. This is a simile which is familiar in many stagecoach westerns, but it strikes me that it represents the present situation exactly. The brake in this case is a better procedure for establishing a distinctive Canadian flag than by a simple majority vote in the House of Commons on a single flag design. I hope the brake will be found before the whole stagecoach overturns.
All of us, I believe, are affected by our racial and historical backgrounds in our approach to the question of a flag. My ancesters came to this country from northern Ireland 115 years ago. They brought with them at that time a strong loyalty to the crown and to the empire, as it then was. That loyalty has continued to be strong in the subsequent generations, and is strong in the riding which I represent. It is not unanimous in my riding but it is a strong feeling, and I find myself in the rather fortunate position, which some other hon. members do not seem to enjoy, of being able to speak for my riding in one voice as my constituents would have me speak. I am thinking particularly of other

Canadian Flag
hon. members who feel they should speak as they think the decision should be made regardless of whether it is in agreement with the feelings of their own people or their own personal beliefs.
In spite of the backgrounds that all of us have brought to Canada, I think I speak for everyone when I say there is only one ultimate loyalty, and can only be one ultimate loyalty, and that is to Canada. I am sure I speak for all my constituents and for a good many, if not all, Canadians when I say that.
Most of our people have come to accept the red ensign as the flag of Canada, not because it bears the union jack but because it is our flag. The difference may seem to be subtle but it is very real. I believe this is where a lot of the problem originates; not because it is a flag with the union jack, or whatever there might have been on the flag we learned to respect in school and later, but because it is our flag. That is one of the reasons it is difficult to get a change of opinion among many people as to what the new flag should be or whether we should have one.
I am convinced, Mr. Speaker, that most of the people I represent would accept another flag, in spite of their personal preferences, if it had general acceptance and would unite our country in its goals. That is my own position. It must by now be apparent that the proposed new flag in the main resolution does not carry the general support either of the house or of the public. From what I have heard it carries the majority in the house, at least if the votes that have been indicated are correct, but that does not mean that it carries general acceptance. The majority is not enough in this country, and it never has been.
The rights of the minorities were strongly protected at the time of confederation. They were protected to the point where it was one of the basic tenets of Canadian confederation that the majority should never be able to overrule the minority on any of the questions which concerned the person, the individual. This is the basis of confederation; therefore in this particular issue the question of a flag which affects each one in a personal way cannot be settled by a simple majority vote.
The best evidence of the fact that the flag does not command a great and overwhelming enthusiasm in Canada is the effort of the Minister without Portfolio to drum up support for it. It has been very obvious in the last few days, from the questions and the answers received to them, that there is not the acceptance in Canada of the flag the government would like to see, particularly if the minister has to go out and sell it after it has been

flown in so many places. I have seen it on car aerials; everyone has seen it. Surely it does not have to be sold. If it has to be sold then I cannot see that it has any general acceptance.
It is my own personal view that Canada should have a new, distinctive flag, and that before 1967. Furthermore, I am confident that a design can be found which will be generally acceptable. I have seen several proposals and I really believe some of these have the strength, the design, the purpose, and the historic symbols which would be acceptable. I only mention in passing the type of proposal made by the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska. Perhaps it is not completely acceptable as it stands, yet it represents something that could join us together. There are others also. I have seen several designs, and I am not picking one or the other. However, I do believe that such a design exists, a design which would satisfy those who want to retain the elements of the British background, and those who want a new flag. I think it can be found, and I am going to propose how it should be done.
To speak for a moment of the Canadian red ensign, I have taken a consistent view throughout this debate and in my public statements that unless and until some other acceptable design is found, the red ensign must remain and continue as the flag of Canada. We have to do this. We cannot exchange, as has already been stated by several hon. members, one group of dissatisfied Canadians with another. There is no future in that.
I have one other belief which I want to state. Some may believe it heresy, but I do not believe that our boys in the services fought and died for a flag. I believe they fought and died for their country, and I stood beside enough of them to know. However, I know they did fight under the red ensign, and there is no reason to haul it down unless it can be replaced by something which will give us what they died for, and that is a greater and better country.
I would like to make a few comments about what I believe to be the real and fundamental cause of our differences and difficulties in connection with the flag. I want to ask first whether all this fuss over a flag is over the flag alone, or does it represent something deeper? I believe the hard core of the difficulties in this matter is exactly the same as it was at confederation 100 years ago, and 100 years before that. It is exemplified in the views of those people who see the development of Canada as a struggle for the

ascendancy of one racial group over the other; and in spite of 100 years of partnership there has been precious little willingness or ability to bridge our differences. The proof of this belief is that the presence or absence of the union jack in a new flag is the real point of difference. Unless there is some unanimity of thought and some great desire to build a better nation, I do not think we can get together on this problem.
It has been said earlier in this debate that Canadian unity is an objective of this new flag. I ask, where are we to find this unity? Certainly it is not in forcing the choice of a majority upon an unwilling minority by a parliamentary vote. Neither is it in asking the people to make a decision on one or two designs chosen by political parties. Neither is it to be found by forcing the view of the majority on a minority by means of a plebiscite on stated questions or on stated flags. I believe we should first find out whether Canadians generally want a new flag. If so, then parliament will have to set up a committee to make an irrevocable decision. I believe such a committee should be an extraordinary one set up to deal with an extraordinary situation. It should be broadly based, and it should represent the many conflicting views held across this country. A time limit would have to be set upon the deliberations of such a committee-


Mr. Godin:: Would the hon. member permit a question? Does he not realize that this was done 20 years ago, when a committee sat for two years on this question of a national flag?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: Yes, I realize that; and I realize that after it had sat, the Liberal government of that day decided to take no action on the recommendation. I think that answers the question. The committee voted 23 to 1 in favour of a certain flag but the government would not accept it. The wrong approach was taken; there was no prior agreement to accept the decision of that committee. I would ask the hon. member, if he has not already made his contribution to the debate, to make it after I have sat down.


Osias.-J. Godin: On a question of privilege I must advise the hon. member that I had occasion to make a speech on this issue, but I do not wish to take part in the filibuster.


Gordon Minto Churchill: How many years ago?
Twenty years ago?


An hon. Member:: In this debate.
Canadian Flag


Gordon Harvey Aiken: The hon. member has used the word "filibuster". That expression was used on several occasions by the Minister of Trade and Commerce when he made his speech recently. I took the trouble to look up "filibuster" in the dictionary to find out what it really meant. I was considering using the same word myself; because if we are conducting a filibuster I think we should admit it. But we are not. This is not a filibuster. I intend to read to the hon. member the definition of "filibuster" and perhaps he will understand that he is using the word incorrectly. As described in Webster's third edition it means "the use of extreme dilatory tactics by individuals or groups in an attempt to delay action by a majority in an assembly".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


An hon. Member:: Precisely.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I disagree entirely with the hon. member about that. I say there have not been extreme dilatory tactics used. Some members opposite do not want to have a debate on the flag. They wish us to simply vote on it. But I think this is one of the most important issues to have come before this parliament for many years.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not intend to get into a debate with the hon. member. He will have a chance to make his contribution when I sit down.


Osias.-J. Godin: It might be helpful to the hon. member if he were to listen to me. It might shorten his speech.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I did not hear that last comment, but I assume I did not miss very much.


An hon. Member:: Nor did anybody else.


Osias.-J. Godin: Why refuse to hear it?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I shall continue by saying this. I know some of my colleagues in this chamber are anxious to have a new flag. They will say that a committee would merely cause delay and result in no action being taken. They are looking back, as is the hon. member for Nickel Belt, to a previous Liberal administration 20 years ago.


Osias.-J. Godin: On a question of privilege.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: There is no question of privilege.


Osias.-J. Godin: I think the truth should be known. The committee which sat 20 years ago was not a Liberal committee.

Canadian Flag


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I should like to know what kind of a government it was, then. Other words have been used to describe it, but I thought it was headed by a Liberal prime minister.


Osias.-J. Godin: To be completely truthful about this, the committee referred to by the hon. member was not a Liberal committee; it was a house committee composed of members of all parties.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As a member of that committee I must inform the house that it had a Liberal majority.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I thank the hon. member for Kootenay West. Not only did the committee have a Liberal majority, but so did the house. I only wish to say to those who think nothing would happen, that it would be much better if two years from now we were to have a unified country than it would be to have a divided country with a new flag. I think that is the essence of the problem now. Furthermore, if the fear of delay is so great, is that not an admission that there is something to be lost and that there are arguments against the adoption of a new flag?
I wish to conclude my remarks by outlining my views on the vote which will take place when the debate on the subamendment is completed. In order to do this I will have to express my views on the main motion and the amendment, not in detail but in summary. As I stated, I do not believe the proposed new flag has the general support of the people of Canada, and I shall be obliged to oppose the main motion. I can support the amendment because it is broad enough to include my proposition that we should determine the single question whether or not a new flag is wanted by the people of Canada.
The subamendment contains four proposed questions, none of which include the question I should like to see proposed, that is, the alternative that another flag may be considered and another design substituted. The four questions which are there relate only to the proposed flag and to the retention of the red ensign. However, the wording of the subamendment reads "that among the questions to be placed before the people" shall be the four which are detailed. I think this does not exclude the suggestion I have made, and I shall be able to support it. I should, of course, like if possible to support the subamendment moved by my hon. friend from Regina City.
In conclusion may I say we are engaged in a debate. The hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate at the end of the question period

repeated words which the Prime Minister had used earlier. He said he wanted every member of the house to have an opportunity to express his views on this subject. If this is the case, Mr. Speaker, how on earth can it be called a filibuster? I do not believe I am engaging in a filibuster; but if it is a filibuster, and if it will produce some change in the obstinate stand the Prime Minister has taken on his three maple leaf flag, then I am privileged to have been a part of it.


Mr. John Loney (Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to speak in support of the subamendment before the house I do so as an elected representative whose responsibility is, I feel, to convey to this parliament the consensus within the riding and on behalf of the people within that riding. It is my intention to vote in favour of the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City and seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk, the subamendment being that the amendment be amended by adding thereto the words:
And that in any such 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 heritage 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?
Mr. Speaker, in speaking to this motion I will endeavour on behalf of my constituents to convey not only their feeling of support for the Canadian red enstign, but I will also strive to assure them of their rightful opportunity to declare their choice, whatever it may be, concerning a national flag.
In addressing myself to this motion I would refer to a statement reported in the Canadian edition of Time of March 15, 1963, which states that the Prime Minister at a press conference for foreign language editors in Toronto, when replying to the question "What would happen if the Liberals failed to achieve a majority", had this to say; "In that very unlikely event, all good men will have to come to the aid of the country". I repeat that statement made by the leader of a minority government, that in the unlikely event of that result all good men would have to come to the aid of the country, and I say that statement was never more applicable than it is today.
If the Prime Minister was sincere in his concern for all good men and women; if he was sincere in his desire to maintain unity and shape the destiny of our great nation for

generations to come, then I say the Prime Minister should heed his own words and let the people come to the aid of the country and voice their opinion concerning a national flag. Never before in the history of Canada has such an issue affected so many people. Never before has an issue become so emotional, and never have so many people expressed their opinions pro and con, or actively taken a stand or engaged in a campaign to support the issue, which is the choice of a new, distinctive Canadian flag.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that the flag which flies over the Canadian people, whatever that flag may be, should be a flag chosen by the people, a flag that the people respect, a flag that the people consider represents our democratic freedoms and our way of life; a distinctive flag, representative of the history and heritage which we cherish; not a flag chosen by a political leader, a flag purported, rightly or wrongly, to be the personal choice of one man, a flag which is now considered to be merely a political pennant; not a design accepted, mistakenly, as a tangible form of appeasement to a group who desire only, and with justification, to attain recognition of their culture and heritage and who strive to attain national unity which will afford them the respect and recognition they so justly deserve as one of the two founding races in early Canada. Mr. Speaker, I quote an excerpt from the Amherst Daily News of Friday, December 29, 1961:
Q. You say the Liberals are working on a design.
Mr. Pearson replied:
Oh, there are hundreds of designs. But it would be the responsibility of government to make up its mind which design it would submit to parliament.
Q. How would you poll the people on this?
To this question the Prime Minister replied:
We would poll the people when we have a general election. And if they don't like the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag which can't be mistaken for that of any other country, they'll let us know in no uncertain terms.
If the government would agree to this method I am sure the Prime Ministers words would be very well justified. The people are desirous of making known their feelings in no uncertain terms. At the outset of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I stated that it was my intention to assure the constituents in my riding that they will have their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag. This opportunity can only be afforded through a national plebiscite. To vote in support of the motion I feel is the
Canadian Flag
only democratic procedure this parliament can follow to determine the right action which will legislate for time to come a flag emblazoned by accepted symbols, a Canadian flag of the people and chosen by the people.
In urging that this issue be placed before the people for their decision I wish to present certain communications from the riding I represent, that will substantiate the stand I have taken in support of this motion. The first communication states:
I wish to register my plea with you to uphold the red ensign as Canada's flag.
Please do all in your power to give everyone a chance to voice their wishes by voting on this issue.
I would repeat that request, Mr. Speaker:
Please do all in your power to give everyone a chance to voice their wishes by voting on this issue.
The following letter is from the Cape Croker Indian reserve:
As a member of the Cape Croker L.O.B.A. 1132, in your riding, I wish to state my stand in defence of our Canadian ensign.
Our flag, the ensign, is a truly distinctive Canadian flag. The red background challenges any country in the world to try to better our freedom, equality and democracy. The union Jack in the honour position honours all treaties, alliances and pacts up to the present day, and the Canadian coat of arms flying freely in the field signifies the freedom and equality of all people in this great country.
We do have a democracy. We do have the right to vote. No one man or one man's parliament can decide Canada's future or fate. The fact that Mr. Pearson does not choose to accept this Canadian way of life is certainly sufficient reason for knowing that his choice of a flag would not be fit for democratic, freedom loving Canadians.
I reiterate what has been said before. We do have a democracy. We do have the right to vote. No one man or one man's parliament can decide Canada's future or fate. A veteran who wrote this letter to me had this to say:
As a Canadian citizen and a resident of Bruce county, I feel it my duty to write to you and express my feelings, and my family's feelings, regarding all the ''bunk" and "ballyhoo" about a Canadian flag. We already have a Canadian flag, a copy of which I enclose.
It is recognized as well as any flag as the "Canadian flag". When our convoy arrived in Scotland in November, 1941 the first thing I noticed in the harbour was a green maple leaf on the funnel of a ship and our Canadian flag, the red ensign, at the mast. Long may she fly.
Are we to deny this veteran the right to vote in support of his choice of a national flag, a right for which he fought, served and sacrificed during the last war? Many Canadians will never be persuaded or convinced

Canadian Flag
to accept a flag other than the flag which now flies proudly over our land. For many, such as the mother who wrote this next letter, there must be the opportunity to confirm their opinion at the polls:
I feel very strongly that the Canadian red ensign represents so much common sacrifice that we cannot sit idly by and see some other flag forced on us by any minority group. Therefore we trust that you, our elected representative, will use your good influence to bring this matter to the attention of those concerned. One of my sons sacrificed his life under this flag of ours and I feel I want no other.
No personal political pennant would ever be accepted by this proud mother.
By conducting a plebiscite we will give to those Canadians other than the descendants of the two founding races the opportunity to exercise the freedoms and rights which are theirs; the freedom to make their own decision and the right to endorse the same, either as native born Canadians or as new Canadians who have attained citizenship in the land of their choice.
One group of Canadians, Mr. Speaker, which must be heard and considered by the administration of this country is the Indians. I represent two Indian reserves in my riding, and they feel that the flag proposed by the Prime Minister completely ignores the flag under which their treaties and pacts were signed. Vernon Jones, a former chief of the Cape Croker band, thinks all Canadians should have an opportunity to accept or reject it. This Indian constituent has been most adamant in expressing his feelings. He says:
We are looking forward to retaining our flag the red ensign. We are natives of this country and have great respect for the flag which we went through two world wars under, so I say hands off the red ensign. We are known as the red men or red race, so I feel we are represented on the ensign. So I am writing you hoping that French flag will never fly because we are not represented anywhere on it. We have not yet surrendered and that is all the white flag means to me.
So we are asking you to ask Mr. Pearson to forget about his flag, because we don't see how he can fly it without some bloodshed. Some of us are willing to fight and die for our flag and Mr. Pearson wouldn't want discontent in this country.
Another letter which I have received from an Indian reserve sets out in some detail the concern of the Indian for the retention of the red ensign and the union jack. This letter says:
Dear Sir:
It is with great concern that I view what I call the Pearson flag. Looking back in history, the Indians of Canada have, with good reason, fought for the union jack and the red ensign.

In the war of 1812 we fought for the British. The world war of 1914-18. The last world war of 1939-45. In the above mentioned wars many of our people did not come back. The transition of the independence of Canada was not felt by our white neighbour as it was by the Indian. As an example, while the supreme tribunal was the privy council of England, we felt secure that an independent tribunal was or had the guardianship of our treaties.
Since the Supreme Court of Canada became the final court, the Indian has lost the right given him under the Jay treaty, agreed upon by the British crown, the United States and the Indians of North America (treaty No. 166).
When this treaty was presented to the Supreme Court of Canada, it was nullified, on the grounds that the war of 1812 nullified all treaties between the U.S.A. and Canada.
Although that war did not directly concern the Indians they are the ones who paid the penalty.
All or most of our treaties end with: these provisions are to hold good, as long as grass grows, the water flows and as long as the British government is in existence. If the union jack is deleted from the Canadian ensign it may be disastrous to the rights guaranteed the Indian by that flag.
The people will not accept a flag without voicing their opinions either by a vote or through the representations of their member of parliament. Yet we had been told at one time by the Prime Minister that we must accept his flag or he would take this issue to the country. Why, if the government are not afraid to face an election over this issue, do they endeavour to suppress the representations made by members on behalf of constituents who favour other than the three maple leaves design? If they are confident that this is the design favoured by a majority of Canadians, why then do they fear expressions of support for another flag by members from this side of the house and label them as filibustering? I have had letters from constituents stating that the writer will not respect in any way a flag considered to have been rammed down the throats of the people.
If we are a true democracy, then we must have the mandate of the people. If we have a parliamentary government, then we must place this issue before those who sent us here. If there is to be justice and tolerance, then all Canadians must be allowed equal opportunity to their opinions. And if there is freedom of the individual then we who sit in this house must ensure that freedom will be upheld.
Like my colleagues I have received many letters and petitions with regard to this issue. Are the Prime Minister and those who sit on the other side of the house going to ignore these expressions of public opinion, such as those voiced by the Royal Canadian Legion and the Legion women's auxiliary, organizations like the I.O.D.E., women's institutes and other church groups? Will the protests of the

Canadian corps, the Canadian patriotic association and ethnic groups go unheeded? What reply will be given to those who express personal opinions or actively support a flag other than the three leaves design?
I refer now to the many individuals who have seen fit to contact their member of parliament: the elderly in the nursing home, the war widow, the farmer, the new Canadian and ministers of the church. Many of these communications, such as the following, are brief and to the point:
Dear Sir:
I am not one of those ungrateful Canadians of British ancestry who would care to dump the red ensign, rather I would like to retain it as our national flag.
Communications such as I have read at this time have continued to come in as this debate has progressed, and they run to many pages. Of the many petitions, letters and resolutions among them, there is a common expression for the retention of the red ensign and a desire for the opportunity of expressing opinions at the polls. This resolution of the ladies auxiliary says:
We the members of the ladies auxiliary of the Canadian Legion would like to voice our opinion of our flag.
We would like the red ensign flown over Canada for our flag, always.
I have a copy of a letter which was addressed to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) which reads:
The undersigned lodge of the ladies Orange benevolent association duly moved and resolved, we petition you Mr. Prime Minister, and the government of the dominion of Canada in respect to Canada's flag.
We do petition herewith, and desire it to be known it is our firm desire to keep the union jack as the flag of Canada. If a distinctive flag must be adopted, let the Canadian ensign, which has already become known around the world, be the one chosen.
The ladies Orange benevolent association continues to loyally support Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, Queen of Canada and the flag of our empire, our beloved union jack.
Requesting your due consideration to the above resolution.
Mr. Speaker, I have endeavoured to convey the feelings in the riding of Bruce. Speaking personally, I would repeat in this chamber what I said recently in a speech regarding the flag-for those who served under this flag I have respect and appreciation for their sacrifice in defence of our country. This is the flag under which I myself would be proud to serve, and as a father I would be proud to see my sons serve under the flag which is recognized as being symbolic of the Dominion of Canada since 1867.
Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, I stand firm in my support of the Canadian red ensign. However, if the Canadian people see fit to choose another flag I will recognize and respect that flag as a patriotic Canadian. I ask, though, that this choice of a flag be given to the people of Canada.
In closing I say to the Prime Minister, all good men will have to come to the aid of the country.
Thank you.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, this is the first time I have participated in any of the debates relative to the proposed adoption of a new flag for Canada. I should like to say to my colleague from Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken) that I think he was far too modest in his opening remarks when he somewhat deprecated the kind of contribution he was going to make. I found his points, as usual, extremely well taken, carefully thought out and helpful, and the kind that a good parliamentarian should make from time to time.
I had the same reaction to the speech of my colleague the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Loney), which was also thoughtful, positive and helpful.
Mr. Speaker, it is an unfortunate thing that we have a development in Canada, much of which is the responsibility of a press which probably writes its material a little too quickly, and is over conscientious and concerned about deadlines, which has led them to believe that any item discussed for any length of time by the people's representatives is in some way an indication of obstruction or delay. One gets the same reaction from the press comments about the speech from the throne; it is said that it drones on and that all members go over the same sort of things. Such writers are forgetting that before our assembly was an assembly of responsible government, it was a representative assembly in existence to represent the people of the country. When we have these things developing which stir and stimulate public opinion it would be strange indeed if the public's representatives passed their days in silence. I think it is extremely useful to have the kind of contributions which have been made to this debate. I am proud of the fact it is colleagues of mine who have carried the major burden of this debate, and who have led the public in the discussion of this very important question. I am proud of them.
In the main, the contributions that have been made have been helpful and have sought to minimize an unfortunate action and

Canadian Flag
an unwise decision of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) and the government, which has clearly endangered the unity of the country. We have always had this problem in Canada. Always we have had to have wise and good leadership which could prevent the cleavages from becoming so deep that they could not be healed.
It is appropriate that this House of Commons be directed along the lines which the two hon. gentlemen have suggested, and on this day, when we come prepared to turn our thoughts to the anniversary of the great Charlottetown conference which took place 100 years ago tomorrow, and which the Prime Minister is very properly attending as the representative of this house and his government.
Mr. Speaker, this is not the first time unity has been threatened. The situation was not easy 100 years ago. Many times since we have had problems that have created grave danger. I think it is incumbent upon us to make sure that no utterances of ours will do anything to pit one Canadian or group of Canadians against another so as to weaken the always frail fabric of confederation which binds this great but heterogeneous country together.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) was kind enough to express concern about the party to which I belong, and to give us advice. I am not one of those who are considered excessively partisan. Sometimes I am told that I am not sufficiently partisan; but as he was advising us I was thinking of an even greater danger. I would hope that his party would not contribute to the kind of thing that the great Sir John Thompson spoke about as the greatest threat which could befall the political life of a country such as ours. Sir John Thompson, one of the three great Nova Scotians who became prime minister of Canada, said something that strikes me as being extremely apropos at this very moment. He said:
"The one calamity above all others which stands before this country is that political divisions should follow the division of race or the division of religion. The one danger which menaces the future of this country and the union of this country, now so happily being accomplished, is that men should stand arrayed against each other on the question of government, because they differ with regard to religion, because they differ with regard to race.
Mr. Speaker, I refer to this situation as one which we must all avoid.
I thought too that a colleague of mine, the hon. lady from Grenville-Dundas (Mrs. Wadds), not long ago picked up the very same

theme that one of our great statesmen of the 1890's enunciated, when she said:
Let us clarify what we mean by unity-not rigidity, not force physical, or legislative, but understanding, a concentration on our common purpose, not on petty irritations, hurts and pride.
We speak of national unity as if it were a building we have to construct quickly, preferably cheaply, and certainly without aching muscles and red-rimmed eyes. A building which once constructed will shelter us from all modem harm.
Unity is only partly physical, mostly mental and emotional, ever changing, ever demanding, but so worth while.
We today, Mr. Speaker, are striving for a measure of unity. We are trying to reach a solution that will not irritate, that will not cut deeper the wounds that might have been made. That is a big part of the effort which is being made by the opposition party, the oldest party which Canada has and the party which was founded and based on a great understanding, a co-operative working arrangement between the leaders of the two founding races of this country. This is what we are seeking. This is the kind of suggestion that we have in the subamendment in our efforts to come to a decision on this matter, and if we have to discuss the matter at great length let it be discussed at great length, because it is a very important matter.
The higher value of a parliamentary institution is not speed and efficiency. The higher values by far are democracy, compromise, consensus and the proper serving of the people we represent. I believe that the party of Macdonald and Cartier, the party which took the lead in confederation 100 years ago tomorrow, was wise in its suggestion that once the error was made by the Prime Minister the whole matter should be put to a plebiscite. I believe that a plebiscite has become a good and useful thing, an important contribution to salvaging all that we can from a situation that was created by the government and especially, I am sorry to say, by the Prime Minister, a man for whose career and personality I have always had the highest regard. It is unfortunate that he, who in a long and fruitful career was so successful in reconciling differences, so adept, so skilled, so devoted in finding solutions among opposing suggestions, should be the very man in this year 1964 who has interposed one of the great divisive factors in Canadian politics. It is all the more regrettable because it was all so unnecessary, so unfortunate in its timing and so damaging in its method.
The house is naturally having difficulty in following the lead of the government in this matter. I am one of those who in happier,

calmer times would have sought to suggest to his people that perhaps our country could well do with a distinctive flag. I am one of those who would be prepared to say that the symbols which are dear to me could be retained by me and my people without necessarily being retained on a flag. We would all do much by way of compromise. But faced with the situation that was presented to the house and the country, even those who belong to that school had no other choice but to oppose, and I can do nothing more than oppose with voice and vote resolutions A and B.
There is something more to a plebiscite than a mere effort to find a consensus which the house is not able to produce, although that is surely a part of it. The house is clearly divided, deeply divided on this measure which has been brought before us. There is something more to a plebiscite than the fact that the people of the country should have the most thorough and complete participation in the adoption of a symbol-and the flag is a symbol. That is a big part of it. But there is something else. It is an unfortunate thing that we have seen political partisanship develop about the design, and throughout the country we hear the expression "Pearson's pennant". It is an expression I have never used, nor do I intend to use it. I do not think we improve our public life by such remarks any more than we did much for Canada by the expression "Diefendollar", something which I think is now very hard to obtain for reasons which we shall not discuss in this debate.
But the selection of a symbol for the country is not the kind of thing which a minority government does, and when it is succeeded by another government, either majority or minority, then has its choice set to one side. It would be ridiculous to have various prime ministers and various parties with their flags. We do not want a Liberal flag or a Conservative flag or a Pearson flag or a Douglas flag. We want a Canadian flag. So I think that on this important matter we should do that which other countries do in a constitutional way-entrench a decision once taken by a parliament. And to bring the decision of parliament to the people for their vote will give to it the greatest permanency, because we know that no parliament can bind its successor and a mere resolution on the order paper followed by a vote would not give that permanency which a plebiscite would.
Canadian Flag
I am one of those who believe that in this instance advocacy of a plebiscite is extremely apropos and is essential to a proper solution of the problem which is before us, because we want a flag upon which there is not only a consensus but with regard to which there is a realization that it is going to be ours for a long, long time. I agree with the hon. member for Bruce (Mr. Loney) that we should honour any flag which is adopted. I avoid expressing my artistic reaction to the flag envisaged in the resolution before us because it contains symbols that could conceivably be used in a flag which would be adopted. I am convinced in my heart of hearts or, to use an old expression, I have a feeling in my bones that the flag set out in the resolution will never fly officially in this country. I believe this is in the cards. But I am not convinced that in the decent processes of democracy, along the avenues of compromise and down the paths of good will and understanding, some sort of new flag may not emerge. If it is adopted properly, honourably, democratically and fairly I am prepared to honour it and to encourage my children to do so. To find a method we have suggested the plebiscite, and I commend my colleague from Regina City for the suggestions which he has put forward. The four choices have been read. There are those who believe a plebiscite should contain more, but I would be a little happier if there were fewer choices.
The question, "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?" is a very appropriate selection for the first question. I have never understood those who maintain that the Canadian red ensign is not a distinctively Canadian flag. I have had some few opportunities to be abroad, to attend the United Nations and other places, serving this country in some small way. Never have I seen the slightest hesitation that the Canadian ensign was in fact the symbolic representation of our country. Therefore I believe that whatever happens-and I am going to talk about the suggestion of the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Aiken)-the Canadian red ensign cannot and should not pass from use in this country until the people of this country have had a right to express themselves thereon.
It is unfortunate that sometimes we have allowed ourselves to get into that frame of mind whereby we have no flag at all. Of course we have had a flag, and it has had legal status. It has had recognition, and it is ill advised to suggest otherwise. If it is unsatisfactory, that is a different matter. Let us

Canadian Flag
find avenues to explore that question; but we get nowhere by presuming that the Canadian red ensign is not in fact and in law the flag of this country. I personally find it a rich and colourful flag. I thought the beauty of this parliament hill on Dominion day, with 66 flags flying, was most impressive.
The Canadian red ensign is rich and appealing. It has history, but perhaps to some it has things which bring a negative response. Perhaps some people find there things which point to a period in their ancestors' history which was disturbing. If I thought only of the days of Culloden I would not think too much of the union jack either, because never was there more butchery than was practised by the arrogant Sassenachs of the south against my ancestors of the north. But I do not see that in the ensign. I see in the ensign an evolution of one of the greatest political communities the world has ever seen.
I see there this country which led the world in the evolution of dominion status. I recall too, and it was only proper that it should be, that French speaking subjects of the crown many years ago were given civil and political liberty that English speaking subjects of the crown in England itself were not given. I see there the struggles of Robert Borden against some pretty thick-headed people in the colonial office. I see through the years the evolution of the commonwealth, where Borden pressed the case for equality among the members of the commonwealth, and where one of Borden's successors, our own Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), in another stage, successfully pressed the case for equality of peoples within the commonwealth.
These are things we can see, and perhaps we Canadians have failed in not becoming a little bit more emotional about the symbols of our existence. I heard the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) say the other day that the young people of this country, the vast majority of the younger generation, sought a distinctive Canadian flag. That may well be. Possibly we have failed, especially those of us who were educators, to point out to them the distinctiveness of the flag we have. Certainly our American cousins are not remiss in expressive nationalism, if we might call it that, and we may have failed in this through neglect.
It should be to the young that the national symbol means the most. Like the hon. and gallant member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) who spoke the other day, we express our personal preferences; we then move on to pledge ourselves to support
[Mr. Maequarrie.l
a solution which is arrived at by ourselves and our colleagues in the proper way.
I would suggest that when we arrive at a distinctive flag, either through the means suggested by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) or through a simpler or more elaborate plebiscite, we will be able to pour upon that symbol the emotional affection which many Canadians feel for the Canadian red ensign and for other symbols which have been used in this country.
I think the suggestion made by the hon. member for Calgary North, the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and others, and referred to a little while ago by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, of referring the matter to a committee for serious, careful study is an excellent one, a committee which would function while the House of Commons, its parent, would deal with other matters of equal but different urgency. I would hope that that committee would be able to make preparation so that it would overcome some of the mistakes which were made by the Prime Minister and the government in his and their exercise in flag unfolding.
I would think if this committee would call to its aid as counsel-if I may use the American expression-two heraldists, two historians and two artists we would avoid the terrible shock which many artistic people felt when they saw the symbol before the house in the main resolution. If this were done it would be a useful step. I would hope that, after careful deliberation and thoughtful consideration, such committee would come out with a pretty widely accepted design, and the next step would be for that design and the Canadian red ensign to be submitted to the Canadian people in the next general election.
If that were done the Prime Minister would have fulfilled his commitment in having brought forward the matter of a distinctive flag. The House of Commons would have fulfilled its duty by bringing order out of confusion, unity out of division and agreement out of bitterness, and then the people of Canada who are the ones who must have the final voice would be able to express their opinions. This I think would be something of which Canadians could be proud. This would be a fine preparation for 1967. It was recognized that a mistake had been made. It is a mark of greatness to recognize errors and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has

made a profound one. I believe there is a widespread feeling in this country-I was about to say "in his party", but I would not presume to go as far as that; I do not know- to this effect. But, I would be greatly surprised if this deep feeling had not permeated his party as well.
I can see a committee of this house doing useful work. I would hope it would be selected with the best of intentions; that it would have a vice chairman from the Conservative party. I would think that a distinguished gentleman such as the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer) might be given the second place on such a committee and I am sure the government could nominate some distinguished member from its own side, such as the hon. member for Antigonish-Guysborough (Mr. Stewart) or the hon. member for Brant-Haldimand (Mr. Pennell) who could give leadership to such a group in considering some of the ideas put forward. We have witnessed, I think, a real expression of serious concern among the Canadian people that this matter should be dealt with, that it should be dealt with properly, and that there should be no surrender to political expediency and no excursion into partisan, racial or religious bitterness. We want no part of any of this. No member can be accused of failing in his duty if he stands up and makes clear his opposition to some of the efforts which have been made in this chamber with regard to the flag proposal. I think the House of Commons can come out of this with its reputation enhanced as the great forum for the expression of Canadian opinion. Is there division here? Is there disagreement? Of course there is, because this is what we find among the Canadian people.
The best thing would have been for the Prime Minister never to have made his move. Better he had done other things. Better he should have moved to bring us into the organization of American states. I would have followed him in that, by voice and vote regardless of what any of my colleagues chose to do. Better he had found some way of reforming the Senate, as was promised in 1893. That is a long standing promise. But this action having been taken, there is still room for a little reaction, a little reconsideration, much give and take. I can see at the moment no better arena for this than the microcosm of the house itself, which is a house committee. Such a committee, untrammelled by rigid time limits-I believe
Canadian Flag
there would be a sufficient sense of seriousness among its members that it would not be necessary to lay down an arbitrary time limit-would, in my opinion, be well qualified to find a solution to this problem. I think there is a feeling among our people that a solution should be found but that it should not be a partisan solution, a mere rushing to a vote in the House of Commons. I cannot help recall a saying by Sir Robert Borden 50 years ago that some who were most anxious for votes in the house were least anxious for them in the country.
The Prime Minister is not here-he is in Charlottetown where, to tell the truth, I should like to be myself. But I do appeal to him to retrace his steps as far as necessary, because otherwise he will leave a record which will mar a great contribution to Canada. He is a diplomat. He is a man who, I still believe, is a great Canadian. The little series of bunglings among various cabinet ministers is unfortunate and regrettable. And seemingly it is eternal. But what is more important is something which strikes at the very vitals of the country, namely national unity. And if the Prime Minister could come out of this with his genius for compromise, retrace his steps and accede to the pleas of those who are sincere in their submissions, then out of this unfortunate division may come another example of Canada's ability to work together when the chips are down, party with party, race with race and creed with creed. If so, the flag debate was well taken up and, if so, we shall have proven ourselves. I think, Mr. Speaker, we can do it.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Before I proceed with my remarks in this historic flag debate I should be remiss if I did not draw the attention of the hon. members of this assembly to the very fine, scholarly, academic and thought-provoking speech we have just heard from the hon. member for Queens (Mr. Macquarrie).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: It is regrettable that a man with his vision and foresight could not be in that great city of Charlottetown today with other members of the house.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Duty comes first.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in making this contribution to the debate I will be brief. I spoke on July 3 in this house. At that time we were engaged in a flag debate which was to terminate at the end of five days. I spoke on July 3, just two

Canadian Flag
days after Canada celebrated its 97th birthday. The subject of the flag was very much in the thoughts of all Canadians at that time. We had portrayed to us on the front lawns of this building a memorable display of 66 Canadian red ensigns. I said then that I would vote in favour of the Canadian red ensign but at the same time I realized there were many Canadians who had other views on this matter and that I would be in favour of a referendum to try to settle the problem. I also said on that occasion-and if I might be pardoned for quoting what I said:
It would be very simple and inexpensive to hold a plebiscite. It could be held at the time of the next federal election at little expense. You would simply walk in to vote, be given a ballot with the names of the candidates on it and you would be given another slip of paper with three or four flag designs in colour and you would simply mark an X opposite the one you preferred. I believe the method adopted in the province of Alberta, which is referred to as the transferable vote, could be adopted whereby you mark your choices first, second and third. There would be no problem in that regard. I know each Canadian would say, "I will be loyal to the flag which the majority of Canadians choose."
And later in my speech I said:
I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he is bound to bring in a new flag he should start over again with a clean sheet. He should set up a nonpartisan committee to represent Canada and introduce a new design for parliamentary approval, not a government design. If he does not want to do that, he should withdraw the resolution that is before the house now. This is the last day of debate, at the moment. He should allow the members to reassess the whole issue during a summer recess. Let us go home to our constituencies; let us think about this very serious matter. Let it simmer a bit and then come back and decide where we go from there.
As I read those words again, Mr. Speaker, I think how much better it might have been had we taken the recess and come back here to reassess this very important problem. What has happened since? Many hon. members have spoken in this house. We have heard many very thought-provoking speeches. I think of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton), the hon. member for Royal (Mr. Fairweather), the hon. member for Lanark (Mr. Doucett); and, yes, even the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) and many others. These men spoke with sincerity, with beliefs, with ideas, with feeling in their hearts, and gave suggestions to this honourable chamber as to what they thought ought to be done with regard to selecting a distinctive flag for this country. This is the seventeenth day of the flag debate. I hear it said-it is said to me quite often-"Why is this flag debate going

on so long?" I would remind hon. members and the people of this country that the United States recently debated the American civil rights bill for 72 days. I am sure our debate is every bit as important to Canada as that debate was to the citizens of the United States. We should endeavour to maintain unity, bring our peoples closer together and give to all a greater feeling of national identity and purpose. These, Mr. Speaker, are the things we have to try to bring about in this debate.
Much has been said about the cost to the taxpayer of continuing parliament while this debate is in progress. May I remind you, sir, that most of the costs of this house are on a yearly basis, so whether the house sits or does not sit adds little to the cost of its operation. I would agree that those who are employed on a sessional basis represent an added cost. This may involve secretaries. However, Mr. Speaker, over the past few years parliament has been sitting so continuously that they have been on a yearly basis anyway. Therefore, it is a minor cost to the country for such sessional help as the page boys and the cleaning staff. There may be a small extra cost in connection with paper for Hansard, and printing; but apart from that I can see no additional cost to the operation of this house in discussing such an important subject as we now have before us.
Members are here because they are sincere in their purpose; they are here to debate this great cause and this important subject that is before us. So, Mr. Speaker, the debate has continued. We have heard briefly from some hon. members of the other parties. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) favours a new flag. In his case it is the Pearson tri-leaf if necessary but not necessarily the Pearson tri-leaf; he would prefer a single leaf because this, he says, would symbolize unity. For the Social Crediters, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) says flatly that a minority government has no mandate to impose any flag upon the people of Canada, and he demands a referendum. Then there are the members of the all-Quebec group, the Creditistes. The hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) has pledged support to the Pearson design. Again there is contradiction and dissatisfaction, because he says, "We are not satisfied with the proposed design; we would prefer another. Anyway, the flag will not strengthen unity".
Then even the Prime Minister himself has doubts on this matter. I wish to refer to just one of the many contradictions in his

speech, when he said, "When the house has come to a decision members will abide by it and do all they can to obtain its universal acceptance". In other words, "Accept or face an election; and having accepted, help sell it to the country". What a flag-conceived in secrecy, sired in coercion and born to be sold. On the subject of being born to be sold, we heard all about this the other day when the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) was questioned about the sale of thousands of tri-maple leaf bumper stickers. He took it upon himself to circulate from his own government office, with his own government help, an advertisement asking his supporters to buy these maple leaf bumper stickers by the thousands. So it was certainly born to be sold. To realize this we only need look at the great promotion that has been brought about in the sale of this flag from newsstands and other places of business; how they have been flown on the aerials of cars, and so on. There has been a great promotion in order to put this tri-maple leaf design before the people of Canada.
We have had a subamendment put before the house by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More). This subamendment was simply introduced in his good thinking to bring to the attention of the house how a plebiscite could be held. Among other things, what would be on this plebiscite or this ballot which the people would receive when they went to vote? I do not like to take up the time of the house, but the four points included in this subamendment were:
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 heritage 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?
These suggestions, amongst other things,
were included in the subamendment he put before the house. Public opinion in regard to this matter has crystallized in the last few weeks, Mr. Speaker. I would humbly suggest that there is no argument whatsoever as to whether Canada should have a distinctive national flag. I believe this is practically universally accepted. We should certainly have it for our centennial, which is just a few years away-our 100th birthday in 1967. Indeed, we should have had it many years ago, and it is regrettable that the Right Hon. Mackenzie King in 1945 when he, by order in council, said that the Canadian red ensign would be the official flag of Canada, did not stop there; but he went
Canadian Flag
on to say "to be flown from government buildings either within or without Canada". If he had left out of his statement that last little clause this matter would have fortunately been settled in 1945.
I think we have failed badly in our educational and training fields. We have not taught the children in our schools about Canada's flag, how to draw it, and the history behind it. This has been forgotten and overlooked, possibly because it was never officially declared to be Canada's flag. This minority government and its appointed Prime Minister saw fit to introduce the flag resolution that is now before this parliament, and rightly or wrongly they must bear the full responsibility, because the parties on this side of the chamber did not bring it in.
The government of the day saw fit to bring this resolution before the house and I should like to quote what the Prime Minister had to say in this introductory remarks on June 15, as reported on page 4318 of Hansard. He said this:
The government's responsibility is to decide on policy, to present that policy to parliament for consideration, and they hope support, and to stand and fall on the decisions parliament takes. If parliament decides that it cannot support a government on a matter of major policy, our system does then provide for a referendum, a referendum to the people in an election.
So that point was made quite clear in the introduction of this flag resolution.
I commend the Prime Minister for his aspirations and desires in this regard. We have only to note one paragraph a little later on, when he said:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a national flag of the kind described in this resolution, that will be exclusively Canadian, will bring us closer together: give us a greater feeling of a national identity and unity. Today especially, as Mr. Massey has reminded us, we need faith and confidence in ourselves as Canadians, with pride in Canada, devotion to our country. I believe that the adoption of this resolution will help to produce that result. If I did not deeply and sincerely so believe, I would not be introducing it into this House of Commons.
However, more and more each day his aspirations, goals and desires are not achieved. If his goal in this case is that of national unity and if that is what he wanted, it is abundantly clear without a shadow of doubt that some other method to achieve this aim must be sought.
The problem seems to arise from two sources, as I see it. As I said before, there is no doubt but that people do want a distinctive Canadian flag. However the problem which confronts this parliament is, first of all, how this resolution was introduced, and

Canadian Flag
second the particular choice of the proposed flag.
With regard to how the resolution was introduced, I think that if a poll were taken it would bring out the fact that practically everybody disagrees with the method of introduction of this resolution. Let hon. members opposite ask some of their sincere and loyal supporters, or the members of their own party, whether they agree with the method of introduction of this resolution. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) had this to say on August 24, as reported at page 7180 of Hansard:
I would point out that we never saw any details of this flag until Votes and Proceedings of May 26 were issued on May 27. The opposition saw this design as soon as we did. If this denotes that the Liberal party caucus has given its approval to the design in question, I would like to know when it did so. I attended all the caucus meetings and the design was not shown and, as I say, we did not see it until Votes and Proceedings appeared on May 27.
I cannot understand why or how a party would expect to have unanimity and support for the introduction of a flag resolution even before its own members were consulted. The same hon. member also said that at many of their meetings the Liberal party never discussed the question of a new flag. It was never an election issue in many parts of Canada. In my own riding the flag was never an issue in the election campaign, and I am sure there are many hon. members here who were never asked to declare themselves on the flag issue; nor was it an issue in their election platforms. There is plenty of evidence to show that this resolution does not have the support of the members of the party which introduced it.
This brings me back to the same point, that it was not so much the problem of the flag as its method of introduction, this take it or leave it attitude: This is for Canada, this is what we are giving you and this is what we want you to accept. It seems to be a known fact that the Prime Minister has received thousands of letters pointing out that he has gone about this in the wrong way. I think there is no doubt but that this is the way this great problem has arisen, namely the method by which the resolution was introduced, and second, the choice of the flag itself. I sincerely believe that if a more attractive flag had been chosen, one with a more artistic design or with more history and tradition behind it, it would have been more acceptable. At the same time I realize there is a difference of opinion over the choice which was made. There may be many who

like it, but there are many more who do not like it.
Now, Mr. Speaker, how is parliament to deal with this problem? What must be done? A very important matter has to be decided. I say it is up to the Prime Minister, who is the leader of the government, to make the move and to decide what he feels is best in this regard. I was very happy to hear the Prime Minister say that a free vote would be taken among his members. This is a reversal of his previous stand, but I commend him for it. On May 19 last the Prime Minister made it clearly understood that the life of this government depended on the outcome of the flag question. He said, as reported at page 3337 of Hansard:
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.
However, three months later he came before this house with an entirely different position and said that any vote on the flag question would not be considered by the government as being against party discipline and there would be no question of an election, whatever the result of the votes. So the whips are off; the way is clear. It is a free vote.
On July 3 I challenged many of my good friends on the Liberal side of the house to rise in their places and express their views on this very important matter. I challenged the hon. members for Durham (Mr. Honey), Brantford (Mr. Brown), Renfrew South (Mr. Greene), Carleton (Mr. Francis), Wentworth (Mr. Morison), Halton (Mr. Harley) and Hastings South (Mr. Temple) to rise in their places and give their views. I now challenge them again to get up in the house and make a speech on the flag, because as I say the whips are off and the way is clear. I know that, sure as I am standing here, the constituents in their ridings want to hear from them.
I suggest it is not enough that you be a spectator; your constituents want you to declare yourselves and take a stand. I know what my constituents would think of me if I did not make some observations during this debate. Being aware of the fact that the vote is to be a free vote they would ask what is stopping me from expressing my views and why I do not declare myself. They would say: Now that you are being allowed to vote freely, we want to hear from you and know your stand on this matter.

Mr. Speaker, we have only heard from 27 members out of 128 in the Liberal party. There are 101 members on the government side of this house who have not declared their stand on this flag issue.


Mr. Roxburgh:: Mr. Speaker, may I interject? That is perhaps slightly untrue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I direct the attention of the hon. member for Norfolk to the fact that the hon. member for Wellington South has the floor, and he should first seek permission of that hon. member before interrupting to ask a question.


Alfred Dryden Hales: I will give him that permission, Mr. Speaker.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: Thank you. The hon. member stated that the constituents of the members on this side of the house do not know anything about the stand we take. It so happens, and I speak for myself, that I have written my constituents personally, and that letter has appeared on the front page of all the newspapers in my area. The people know exactly how I stand and why I take that stand. I direct the hon. member's attention to that fact. Thank you ever so much.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that interjection on the part of my hon. friend from the town of Simcoe. He and I are graduates from the same alma mater, and I have great respect for him and appreciate what he said. However I should like to ask him why he has left it to the press to make his stand known rather than voice his opinion here in the House of Commons where it will be recorded in Hansard so that everyone will know exactly his position?
Mr. Speaker, we have heard from only 27 Liberal members. There are 101 Liberal members from whom we have yet to hear. We have heard from only one cabinet minister, plus the Prime Minister of course, in his introduction. In respect of a major historical debate on an issue of such importance to the people of Canada why do we not hear from members on the front benches, and from more members supporting them on the government side? I do not understand why there is such a delay in their expression of opinion, now that the vote has been declared a free vote.
I feel it is my duty, as a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition, to recommend any procedure which, if followed, may aid us in solving the impasse which confronts this parliament. The people of this country are tired of hearing about the flag debate. They want the debate concluded, and
Canadian Flag
we should do everything we can to suggest ways of solving the difficulty. I might say that we have already done so. The leader of this party has moved an amendment to the main motion, proposing a plebiscite. I have heard the pros and cons in respect of such a plebiscite, but I must say that the only democratic way of deciding such an important issue as this is by a national referendum. Many views and ideas are held by the people of this country, and even families are split on this issue. The provinces are also divided on it. Therefore I feel the only democratic way of handling the problem is by allowing the people themselves to decide by plebiscite. The people could go into a quiet booth, mark their ballots and make their own choice.
Mr. Speaker, I realize there are arguments against holding a plebiscite. I have suggested that a plebiscite be held, and have heard people say that we are the elected representatives sent to Ottawa to take a stand and to make a decision. I think the answer to that argument is that this is a very important issue, involving a moral and personal choice, which 265 people out of 20 million could not decide. How are we going to have unity in this country if the decision is made in that way? This choice, once made, is not one that can be changed every two to five years, or as the government changes. Once this issue has been decided the resulting flag will remain as Canada's flag for all time. Mr. Speaker, I am convinced that we must allow the people of Canada to settle this important issue by means of a plebiscite.
Many people suggest that by holding a national referendum we will divide the country. I think this whole matter must be taken out of the political arena. I do not think a choice by plebiscite would be as divisive as a choice by 265 representatives here in the House of Commons. I think if a committee is formed to decide on the designs from which a distinctive flag is chosen by plebiscite, there will be very little division. I think the committee, as suggested by many members, would be of great potential value, and perhaps should be composed of seven members from the Liberal party, five members from the Conservative party, and one from each of the N.D.P., Social Credit and Creditiste parties, making a total of 15. I do not think it would be necessary, but perhaps a similar arrangement could be made in respect of senators, making the membership of the committee 30 instead of 15.

Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, I think the whole flag issue should be sent to that proposed committee for consideration and report to parliament within a reasonable time, perhaps three to six months. If that committee after its consideration could report unanimously back to this house, the debate could perhaps be limited to five days. If the report to the house was based on a committee majority of 80 or 85 per cent I think that report would receive the support of all parties. If that committee was unable to come to a unanimous decision, or a decision of an 80 or 85 per cent majority, this matter should then be referred to the people in the form of a plebiscite. The duty of the committee would then involve a decision in respect to the flag designs which would appear on the ballot for the plebiscite.
I would go one step further and suggest that once the plebiscite had been held and all ballots been cast the ballots should not be counted on a regional basis, but sent to Ottawa and counted on a national basis, so that no area or province in Canada could be associated with a choice in respect of a specific design. The decision would have been made on a national basis only.
As a member of the opposition, Mr. Speaker, I have done my best to make some recommendations and suggestions which I feel it is my responsibility to present to the house. We are at an impasse. We are at a point where parliament must make some decision. After talking to the people of my riding, other members of the house and friends, and having done a little soul searching on my own part, I think these are the best recommendations I can make to the leader of the government whose responsibility it is first and foremost to make a move so that the impasse will be broken.
I must make it clear to the Prime Minister and his supporters that, above all, members of the official opposition want a strong Canada made strong by each province, Quebec being one of them. As a member of Her Majesty's loyal opposition it is my responsibility to try to suggest some way for the government to get out of the impasse. An explosive situation it is. The people of Canada want the flag debate ended and pressing legislation attended to. Therefore I beg the Prime Minister to accept the ideas, the compromises, the suggestions that have been made to him not only by myself but by many other hon. members. I appeal to him to take them to heart so that his record will not be marred for all time.


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


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes.


David George Hahn: I am asking this question purely for information. The hon. member suggests it would be possible to have a plebiscite with all the ballots being sent to one central point so that no one would know how any part of the country had voted. Would it not be necessary to identify the ballot boxes right back to the polls so that you could ensure the validity of each of the ballots, and carry out a check with regard to ballots issued, ballots used and so on? In other words, does the hon. member really think it is possible to send all the ballots to Ottawa as he suggested and still ensure the ballot count?


Alfred Dryden Hales: I think that is just a technical problem that can be overcome. I am sure it could be worked out, in the same way as all the ballots being sent to one central point in a province. They could all be sent to Ottawa. My thought is that we want to get away from the regional idea because we do not want to know what part of Canada voted for one flag and what part voted for another.


Hon. H. J. Flemming (Vicioria-Carlelon):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the amendment to the amendment which deals specifically with the question of designs to be submitted to the Canadian people in a plebiscite. Before making any remarks in this connection I should like to refer to the fact that when I spoke on August 13 I was not allowed to finish the remarks I had planned to make, and since the subject matter is quite pertinent at the present time I should like to conclude what I had intended to say then. I wish to refer to a suggestion I was going to make on August 13 to the Prime Minister and which I assure you, Mr. Speaker, is intended to be helpful.
I want to say to the house, to the Prime Minister and to the government that I believe this matter can still be settled. In my opinion the procedure would be to appoint a committee which would be entrusted with the selection of designs for reference to parliament, with parliament then being asked to approve a flag on the basis of a two thirds majority vote. I do not know whether anyone remembers what I said at that time, but simply to remind the house may I say it was my suggestion that no decision of parliament on a question as important as a change in the flag, which is tantamount to changing the constitution and certainly of equal importance,

should be made on the basis of a bare majority but rather on the basis of at least a two thirds majority. I was about to say at that time that the matter could then be completely removed from the partisan political realm. From time to time the committee would bring designs to parliament until one was found which was acceptable to two thirds of the members. Those views which I had intended to express at that time are applicable to the situation which exists now.
It could be argued that this would be tantamount to a Conservative party veto, and I acknowledge that it is. But I do say to the house categorically that the Conservative party does not yield to anyone, certainly not to any other party, in its desire to do any and every necessary thing to contribute to the unity of this country. That is the question which I believe is before us at least to a certain degree-the unity of the country.
Many other developments have taken place in the period of a little over two weeks since I last spoke and I am going to refer to them later. Just before I resumed my seat two weeks ago I had been expressing disappointment over the fact that more ministers had not participated in this debate. I wondered why they had not spoken in defence of their position as members of a government that has submitted a resolution to the house which, from every point of view except urgency, is the most important resolution submitted to the house since I have had the honour to be a member.
Important, yes; urgent, no. It is important because it represents much to many Canadians. To some it represents their participation in two world wars. To some it represents their participation in the first world war and their recollection of that war. It brings to mind the betrayal of treaties. It brings to mind the rejection of the proposition that the pledged word of nations is of no account. It brings to mind the rejection of the principle enunciated by the German chancellor of that day that a treaty was merely a scrap of paper. I would remind the house that Britain and France fought hand in hand in that war, that France was invaded and Britain honoured her commitment and rushed to her defence.
To some people it represents memories of the second world war. It represents the recollection of a long period of training and then the events of D-day and subsequent events. To some citizens it represents the sacrifice of life itself by a member of their family. In the shire town of my native county a man and woman live today who lost two 20220-473
Canadian Flag
of their three boys in the battle of Britain, when Britain stood alone. They wish to keep alive the symbol of sacrifice contained in the union jack.
My mail continues to contain many messages urging reconsideration by the government of its apparent desire to discard and destroy our present distinctive flag, the red ensign. With all the conviction of which I am capable, I urge the government to reconsider. I am, however, not hopeful that they will. But letters are continuing to come to me and I believe they will go on. Many people found it difficult to believe that the union jack would be completely eliminated from the government submitted design.
As I said, this is the most important resolution to be brought before the house since I have been here. I do, however, deny the urgency of it. As a matter of fact in my opinion it is not urgent. It is something that should be carefully considered by everyone within the sound of my voice now and who may be in this chamber at any other time.
I repeat it is most astonishing, most disturbing and most astounding that ministers of the crown have not taken part to a greater extent than they have in this debate. This debate has been boycotted by ministers. It is a matter of the throwing away of symbols which have been used for many years; it is one of the most serious things, and I for one am not able to understand or comprehend it. Every minister should get up and explain this. It is our duty to demand that they do, and it is their duty to do it. This they have not done, and I state here and now they should have the courage to speak in this debate and make an attempt to justify their position.
One minister has spoken, one in 25. In my opinion he is one of the best known ministers, the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). He spoke relative to the subamendment and I have some comments to make regarding his remarks. The particular paragraph, among others, to which I refer and take exception, is in that portion of the minister's remarks found on page 6963 of Hansard for August 18. These are the words:
I invite my hon. friends opposite, and particularly the Leader of the Opposition, to abandon their negative role, which gets its best representation by this futile subamendment and which is doing so much damage to his party-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Canadian Flag


Hugh John Flemming: If you
get any consolation out of that you are welcome to it.
-and for that reason to the country, and join with the Prime Minister in achieving another great step forward in our development as a nation.
I have not neglected to quote the last phrase, since it obviously is his own biased and prejudiced opinion. I might have done so, but I do not care to quote the minister out of context. I now refer to his argument.
I take exception to his statement that the role of the opposition is negative, especially in this subamendment. That is not the case.
In support of this contention I quote the subamendment. It is positive, very positive. It is most definite. It makes concrete suggestions relative to the designs to be considered by the Canadian people in a plebiscite. It enumerates them, a, b, c and d, and it leaves room for more. For information and emphasis I quote the subamendment:
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?
That is the subamendment referred to by the Minister of Trade and Commerce as being negative. I ask this house and I ask you, sir, is that not positive? It includes the so-called Pearson flag as one design. It includes the red ensign. It includes a modified version of the ensign. It includes a one maple leaf design. What could be more positive? What could be more explicit? I draw the attention of the house to the use of the words, "among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following;" in other words the subamendment is not restricted to the four choices that are indicated. More may be added if in the opinion of the government there should be more. I would rather expect that there might be more designs which it would be considered advisable to submit to the Canadian people, and ask for an indication of their preference.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce also referred to the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition that a more distinct and more prominent fleur-de-lis might be contained in a modified version of the ensign, and I
[Mr. Flemming (Victoria-Carleton) .1
quote his words as found at page 6960 of Hansard:
To the people of Quebec this suggestion by the Leader of the Opposition-and I have heard it echoed by a number of speakers on the other side, none of them French Canadians-must have appeared as a clumsy and gratuitous piece of appeasement; it must have appeared to my French Canadian friends as a bone thrown out to a troublesome minority to keep them quiet.
I resent the suggestion of the minister that this constitutes appeasement. It does nothing of the sort. It constitutes a recognition of the facts of history, history that has been recorded not for 100 years, 200 years or 300 years, but for 400 years. That is the recognition that this accords. The minister said that this is a question of appeasement. The only thing I am going to give him credit for is making a speech and stating his view. He is far ahead of most of his colleagues in that respect, because that is more than any other minister of the government, excluding the Prime Minister, has done in this debate.
What is the cause of this silence, which might propertly be considered a filibuster of silence?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Hugh John Flemming: There
is one thing about this: They are listening to me a lot more attentively than they do to the hon. gentleman with his back to the wall over there. Is it because they cannot justify their position? Is it because they were not consulted? Is it because they are afraid of the next general election that they do not wish to have their views recorded on Hansard and then be obliged to face the people? Are they afraid to explain and justify their stand?
Those are the questions which they might properly answer, and if they disagree with these assertions let them get up and say so in this debate. Some of them are noted for their vocal ability, and some for very little else. Let us hear what they say and see how they look.
In a previous speech I referred to the fact that there was little if any record of any commitment by the government during the last election to bring in a distinctive flag. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), himself a Liberal, has confirmed my assertion. No Liberal has disputed him, no Liberal has answered him. Therefore I submit that what they should have done, if they wanted to bring in a design different from the one we have been using, was to go back and see what there was by way of examination and investigation of this particular thing.

I find that in the years 1945 and 1946 a committee studied the whole question of a flag. We have men in this chamber who were sitting here when the debate on setting up that committee took place. We have men in this chamber who were members of the committee itself. We have men who were members when the committee reported. I have indulged in some research on the subject, and I am going to give the house the facts which have come to light in my examination.
First of all I want to give the names of the committee members, and I quote from page 256 of Hansard for March 26, 1946. The hon. members of that committee were:
Messrs. Beaudoin, Blanchette, Castleden, Emmer-son, Gingues, Gladstone, Hackett, Hansell, Harris (Grey-Bruce), Herridge, LaCroix, Lafontaine, Mac-donnell (Muskoka-Ontario), MacNicol, Martin, Matthews (Brandon), McCulloch (Pictou), Mclvor, Reid Smith (Calgary West), Stanfield, Stirling, Thatcher' Warren, Zaplitny.
Those were the members of the committee. And I should like to point out respectfully to the house, because it is of some interest, that there are two members of the present parliament who were members of that committee- the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge). This brings me right to the question I was discussing two weeks ago when objection from certain Liberal members in a certain quarter of this house caused the Acting Speaker to rule I did not have unanimous consent to continue. I find that the hon. gentleman was a member of the 1945 committee, an extremely good reason for asking the Secretary of State for External Affairs why he has not given us the benefit of the information he must have secured as a member of the flag committee in those years. Why has he not been impelled to contribute to this debate and tell us about the findings of that committee? Why has he not given this house some idea of the points raised by the various people who appeared before that committee?
I fail to comprehend his silence. Surely, he will speak up before this debate closes and tell the house the determining factors which led to the selection of a design for a national flag at that time. We shall await with interest the remarks of the hon. gentleman on this subject.
But we are fortunate in one respect. The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) is a member of this parliament and he was a member of that committee in 1945-46. He has not been compelled to maintain silence, and he has not maintained silence. He has spoken in this debate, and hon. members will
20220-473J
Canadian Flag
find his remarks recorded at the beginning of page 4888 of Hansard for Tuesday, June 30, 1964. The part of the speech to which I refer will be found beginning in the second paragraph of the second column at page 4890, and I can do no better than refer to those remarks. He stated that no single party which has placed a proposal in its program for a distinctive flag for Canada had ever defined what it meant by a distinctive flag. So far as I am concerned, we are using a distinctive national flag at the present time. It is the Canadian red ensign. I acknowledge that everyone does not agree with this proposition. The hon. member for Kootenay West suggested that this had added to the confusion and to the division which exists even within parties with regard to this matter. He suggested that the situation emphasized the need for adoption of unusual procedures so that the final result may be satisfactory to the people of Canada. There is nothing wrong with that. He then mentioned that he was a member of the committee whose job it was to bring in a design, and he proceeded to discuss other matters which I think are of great interest. He told us that the committee heard many people, including representatives of the college of heralds, or persons informed about the procedure of the college of heralds. He told us that after all those who appeared had been heard, the committee considered 2,700 designs submitted by various people. There was a great deal of interest in the question. Now I will pass on to the house the recommendations of the committee of that day:
That this committee recommend that the national flag of Canada should be the Canadian red ensign with a maple leaf in autumn golden colours in a bordered background of white replacing the coat of arms in the fly, the whole design to be so proportioned that the size and position of the maple leaf in relation to the union jack in the canton will identify it as a symbol distinctive of Canada as a nation.
That was the recommendation of this committee after the examination of 2,700 designs. Here was a committee, composed as I have stated, which brought in its decision by a virtually unanimous vote. To make this clear,
I might tell hon. members that the committee reached this conclusion by a vote of 23 to 1. That, without question, constitutes virtual unanimity. At least, that is my considered opinion on the point. Among the members of that committee were representatives from all the provinces of Canada and from both founding races of this country. They were people whose background is similar to the backgrounds of many hon. members of this

Canadian Flag
house today. They constituted a cross-section of the membership of the house at that time and I believe they can be considered, as far as their various interests were concerned, to reflect a cross-section of the parliament of today. I cannot understand why the recommendations of that committee were not implemented. That would have solved this question for all time.
Well, I suppose it might be said that 19 years have made a difference and that the reason which justified the committee's conclusions then do not exist now. I do not agree.
I believe the reasons which brought about the conclusion in 1946 were present then and are present today. There is no reason why a flag based on the committee's recommendations should not be put forward as the flag of Canada. This is one of the recommendations of the subamendment.
I stress the need for permanency. It has been referred to by my hon. friend from Queens (Mr. Macquarrie) this afternoon. We in this parliament surely do not want the recognition of a symbol which we think another government might discard. This selection would conform to the second choice mentioned in the subamendment. I would advance the idea that since this design was considered 18 years ago as being appropriate, surely it is appropriate now. Was it ever considered, I wonder? No one seems to know. It is a question we should like to have answered. Again I wonder why some ministers have not spoken. I wonder why the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) and the minister of northern affairs (Mr. Laing) who represent British Columbia, have not spoken. Will they get up in this house and say that British Columbia approves the so-called three leaf Pearson flag design?
Incidentally, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Mcllraith) was a member of this house in 1946 and I presume he had knowledge of the report of the committee at that time; I am unable to find any record of his disagreeing with the report. However, 18 years after, apparently he does not agree with it. I should like to have him explain to the house the reason for his change of mind and change of heart. There are other members here who were members of the house at that time, but they do not need to do any explaining. One is my hon. friend from Huron (Mr. Cardiff) who spoke, and spoke well, in this house a few days ago. He advocated the setting up of the committee 18 years ago and he was undoubtedly in favour of the report of the committee when presented. He still favours the adoption of the flag design which

that committee recommended. The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Harkness) was a member of the committee then. He undoubtedly supported the acceptance of the committee's report which brought in the recommendation to which I have referred. He too has spoken in this debate, expressing the same opinion as he held 18 or 19 years ago. That is not all. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) was a member of the house at that time.
He undoubtedly favoured the design recommended by the committee. But he did more than that: He moved a second amendment to the motion to set up the committee at the outset, in which he proposed that they be instructed to include the union jack in a prominent place in the design of the flag recommended to parliament. The Speaker of the day ruled that amendment out of order. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we know that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition has not changed his mind; he has no explanations to make.
A further examination of the record of the parliament of 1945-46 reveals the name of Mr. Benidickson, the man who I presume is my hon. friend the Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys. So apparently he has had a change of heart, because he is now against something which he supported 18 years ago. It would be interesting to have him get to his feet and explain the reasons for this. Then we have the hon. member for Ottawa East (Mr. Richard). Presumably he favoured acceptance of the report also. As I said before, that included the design as given in the speech of the hon. member of Kootenay West, which I have just quoted. The hon. member for Ottawa East might properly explain his change of mind also. Last but not least we have the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who has not participated in this debate. Rumour has it that he will be voting for the design of the Prime Minister, the government and the Liberal party. He voted for the setting up of the committee in 1945-46; he voted to accept the report of the committee. But now, according to rumour, he has changed his mind and is going to vote for the design submitted in the name of the Prime Minister. I wonder whether he would like to explain to the house why he has changed his mind, or does he wish to deny that he is going to vote for the Prime Minister's design, and declare that he will vote for the subamendment?
I do not wish to overlook many people, Mr. Speaker, so I should like to have the

Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) lake part in the debate. Since coming to this house I heard him at one time, when he was on this side of the chamber, declare unequivocally his preference for the flag which floats over the peace tower of this building. That was within the last four years. He has apparently changed his mind. It would be of interest to all hon. members if he were to give his reasons; and I am sure it would be of special interest to the premier of Newfoundland.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: Last, but certainly not least, there is the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss LaMarsh). Where does she stand? I am one of those who expect much from her. Surely changing the flag of a country is important enough that she should contribute to the debate and explain to the house and the people of this country her reasons for wanting it changed. Let us hear what these people are going to say, if anything.
Some time, Mr. Speaker-I will not say when-there will be a vote on this subamendment. It provides for a reference of the matter to the people of Canada and, as I stated previously, it leaves room for the inclusion of other designs. Let the people decide. That, surely, is non-contentious. What is wrong with that? If our hon. friends opposite think they are right, why do they not let the people decide? They say, "It is our duty to do it". Nothing could be further from the truth. In the apparent arrogant refusal of most members on the government side of the house to participate in this debate we see the ultimate in political irresponsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: The
people of this country may not remember much of what we say there, but they will never forget that most hon. members opposite said nothing. A few days ago we listened with attention and respect to the speech of the hon. member for York East (Mr. Otto). His speech placed emphasis on this particular point. Among other things, he said:
We on this side have wondered how it is that so many people in Canada are staunchly entrenched behind the red ensign, a fact we did not expect, people who would otherwise have fondly and readily welcomed a new distinctive flag. It is because they are afraid, and have gathered under the ensign in fear and apprehension of one thing-the division of this nation. They fear the division and separatism about which they have heard.
Canadian Flag
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for York East expresses as a fact that they fear and apprehend a division of the nation. I say that the hon. member has brought to the attention of this house a most important point and one that deserves a tremendous amount of thought and consideration by every responsible member, because it suggests in its language that when people are fearful and apprehensive about their nation, and subsequently about themselves, their families and the future of their families, they seek comfort and protection in something that has come down through the years, because it is one of those things they need in the circumstances I have just described.
So what do they do? They reach for the red ensign. Those are the words of the hon. member for York East and they are also my sentiments, Mr. Speaker. I emphasize that they are the words that hon. member uttered in this chamber, because he said that when people fear something and are afraid the country will be divided, they reach for the red ensign-which means something to them and is an emblem that has come down through the years.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Hugh John Flemming: And
Mr. Speaker, this is the symbol this government proposes to scrap, discard, and destroy. Yet the hon. member for York East very properly points out that in his opinion the symbol for which people reach is the red ensign. Where could you find a better, more potent argument for the retention of the red ensign and the things for which it stands? It has been many times tried, never denied, and willing to be tried again.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I believe the hon. member deserves the commendation of this house for the point he has brought out and the opinion he has expressed concerning the unity of the nation, even though I find it difficult to believe in his conclusion, which was that he would support the government sponsored design. Yet I recognize his concern for national unity and express my own similar concern. Where we differ to a tremendous extent is with regard to the means we think are necessary to bring about that unity.
So we have the union jack as one of the symbols with regard to which we seek authority to vote, and I do not need to emphasize its significance.
It is the emblem of liberty, truth and justice. Who is there here willing to do away with his rights to justice as a citizen

Canadian Flag
of this country? No one. Liberty and truth are also important words in the lives of each and every one of us.
Mr. Speaker, I could go on but my time is nearly up. My last words in these few remarks are simply these. It seems to me that this question may and can be solved if only it is approached in a proper state of mind and with a proper attitude. Let us forget what constitutes a political advantage of a temporary nature and remember that the eyes of Canada are on what this parliament does in connection with this most important matter. If we have a few days on other business and then return, this might be a proper course to consider. But in my concluding remarks I deny once more the urgency of the matter. This matter is not urgent. It would be much better to resolve it in a proper way, so that this nation will go forward united, in the years to come, than to tell us that we must resolve it in a week or two and in the wrong way. Those, Mr. Speaker, are my concluding remarks.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to take part in this debate, may I say that, like the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) I too spoke on July 3 and at that time expressed my personal views on this resolution. However I feel it would be proper that I put on record the views and opinions of many of the people who have written me in regard to this subject.
Before commencing to put these views on record I would again emphasize that the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on behalf of the government, that the reason the government are trying to expedite this issue is because of an election promise is ridiculous. It only proves once more the inefficiency of the government in planning and preparing legislation. In this way they are trying to conceal their inability and inefficiency. To prove that the Prime Minister said the reason for this issue being brought up at this time is that it was an election promise. I should like to refer back to last August 25, when a question was asked of the Postmaster General with regard to a statement attributed to the minister of northern affairs in the last election campaign. The Postmaster General replied that these statements were just election promises and did not carry any authenticity-in other words, that they would not hold any water. I might add that this promise was only made in chosen spots in Canada.

For no other reason than to persuade the government to turn down the resolution, I would invite them to visit the city of Peterborough. In front of the J. J. Turner works, manufacturers of flags, there are three flags, the union jack, the red ensign and the proposed maple leaf flag. These flags were mounted at the same time, and I would invite any hon. member of this house or any citizen to go to Peterborough and observe the three flags flying there today. Sir, the new proposed flag is a filthy, dirty brownish colour.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Hon. members can say "oh, oh", but if they are interested they can drive down to Peterborough, where they can see it for themselves. The other flags have retained their beauty.


Mr. Moreau:: Made by another manufacturer.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I should like to refer to a statement by the Rev. Gordon Smyth in a sermon delivered in the Parkdale United Church in Ottawa. He said:
It is impossible to cut symbolism out of the affairs of men and nations; the roots go too deep. If a man were to resolve never to use a symbol again he could not shake hands with a friend, put a ring on the finger of his bride, kiss his child or take the sacrament. Human nature requires symbols. The heart craves after some tangible expression of the intangible. The mind is ill at ease until it casts into a material form something of the mysterious emotions of the soul.
May I call it six o'clock?
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, when we adjourned at the dinner hour I was endeavouring to put on record the views of many Canadians from all walks of life who have written to me. However, during the supper hour I could not help thinking how grateful and appreciative many members on the opposite side of the house are, or should be, to this party for taking the stand that we have not or will not let the Prime Minister or government railroad or bulldoze this legislation through.
Having known personally many of the members on the opposite side of the house I am aware of some of their views and opinions. Sir, many of them are of the same opinion

as we are on this side. However, Mr. Speaker, those members have been lucky. They are not muzzled because they are vicious, but because the front benchers know of their views and what the outcome would be if they expressed themselves. They know that the outcome would be detrimental to the government. Time and time again our members have requested members opposite to speak on this resolution.


Mr. Habel:: Oh, oh.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member says "oh". I would class him in the same category as that hon. member who announced today in Montreal that he is not going to attend the House of Commons again, but will boycott it until such time as the flag resolution is passed.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I would not like the hon. member to classify me in any way, except as a real Canadian who wants to have a flag as soon as possible.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I was classifying the hon. member with one of the members of his party who made a statement in Montreal today. I am glad to hear the hon. member say that he is a real Canadian. We are all looking forward to hearing his speech on this issue.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You have asked me a question and I will answer it right away.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, I should like to refer again to the hon. member who made a statement in Montreal today, and suggest that he is neglecting his duty, which is to be in attendance in this house to present his views on the flag issue rather than to make statements to the press to the effect he is going to stay home and boycott the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, you will remember the embarrassing position in which many members were placed when this resolution was introduced. I well remember the week end that members were instructed to scurry back to their ridings and attempt to pacify their constituents. I also remember when they returned to this house they did so with their tails between their legs, because the constituents had told them what they thought. Since that time they have been embarrassed.


Maurice John Moreau: I know where you come from.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The hon. member is making his usual contribution to this house.
Canadian Flag


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I can make a better contribution than that, which you will be able to understand.


An hon. Member:: Give them hell, Moe.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Is this one of those high level debates?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The hon. member says he knows where I come from, Mr. Speaker. God only knows that there is no one any more proud of his heritage than I, and that is something the hon. member cannot say.
Mr. Speaker, at six o'clock I was quoting from a statement by the Rev. Gordon Smyth. I should now like to carry on with that statement, which reads as follows:
Why, then, Is the Issue of our national symbols so explosive? Because it has not been set in the context of the significance of religion, alike in history and modern life. The fundamental importance of religion in the development of the human race may be more clearly recognized if we consider certain possible divergences from history... Let us suppose that Christianity had remained a racial sect. Let us suppose that Charles Martel had failed against the Mohammedans at the Battle of the Pyrenees. Let us suppose that French missionaries had not shared the lot of settlers along the shores of the St. Lawrence. Let us suppose that saddle-bag ministers of the gospel had not helped to bring law and order, education and courage to English speaking Upper Canada. Let us suppose that the Fathers of Confederation had brought to their conferences only shrewd, practical, bargaining points, with no spirit touched by common allegiance to the founder of Christianity...
And yet Canadians cannot afford to be either smug or complacent. Too many spurn the lessons of the past. Too many echo the pernicious sentiment that "whatever is, is right." Too many fail to realize that to believe in "the easy buck" or "the mood of the voters" is a disastrous philosophy which, in the long run, catches up with them. Too many are unable to accept the facts of history because, unlike citizens of other nations, they no longer know those facts.
Such a statement from a child just may be understandable. But what of a deputy minister of citizenship and immigration who recently referred me to his office since he was not sure what Victoria day is called nowadays?
All this has a bearing on the explosive issue of national symbols. It would appear that anything goes, provided it goes. That is just a point. Anything just does not go from the long term point of view. The Americans learned this the hard way in the civil war over the federal power versus state rights 100 years ago. Shades of trends in Canada. Latterly I have been discussing the matter with numerous English speaking members of parliament.
I would commend this to many members opposite.
They are practically of one accord. They are frustrated. They are pessimistic. They privately resent the fact that while French Canadians vigorously assert their right to symbols of their own, they would seemingly deny a similar right to

Canadian Flag
meaningful symbols for the nation as a whole by seeking to rub the federal slate clean of 'the British connection'. They keenly resent all this privately and yet most of them publicly proclaim "peace, peace" when actually there is less and less peace. "The voice of English Canada is silent", they say sadly. They fail to add that this includes their own voices. This is not healthy. It is the symptom of a dread disease.
This is a major lesson out of the past. The past! Permit me to quote from a statement by Dr. Eugene Forsey who requires no introduction to people acquainted with public affairs. Exclaims Dr. Forsey:
"This government is firmly committed to the basically bicultural character of our country, yet it proposes a flag which contains not the slightest reference to any culture whatever, even agriculture. If the country is basically bicultural, then the flag should be basically bicultural too. Everything human, every vestige of our history, everything distinctively Canadian, except a piece of vegetation, has been carefully excluded."
Of course, it is realized that Canadians have carried the insignia of the maple leaf on their uniforms in time of war. However, this has been played up out of all proportion. The Royal Canadian Legion knows this. What segment of the population is in a better position to know? What segment deserves as much respect? Those whom we call veterans wore the maple leaf but they did not follow the maple leaf into battle. They followed ideals symbolized by the union jack and the Canadian red ensign. I have a notion that if they have gone on record as favouring the parliamentary definition of the ensign as the national flag this is not to rub the noses of French Canadians in the victory of General James Wolfe on the plains of Abraham but rather to affirm those precious elements in both cultures which we have in common.
What is the common denominator? Not something taken from nature, but from human nature. Not just maple leaves from trees found on this continent outside of Canada as well as inside our borders, but a human, living symbol unique in our particular part of the western hemisphere. I refer to the monarchy. I have in mind the crown. I have in mind that crown which Sir Georges Etienne Cartier extolled as the protector of the rights of French Canadians and which Sir Wilfrid Laurier extolled time and again. Are there English Canadians who feel that this symbol is outmoded? Are there French Canadians who feel that this symbol is merely an Anglo-Saxon emblem of superiority?
I do not doubt it. Unfortunately it would appear so. I have even been told by a parliamentary expert in heraldry that a crown above the cluster of maple leaves on the proposed flag would not be suitable from the heraldic standpoint. This expert stated that by the same standard the stars and stripes would fail to get a pass mark. Tell that to the average American! Moreover, the broadcast indication that a special banner may be prepared, with the union jack and the crown for commonwealth occasions, is little more than a sop. It would wither on the public vine if even given a chance to grow in the first place. Look at what has happened to the 24th of May. This used to be regarded as empire day. It should have evolved into commonwealth day. However, what is it now? I have already indicated that a deputy minister of citizenship and immigration had to refer me to his office and to the list of statutory holidays to

find out what the occasion was. At any rate, it certainly is not commonwealth day.


John Whitney Pickersgill: It is not empire day either, and never was.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: You had a request this afternoon to make a speech, so your turn is coming.
Never was there a juncture in national affairs like the present crisis to spark a grasp of what the Right Hon. Vincent Massey said out of his far flung knowledge of this land in the capacity of governor general. In his book entitled "On Being Canadian" Mr. Massey has written: "The supreme contribution to the cause of our unity is made by the crown. Nothing else with us stands above all controversy, represents equally all the elements which make up the state and preserves the vital factor of continuity in our national life." The wisdom of these words should be superimposed above the popularity of maple leaves on our proposed national flag. The alternative is even greater division. The omission of this symbol will result in the sort of natural protest and feeling of injustice in many parts of Canada which many in Quebec still manifest toward a certain political party over the conscription issue of 1917.
May I say in passing that at lunch hour a gentleman spoke to me who had just returned last evening from a tour through Quebec. He said he had seen as many red ensigns flying in Quebec as any other flag and I say, thank God for that.
The omission of this symbol will cause the Canadian red ensign to continue to be flown over the legislative buildings and institutions of a majority of the provinces from Newfoundland to British Columbia.
It is with this prediction, this warning, in mind that I quote from the Kingston Whig-Standard. The Whig-Standard can hardly be branded as either a Progressive Conservative or socialist newspaper. The fact of the matter is that its president, Hon. W. Rupert Davies, is a Liberal senator in the upper house. A recent editorial in that newspaper dealt in no uncertain terms with the flag issue. This editorial was bluntly captioned, "Sold Out!" It said in part, as follows: "There is one thing sure: Nobody is forced to recognize a flag or symbol and this new, synthetic product will be refused recognition by many millions of Canadians. 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."
What an indictment! May it be reversed by a strong parliament fearless of the shocking threat of an election held over its head. May parliament remember that at the time of the coronation Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent explained why Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II of Canada was officially acclaimed on capital hill as defender of the faith in these words: "Because this is a Christian country."
May parliament recall the vision of Hon. George Brown, a Father of Confederation and a prophetic Grit, which he referred to in these famous words: "Our scheme is to establish a government that will endeavour to maintain liberty, and justice, and Christianity throughout the land."

Not long ago, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) had a letter printed in many papers across Canada. I would like to read one of the replies to his letter:
Sir: As a very ordinary and old Canadian, may I reply to John R. Matheson, M.P. for Leeds, in your columns.
Though I was not born in the U.K. or Canada, I have Canadian citizenship papers; and, along with over 43,000 Canadian volunteers, I, saw active service, against the Kaiser in France and at sea, and against Hitler, in France and other countries and at sea...
Seemingly the Liberal spokesmen are trying, by half truths, to justify a complete break with the founders of the Canadian nation...
Surely this repudiation of the past is also breaking the fifth commandment: "Honour thy father and thy mother that thy days may be long in the land which the Lord thy God has given thee."
Here is another editorial headed:
Our Lord was sold for 30 pieces of silver: our flag-the emblem of our relationship to Him-for 75 Quebec votes.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Thus one more symbol of our Christian and British heritage-
I am not ashamed.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: You should be.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: If you want to see who should be ashamed, take a look in the mirror.
Thus one more symbol of our Christian and British heritage is being taken from us. Will the throne be next?
To millions of Canadians the union jack is a symbol of everything worth while in life. In it our history, our traditions, and all our hopes for the future are enshrined and, in it, too, are embodied all those intangible things of the spirit which are more precious than life itself. Of even more importance, is the fact that it is the true banner of the cross-the emblem of Jesus, the Christ, our Savior and Lord who died on the cross, for us.
Now, for party advantage and by political chicanery, this sacred symbol is to be taken from us. This is a grievous wrong which will bring sorrow and heartbreak to millions.
The result of this action may not be long in coming.


An hon. Member:: You are a good reader.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I would rather read than have unreliable words spout from my mouth all the time.
Few nations, and certainly not Canada, can survive such a drastic break with its past. The resentment against Quebec is deep and bitter and steadily mounting.
Even more serious is the fact that, in rejecting the union jack, we are rejecting the symbol of that special relationship to God given to nations which officially acknowledge Him by using His Cross as
Canadian Flag
their emblem. Further, in a world of turmoil and aggression, we lose the protection which that relationship provides.
The three crosses, as arranged on the union jack, form the first and the last letters of the ancient Hebrew alphabet (Sinai script). As such, they correspond to Alpha and Omega which is the name of God as it appears in the book of the revelation. Thus, in ancient Hebrew letters, the union jack is the monogram or name of God. Any nation having that name is safe from invasion or destruction under God's promise "No weapon that is turned against thee shall prosper."
Thus, by rejecting the union jack we are not only repudiating that special relationship to God which is our birthright, but are taking ourselves out from under the protection of His name into the appalling dangers of the coming Armageddon.
Only Satan can gain anything from such incredible folly.


Mr. Orlikow:: Who is the author of that?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The Toronto district branch of the Canadian British-Israel association.


Douglas Mason Fisher: Your friends, Bert.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I only wish hon. members opposite were as concerned about the future of their country as are the authors of these articles.


An hon. Member:: You are more concerned about Great Britain than Canada.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Here is a letter from another gentleman, Mr. Aylsworth, who wrote to the Prime Minister as follows:
I earnestly desire to retain the red ensign as the official flag of Canada. ...It is conceivable to me that those who wish to remove the union jack from the flag of Canada also wish to secede from the commonwealth. I am opposed to any institution or ideology operating within the commonwealth which is unfriendly to the commonwealth as a whole.
Here is another by Mr. Hughes:
Keeping the jack in Canada's flag is definitely our job, our obligation. As a first world war veteran, I prefer the red ensign, but will settle for the jack and one maple leaf.
Here is a petition signed by a family in Tam worth:
The three maple leaves has no meaning to the Canadian people.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prevent the hon. member reading these letters but under the rules he should provide us with the names of the people who sent them, and also the addresses.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, I thought I had.


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: You said a family.

Canadian Flag


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The Lockhead family in Tam-worth, Ontario.


An hon. Member:: What about Mr. Hughes?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Of Verona, Ontario.
The three maple leaves has no meaning to the Canadian people. It is a flag we feel the Canadian people will never accept. Let the people have a vote and speak for themselves. ...We want to see a united Canada.
Mr. R. A. Dean of Norwood, Ontario wrote:
For the life of me, I cannot even imagine changing the red ensign... It is rather sickening to think that sane people should be compelled to even consider something so blank in its entirety.
Mr. William Young of Tamworth wrote:
Regardless of what the government brings out as Canada's new flag, I still will recognize but one flag, and that is the red ensign. ...
Mr. Stanley Ball of Verona wrote:
It is our opinion there should be a plebiscite at the next election in order to give the people a chance to express their wishes on the flag question.
Mrs. A. Wilkes of Denbigh wrote:
I am a mother who lost her son in world war II and had four boys who served in the war. I would like to say I do hope you try very hard to retain the red ensign as our flag. Everyone with whom I have talked say they don't want the flag changed. Who wants three maple leaves? It looks like something made in Japan. If the red ensign was good enough for our forefathers and for the thousands who fought and died in two world wars it's still good enough to fly over Canada.
Mr. and Mrs. Carleton Potts of Stirling wrote:
I protest vehemently the idea that a few ambitious representatives of Canada's millions can speak for me on the flag issue. I protest that even a majority vote will change my flag and I loathe the situation whereby political expediency can dare to challenge our historical standard. I am not pro-British, anti-Quebec nor have I an axe to grind. I am a Canadian of mongrel blood perhaps, but if you can take my personal tax cheque, if you can take my son to fight for you, if you can name the ways I may forfeit my freedom for breaking the laws of the country, you can damned well listen to my opinion. Can anyone be asinine enough to believe that we Canadians are so limp that we will accept the silly little school-girl pennant as our flag? This pennant will never be my flag, Mr. Webb. Multiply me by hundreds of thousands and tell your cohorts to look to their jobs.
Here is another letter from John Starke of Norwood:
The red ensign is the flag we have loved and used for many long years and I hope we will for many more.
It is heartening to note that the representation we are receiving from our people in favour of our stand for the red ensign is increasing daily. Speaking as one who represents these voters in this house, I can assure
[Mr. Deschatelets.l
you, Mr. Speaker, that we will speak manj more times on the subject if we have to.
Finally, I wish to quote part of a letter I have just received from Mr. J. Edward Armand of Picton, Ontario:
The reason I know the cross-sectional ferment among the people over the flag, and the disgust and discouragement with parliament, guilty or innocent, is because my professional income must be supplemented by wide commercial travel.
Not long ago, when this flag issue was introduced, one of the members opposite came into the house wearing a large flag on his garment displaying the Prime Minister's proposed flag on a plastic or metal pin. It is interesting to find out that when this same member goes back to his riding, the flag disappears. I ask hon. members: What kind of attitude is this?
In closing, may I say we know that the Prime Minister has been misled. We realize that he has been misled by some of his advisers; but it is not too late for him to change his ways. Responsibility for this debate rests with the other side of the house. All they have to do, over there, is withdraw their resolution and the debate will be at an end. One more retraction would not mean anything to this government, because already the government will go down in history as the donkey government; they have taken more steps backward than forward. Their sole objective since they came to power has been to create one carrot after another to hold in front of the voters. Like the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales) I intend to vote in favour of a plebiscite which would enable the Canadian people to decide this issue. I think it would be only right and proper that all the ballots should be sent to a headquarters either here in Ottawa or in some designated city. If this were done, no one would know how anyone in a certain section of the country had voted, or how the majority of votes had gone in a particular area. We do not want to know how people in a particular part of the country voted. We want to know how Canadians as a whole voted. We want a united Canada, and that is what we are fighting for.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: It had
not been my intention to take part in this debate, but I think the house will be interested in a few observations at this point from one who takes an objective view of contentious issues.

I have just returned from a ten day visit to my constituency where I had the opportunity to meet a good number of my constituents. I am always interested in finding out what the average person is thinking in relation to what is happening in parliament. I have discussed this flag issue with a good many people. I must say that my conversations clearly indicated that the soundest way in which to settle this matter would be by means of a plebiscite.
I wanted to find out how public opinion was reflected in other ways, so I went into a number of stores and asked: Are you selling the Prime Minister's flag? And on every occasion they said: What do you think; do you think I want to go bankrupt? I cannot find this design being sold anywhere. That is the situation as I found it in my constituency.
I returned to Ottawa during the latter part of last week and I must say I was somewhat surprised, after a little investigation, to find a situation existing here in Ottawa which further confirmed the opinion I have expressed previously in this debate, that the only fair way to settle this matter was through a national plebiscite. I suggest that such a plebiscite could be held at the time of the next general election at which point persons would have an opportunity to express their opinions on this matter. I suggest that if it were put to them at such a plebiscite the great majority of the Canadian people would willingly accept the decision. We are all democrats, although at times when I look across the other side of the house I have my doubts.
Some two months ago, when this flag was first introduced and the model first flown on parliament hill and on the flagstaff of the Prime Minister's residence, naturally there were persons who were interested in purchasing flags and selling them. At that time, the sale price in Ottawa was $1. That was the general price. I went and inquired of the joke shop on Bank street, which was selling quite a few. Now that the debate has gone on for some while, and people have had an opportunity to think this matter over, what has happened? Since my return, I have inquired how the flags are selling and I find that the price had dropped to 79 cents. Then, later they dropped to 59 cents. At the conclusion of the exhibition, I found that a gentleman who had a store there was trying to get rid of them for 19 cents. Mr. Speaker, I think this clearly indicates a growing lack of interest in the flag proposed by the Prime Minister even in the capital city.
20220-474J
Canadian Flag
I respect anyone's point of view, but I say this is a good indication of the necessity for giving the Canadian people the opportunity to express opinions on this matter. After all, in the capital city a great deal has been done to support the Prime Minister's flag. I believe he has had the support of a good many individuals in more or less indirect ways. I think persons prominent in the government have done what they could to arouse interest in this flag. But now we find that the price has dropped from $1 to 19 cents. I have always found from experience that when an article begins to drop in price it is because there is no demand for it. That is just what is happening at the present time.
That is all I wish to bring to the attention of the house. This is concrete and conclusive evidence that support for the Prime Minister's flag is dropping rapidly, even in the capital city of Ottawa. On this account I would urge the right hon. gentleman to accept the proposal put forward by the opposition, that a national plebiscite be held so that the Canadian people may themselves decide this important issue which goes beyond the realm of economics and beyond the realm of legislation of other types; it strikes to the roots of the people's loyalties and sentiments. The Canadian people should be given the opportunity to decide for themselves the Canadian flag they wish to have in the years ahead.


Mr. J. E. Madill (Dufferin-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to participate in this debate at the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) I make no apology. Had the flag been an election issue and a plank in the Liberal platform during the election of 1963, whereby the people of Canada could have expressed their views, I would have taken a different viewpoint. Since it was not, except, as one would surmise, that possibly a different front was presented to our French speaking Canadians in Quebec than was presented to the other nine provinces in Canada, I feel it my duty to speak on behalf of the constituents of my riding and express their views and ardent desire -to maintain the red ensign.
The introduction of the amendment and subamendment are the only possible opportunities accorded members to voice their opinions. I have a letter sent by the dean of Mount Royal College, Calgary, Alberta, to the hon. member for London (Mr. Irvine), and I am going to read a short excerpt from it:
While I was in New York this summer, I was asked to address a group on "Education in Canada". In order to refresh my memory I went down to

Canadian Flag
the Canadian consul's office at 680 Fifth avenue, (9th floor, I believe) for a bit of information. They gave me an envelope which they call a teacher's kit. This contains a large political map of Canada; speeches of prominent Canadians, (e.g. Lester Pearson, Paul Martin, Paul Hellyer, Walter Gordon);-
I do not see the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) or the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) listed here:
-a booklet, summarizing the geography, climate, etc., of Canada; and a thicker booklet giving all sorts of facts about the country; and a Canadian flag (enclosed). It is to be noted that this is described as "distinctive of Canada".
The brochure enclosed with the letter is entitled "The Canadian Red Ensign" and it
says:
The flag now used as distinctive of Canada is properly described as the red ensign with the shield of the coat of arms of Canada in the fly. The flag consists of a red field, with the union jack in the first quarter, next to the staff. The inclusion of the union jack signifies Canada's association with the other members of the British commonwealth of nations. The coat of arms bears the emblems of the four countries from which the original settlers of Canada were chiefly drawn- the three lions of England, the lilies of France, the lion rampant of Scotland and the harp of Ireland-together with a branch carrying three maple leaves, the special emblem of Canada.
The Canadian red ensign may be flown from buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian government within or without Canada.
It is also appropriate for the Canadian ensign to be flown within or without Canada wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
It is indication enough, when this kind of brochure is put out in the United States, that this government did think the red ensign was a distinctive Canadian flag. I have received all kinds of petitions, copies of which have been sent to the Secretary of State (Mr. Lamontagne). They are addressed to the Secretary of State of Canada and are headed:
We the undersigned respectfully request the Canadian red ensign, which has been authorized by four governments of Canada during the past 70 years by order in council P.C. 5888 and signed by the Governor General on September 5, 1945, be retained as the flag of Canada.
It is very interesting to look over the names that appear on the petitions. Evidence that this was not an election promise in my riding during the last election campaign is clearly indicated by a signature here of one of the nominees at the Liberal convention, and another name is that of one of the Liberal organizers in my area. There are also a good many other names which indicate that these people did not expect this issue to be initiated by the government.

The announcement-or, I should say, the political speech-made by the Prime Minister at the dominion Legion convention at Winnipeg was very ill advised and controversial, being given in the memorial ritual opening ceremonies. I happened to be in Winnipeg for that convention and my personal feeling was that he was very ill advised to make a political speech and try to choke the Legion members with the new proposed flag. Had it been debated on the floor of the convention the legionnaires would have taken a much different attitude. One thing this government has failed to recognize, I would say, being a veteran myself, is that 70 per cent of the supporters of this government are legionnaires; and not only that, but the armed services are pretty strong supporters of the government. It is very surprising to me that they would consider killing the hen that laid the golden egg.
I have many telegrams here. To mention only a few, there is one from C. C. Sparling, the dominion president of the Legion. This telegram reads:
The Royal Canadian Legion at its 20th biennial convention in Winnipeg overwhelmingly endorses the Canadian red ensign and asks your unqualified support of its stand.
I also have a telegram from the outgoing provincial president of the Ontario command of the Legion, which reads:
Dominion convention Royal Canadian Legion Winnipeg May 21st approved Canadian red ensign as Legion's official flag to be flown over all Legion branches and commands now and in future. Ontario command 525 branches and 86,000 members request your consideration in support of Canadian red ensign at time of vote in parliament on flag question.
That is signed by A. H. Adams, president, Ontario command, Royal Canadian Legion.
I also have a telegram from the zone commander in my own district, J. H. Hackett, which reads:
Zone II wishes your support in maintaining red ensign.
I also have a letter from practically every branch in the riding of the ladies auxiliary and the Canadian corps, all asking for support of the red ensign. I have letters from the women's auxiliaries, the I.O.D.E., the Canadian-British Israel association of Ontario, and women's institutes. This represents a large voice of the people of Canada, and their feeling is that the Canadian red ensign should be maintained.
I should like to quote a letter from a nationally known figure, a veteran of the last war and a man who has done a great deal

for crippled children in Canada. I am sure he is known by all hon. members. I refer to Conn Smythe of Toronto. He says:
The enclosed article is both interesting and informative.
The article to which he refers is entitled "Symbol of Unity" and is taken from the Veterans Advocate of August, 1963. The letter continues:
The red ensign has been authorized as our flag by four governments of Canada during the past 70 years, the latest being by order in council (P.C. 5888) September 5, 1945.
The statement that our flag is not distinctive is, to say the least, erroneous. There can be no doubt in the minds of the Cypriots, Greeks and Turks, when they see the Van Doos and the red ensign, as to where these troops come from.
In the Olympic games the whole world is represented and when Canada sometimes wins a gold medal everybody knows, when the red ensign is raised to the masthead, that Canada has won a world's championship.
With the continued world-wide success of Canada as a country, and the extraordinary individual feats of Canadians under this flag, it might not be amiss to wonder who or what is behind this movement to haul down our flag. We should be on our guard that we as Canadians are not being led up the garden path.
I will read part of this statement entitled "Symbol of Unity", but may I first mention the editor's footnote. The article is by Brigadier Ian S. Johnston, C.B.E., D.S.O., E.D.; chevalier, legion of honour; croix de guerre, and the footnote is: "Here is the most mature and thoughtful presentation on a Canadian flag which has appeared during the prolonged, needless controversy. It is worth reading no matter what personal views you hold". This statement reads, in part:
Canada now has 19 million people, but over two million of them are not native born. It means a serious leavening problem for the assimilation is complicated by our growing pains, but Canada is in fact a country with an honourable past where the problems of religious and racial differences have already been resolved. Canadians have developed a greater tolerance than we perhaps ourselves realize.
Few factors could be more effective in fostering and enhancing this than a thoughtful appraisal of the elements embodied in the Canadian ensign, which has played the role of our official Canadian flag since before the Kaiser war.
When its design is examined dispassionately without prejudice or unreasoned emotion, it can be seen that every desire of our multiple religious, racial and cultural backgrounds is answered.
If we aspire to religious and racial tolerance and the attainment of our national objective by negotiation, while maintaining loyalty to ideals rather than narrow nationalism, then our Canadian ensign represents us in a manner that no simple combination of colours or numbers could do.
Canadian Flag
A flag with great depth of meaning capable of representing our complex idealism, it also represents our varied traditions and cultures, but single aspiration of the Canadian people as a whole, in a manner which a new design could not possibly match.
By understanding the ensign through a study of the elements in the flag, we may better understand ourselves, and will see that all of us proclaim it as our symbol of unity, the ideal flag for a country like ours. ...
A flag should be emblematic of its people, and this is clearly achieved. ...
Why is this group of devices called an "ensign" rather than a flag? A flag is a piece of cloth used for signalling or other purposes such as denoting danger, surrender, pestilence or all clear. An ensign may be a flag or other device, but it has the special function of denoting identity and is a rallying point. In our case it is interesting to note that the word is derived through the French word "enseigne".
The very complexity of our flag is a virtue. It represents ideals, and ideals are not simple matters. Here is a flag that has wealth of meaning and inspiration for each one of us according to our bent. A true student of heraldry can discover in it far more than is suggested above.
The people who own to this flag are the independant sons of the partnership of great peoples. The religious and racial tolerances we represent were achieved only at great cost.
While we negotiate, we do so only with honour and remain loyal to the death to our ideals. If civilization is to survive Canada must cherish her spirit of brotherhood, and lead the way against narrow nationalism.
Twice, without hesitation, our young men have fought under this flag and given their lives for the righteous cause against narrow nationalism.
Our interest is the common good, the brotherhood of man-a modern concept to be achieved only in a country held in reserve by the Creator for just such a people.
This is what we are-that is what our ensign proclaims us to be.
I should now like to place on record a clipping from the Victoria Daily Colonist dated August 8, 1964. It is entitled "Feet of Clay".


John Whitney Pickersgill: You have already read that page.


John Ellwood Madill: You probably would not know the difference anyway.


John Whitney Pickersgill: Nor would you.


John Ellwood Madill: This article reads:
The Commons summer recess has gone the way that seems to afflict Victoria's summer weather; there won't be any. Having got its interim supply bill through at last, and for three months instead of two, parliament will sit well into the fall.
The assumption is that the Commons will then recess and prepare for a new session. That is, once Mr. Pearson has rammed his new flag into the statute books. He acts like a schoolmaster

Canadian Flag
who won't let his form go home until it bows to his wishes.
In the present impasse that hamstrings parliament and sees it sitting through the hot months of an eastern summer the prime Minister displays the petulance so often associated with persons of weak character. He seems to imagine that a show of authority is an indication of strength, even when a diplomatic way out of the dilemma is offered him.
Where does the blame for the present parliamentary stalemate lie? Solely in Mr. Pearson's obduracy over the flag issue. This is the core that keeps parliament sitting and the normal business of the country held back from speedy progression.
This has been evident ever since he introduced the flag resolution. To begin with he held the threat of an election over M.P.'s heads, did they fail to pass the flag measure, which was tantamount to holding a gun at their heads and depriving them of unbiased decision.
In fact, the long sitting hours are just another indication of the same thing.
He refused a free vote on the subject. While blaming Mr. Diefenbaker for non-compliance he has now prevented the compromise suggestion that would delay the contentious flag bill to a fall session by insisting on an unacceptable time limit to its debate.
It is not obstructionism on the part of Mr. Diefenbaker that is at fault but the Prime Minister's insistence on having his own way.
Mr. Pearson says he is not prepared to call an election on any of the current issues facing parliament, the flag of course being the main one. Is he afraid of the result? This would probably be the quickest and most salutary solution to a parliamentary stalemate that grows worse with each passing day.
The country has been told that an election would split it and create national disunity. The lack of unity presently so evident in relation to Quebec dissidence and to the question of a new flag could not be greater. An election in fact would dear the air by either giving Mr. Pearson a majority mandate, and thus enabling national acceptance of his policies, the flag included, or rejecting his regime in toto.
But Mr. Pearson is bent on following his own stubborn course, although one wonders how much longer the smaller opposition groups can abide such intractability and the debilitating and unsatisfactory situation thus forced on parliament. The former U.N. diplomat of high repute certainly reveals his feet of clay. Stubbornship is no substitute for statesmanship.
This is a democratic country and the only way it can continue to be democratic is by our exercising our freedom of speech in this house. I hear the word "filibuster" used continually lately, but I think it dates back quite a bit to before the commencement of the flag debate. I have a little item here contributed by the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Beer) and which appeared in the Orangeville Banner. I see he is in the house so perhaps he will not mind if I give him a little publicity. The article is
[Mr. Madill.l
headed: "Peel representative explains filibuster", and I will only put on record a short extract:
Flaws in Canada's parliamentary system came to light early last week when one opposition party proved it could bring parliament to a standstill. In an obvious move to delay debate on the flag issue, it entered into a speech making marathon on the type of business that does not call for a vote on specific issues: interim supply.
I could not help but notice that when the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) made his speech it reeked of the word "filibuster".
Mr. Speaker, at a time just before we normally would have taken Easter recess, simply because the hon. member for Edmon-ton-Strathcona (Mr. Nugent) stood for his rights in this house and objected to a bill involving $140 million being passed without debate, three of our hon. friends to the left in the New Democratic party spoke continuously. I do not know why that was not classed as a filibuster. In fact, I noticed in the next week some of those hon. members were absent.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question? Would he explain to the house why the Conservatives are speaking at a time when we are waiting to settle two Conservative amendments?


John Ellwood Madill: For one reason, we are waiting to hear your speeches. If you were listening to my earlier remarks you would have heard me say that we are speaking at the invitation of the Prime Minister.
Getting back to the subamendment, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote a portion of an article written by Charles Lynch which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on August 22. You probably will not want to hear this either, but Mr. Lynch states:
The red ensign is now stronger than ever.
If not above the battle, it at least flew over the battlefield-and its position seems considerably stronger at summer's end than it was at the beginning.
Mr. Pearson is ready to throw the design of a new flag back into committee-a far cry from hopes that it could be flying by July 1, or for the royal visit in October.
The only thing that has happened to the ensign during the summer, apart from the fact that its sales have boomed, is that the government is reportedly ready to substitute it for the union jack as the symbol of Queen and commonwealth, with perhaps a crown substituted for the coat of arms in the fly.
Say what you like about the Tory filibuster led by Mr. Diefenbaker, it has taken its toll of the government's position on the three-leaf flag, as is evident by Mr. Pearson's willingness to compromise.

In terms of the House of Commons, it has been an effective political manoeuvre.
Whether it has been as effective in terms of the country remains to be seen.
The filibuster was aimed at the three-leaf flag, and the three-leaf flag is in trouble.
Mr. Speaker, had the flag been sent to a committee at the beginning and a free vote given to hon. members I am reasonably sure the flag debate would have been concluded. This is another occasion of the cart being placed before the horse or, shall I say, another case of trial and error.
The hon. member for London (Mr. Irvine) offered constructive criticism the other day, and I think he made a worth-while contribution when he suggested that a committee should select several flags and present them to the country for a choice, and that no government would stand or fall on this issue. This flag issue is now beyond the depths of understanding of a great number of people, and we would not want this type of debate to take place every time a controversial issue is raised. We certainly would not want this type of debate to commence every time the government changed.
As a veteran I feel strongly in support of the red ensign, and I intend to maintain that position even though I would compromise in order to maintain the unity in this country which is vital to each and every one of us sent here by our constituents.
An article appeared in the Toronto Telegram on August 22, which sums up the situation very well, and I think it is worth quoting for the record. The article begins:
Ask the people.
The Canadian ensign must not be lowered without the consent of the people.
No decision of the House of Commons, by free vote or otherwise, to strike our historic ensign and replace it with a pennant of the Prime Minister's choosing can be construed as expressing the consensus of the nation.
The voice of the people can be heard, on this issue, only through a national plebiscite.
None would seriously suggest that all controversial issues before parliament should be resolved by plebiscite or referendum. That is not the way our system works. A government having received its mandate, pushes ahead with its legislative program and stakes its life on its success or failure.
But the flag issue is different.
Here is a matter that touches the hearts, the emotions, the loyalties of virtually all Canadians. A parliamentary vote that would destroy the country's flag would leave deep and festering scars for years to come.
Too big for compromise.
It is far too important to be settled by parliamentary compromise.
Though Prime Minister Pearson has given extraordinary priority to the flag legislation, he did not
Canadian Flag
make it a central part of his campaign when he was seeking election. True, he promised a new flag within two years.
There was no suggestion that parliament would be presented with a single, peculiar pennant design and be told that this must be our flag.
If there had been such a proposition, it is quite possible that Mr. Pearson's minority representation in the House of Commons would have been considerably smaller.
It has been said that a plebiscite would be divisive. This is nonsense. Nothing could have been more divisive than the Prime Minister's introduction of the issue as a matter of high priority.
By doing so, he has made the national flag a partisan political issue. If he succeeds in forcing it on the country, it will be looked upon by thousands of Canadians as a political badge. It will fail to receive the honour and respect that belongs now to the ensign.
Mr. Pearson, as an act of compromise, has announced that he would allow a free vote; that is, individual members would be allowed to vote as they like outside the discipline of their parties.
This is a move in the right direction-or, it would have been had it been made earlier.
Vote can't be free.
At this stage, with party lines hardened, it is difficult to conceive of a truly free vote.
Having shown, belatedly, a willingness to retreat from his earlier stubborn demands for the banner of his choice, he now should go one step further and measure public sentiment by plebiscite.
Perhaps Mr. Pearson fears the outcome of such a testing of public opinion. Letters and petitions expressing determination to retain the ensign have been impressive.
There is no reason why this obstructive and divisive bill should not be shelved pending a reference to the people. There is no urgency. Most Canadians outside Quebec appear to be quite satisfied with the flag we have now. In Quebec, the matter is of little importance as there they fly the Laurentian flag with its white cross and fleur-de-lis.


Osias.-J. Godin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member has been reading for the last four or five minutes an editorial in toto. I suggest hon. members may make references to editorials but should make their own speeches in this effort at filibuster.


John Ellwood Madill: I could do that, but I think perhaps what I am doing is hurting the hon. members' toes worse than if I made my own speech. Mr. Speaker, I am almost finished, and I will then be glad to listen to that hon. member read or make a speech, however distasteful.
The article I was reading continues:
Until Mr. Pearson softens his stand, the opposition is justified in continuing a modified filibuster. As distasteful as such devices are in parliament, no other method seems practical in the face of Mr. Pearson's stubbornness.
The way out of the parliamentary impasse is clear; a plebiscite to end the long debate and to allow parliament to get on with more important legislation.

Canadian Flag
I have one further comment to make, Mr. Speaker. I hope a Canadian flag means more to that hon. member sitting on the opposite side than a symbol on a bathing skirt, or a sticker on a bumper. The Canadian flag means something more than that to me, and I hope it means more to the hon. member. Thank you.


Mr. Fred F. Stenson (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to take this opportunity to bring before this house the feeling of the majority of people in my constituency. This is the first time I have spoken during the flag debate, and I have no apology to make for taking up the time of this house. I feel that every member of this house should speak during this debate.
I should like to say a word or two about the speech made by the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp). I feel he should be congratulated because he is the first cabinet minister to speak on the flag issue. I think we should hear more from cabinet ministers if they feel so strongly about the three maple leaves design. The minister accused the Conservative party of carrying on a filibuster, and I should like to read from the beginning of his remarks. As found on page 6956 of Hansard he said:
Mr. Speaker, I have hestltated to take part In this debate, not from any lack of conviction but because no one with respect for our parliamentary institutions would wish to contribute to the filibuster now under way.
I do not believe this was his true feeling, for later in his speech he said, as found on page 6961:
During the last few days I have made a point of listening to the speeches made in this debate both on the subamendment and on the amendment which is still before the house... I must say that all those to whom I listened spoke with great sincerity. They stated with sincerity their convictions about a Canadian flag, and this is as it should be. X have no quarrel with that.
Why did he start his speech by accusing this party of a filibuster? I feel he was sincere in his speech and I believe that everybody who has spoken in this debate has been sincere. Everyone knows that when the Prime Minister introduced the flag resolution he expressed the hope that everyone wishing to speak on it would be able to do so. Yet every time he comes in the house he accuses us of a filibuster. The majority of the people in nine of the provinces do not feel it is a filibuster, nor do I think the people in the province of Quebec feel it is a filibuster.
I agree that no party should obstruct the business of the house. I also agree that no one man should tell this country what flag
[Mr. Madill.l
we are going to fly for the next generation, for our children and their children. I do not think that one man should get up in the house, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did, and criticize any other member and any other party. Since I have been a member of the house I think he and his party have certainly used more of parliament's time than the party I represent.
I do not believe that any member of the house should ask for closure, as the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. Mar-coux) did several days ago. I should like to ask the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Thompson) if he supports this view, but I see he is not in the house at present. I should also like to ask the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) whether he supports closure. In this regard I should like to quote from a memorandum that he sent to his constituents in which he said:
The people of Canada have never heen asked nor have the people said they want a new flag other than the red ensign. The chief electoral officer should be notified that the opinion of the people is necessary to settle the matter and, therefore, should proceed to have a vote taken by way of a transferable ballot on which a number of choice designs, including the red ensign, are manifest.
It is a two page memorandum and it is very interesting. I wonder whether the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency read it before he made his speech.
To go back to the Minister of Trade and Commerce, I should like to compliment him because he said he would not support closure or any action of that type in the house. But I should like to point out the fact that he claimed it made his blood boil when people spoke disparagingly about the three maple leaves. How does he think the people who support the red ensign feel when they see the Liberal government trying to tear down the red ensign? The minister says we need a spirit of tolerance, and I say to the minister that is what the Conservative party is asking the government for. We are asking them to show tolerance in choosing a flag for Canada. While the minister was speaking he left me with the impression that he felt only the Liberal government could bring in a flag for Canada. I say that if the flag resolution had been presented to the house properly the country would never have been divided on this issue.
The Ottawa Journal summed up the question of the flag in an editorial in today's issue when it said that the real task is to produce

a flag that will unite the nation, and that whether this takes a month or four months is relatively unimportant. My correspondence has consisted of several hundred letters in favour of the retention of the red ensign and only six letters in favour of the new maple leaf flag. I have a letter here from a lady who has asked me to support the three maple leaves. She lost her only son in the last war and her brother in the first war. I appreciate letters of this type, but for this one letter I have received 100 letters asking for the retention of the red ensign. Many of the letters I have received supporting the red ensign intimate that the writers would be willing to accept a modified version of the ensign, if this is what is needed to unite Canada; but in most cases they point out very emphatically that they cannot accept the new flag proposed by the Prime Minister. This is a good reason why we should have a plebiscite or a committee set up to consider the flag.
Since the flag resolution was proposed to the house we find that all across the nation people are showing an interest in the Canadian red ensign that has never been shown before. Red ensigns are now being flown from private homes, factories and other places of business, and cottages. When I go home on the week end I sometimes have a chance to go to the lake and every cottage is flying a red ensign or a maple leaf flag. There is another member in the house who has a cottage on the lake and he has been flying the one maple leaf flag. Two or three weeks ago the flag was taken down, but when I went there last Sunday he had it flying at half mast. So I do not know what to expect next week. It might be the red ensign, and I hope it will be.
The hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb) referred earlier this evening to the flag manufacturer in Peterborough. This is an old, established firm which has been doing business throughout the dominion for years. In the last four months this firm has sold as many red ensigns and union jacks as it did in the previous five or six years. This is further proof that the house should be very careful before it selects a national emblem. We need an emblem that will unite us. We need an emblem that will evoke respect, loyalty, affection, an emblem of which all Canadians will be proud. Most Canadians feel that the red ensign has accomplished this, but I know these people are willing to compromise in order to have unity in the country. If the majority of members of the house feel that we need a new distinctive
Canadian Flag
Canadian flag I believe that if they are sincere they will ask for a plebiscite or for the setting up of a committee to design a flag acceptable to all.
Speaking in this house last week the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska (Mr. Vincent) asked the government to consider a design that would represent the English and French population as well as the rest of Canada. Designs of this type should be considered. The house must come up with a design that will unite the country, not one that is going to divide it. His was a very interesting speech and I would like to quote one paragraph from it:
That is why we are exerting so much pressure and making these requests. We beg our colleagues of the Liberal party to exert pressure on the Prime Minister to set up a committee to choose a design which, as I said, would, unite and not divide the country, in short, knit together into one unit all the elements of our country.
I believe this is the feeling of the people in Quebec today. The flag proposed by the Prime Minister is certainly not acceptable to the majority of people in Canada. If Quebec chooses to be represented by the maple leaf or fleur-de-lis, and I respect them for that, the rest of Canada should have a choice as to their symbol. As confederation approaches its 100th birthday we realize across the country that we need Quebec and that the province of Quebec needs the rest of Canada if each province is to prosper and progress.
Last week I had a family from Detroit, Michigan, visit me in the house and they listened to the flag debate. Later on in my office their nine year old son said to me, "Mr. Stenson, we could solve the flag debate for you. You join our country and we will put another star on our flag for you". If this should ever come to pass, and I hope it never does, it will wipe out all the tradition and culture of our country. Canada certainly does not want to give up its heritage and traditions, for if it does confederation would be meaningless.
As we approach the centennial year and the world fair in Montreal, we find we have a selling job on our hands, to sell this fair across our country. But if the Prime Minister thinks the new flag will promote unity and sell the fair to Canada, he is very much mistaken. This feeling has been growing in the last few months. Let's not let it get out of hand because it is not fair to the province of Quebec: it is not fair to the rest of Canada. Let the house set up a committee which could bring forward suggestions for a flag- four or five designs-and then let the people

Canadian Flag
pick their flag by a plebiscite so that they will feel they have had a part in picking their design, as is proper in a democracy.
Our Prime Minister has turned a deaf ear on the Royal Canadian Legion of Canada. Although not a veteran myself I feel I have a responsibility to the veterans in my constituency and to every Legion branch across Canada. Can we forget so easily that since 1914 over one million men and women fought to preserve our democratic way of life, fought to preserve the red ensign? How can our Prime Minister turn a deaf ear on their pleas to retain the flag which they fought for, when over 100,000 men and women made the supreme sacrifice? The majority of veterans in Canada and their families, who account for several million of our total population, will be very bitter toward any government that scraps the red ensign completely.
I would like to read a short letter published in the Peterborough Examiner, sent to me from an adjoining riding represented by the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Honey). He asked me to use this in my speech if I spoke in the house on the flag. I feel it is a little too strong so I shall only read part of it:
Our government will, beyond a shadow of doubt, break faith with all who sacrificed so much during the two world wars if it takes away our flag. The idea of parliament not allowing the Canadian people the right to choose their own flag is nothing but dictatorship-
If a new flag is chosen it will have to have a name. If the one with three maple leaves is chosen it will have to be called "The Triple D."
The first leaf will be called dictator because of the way the flag is being introduced.
The second leaf will be called division because it has already divided the nation.
The third leaf will be called destroyer because our freedom and rights will be destroyed.
I feel this design and the way it was brought out is creating a division in our country today, and I would like to say a word to the Prime Minister, that he is not being fair to our veterans. Who else in our dominion have more right to give their opinions about the flag than those people who fought our wars for us? This is another reason why we should have a plebiscite.
I am sorry the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) is not in the house this evening because I wish to mention some parts of her speech. She had this to say:
I think we, as members of parliament, should look at this whole question, regardless of our personal feelings in the matter, regardless even of what we think the majority of our constituents want.
She is taking the same attitude as our Prime Minister. It is quite evident that what

their constituents want is unimportant to them. The hon. lady also stated:
A referendum, Mr. Speaker, is only really suitable in a culturally and socially homogeneous society.
I consider this utter nonsense. A person is either in favour or not in favour of the flag, regardless of his cultural or social level. Every Canadian is worthy of a vote in this plebiscite.
I would like to refer the hon. lady to an article in the Peterborough Examiner headed, "Incensed Legion Writes Pearson About New Flag".
Cobourg Legion, branch 133 with 500 members, is "incensed" over the possible plight of Canada's war memorials with the advent of Prime Minister Lester Pearson's maple leaf flag.
A letter in the same newspaper states:
The Cobourg branch of the Royal Canadian Legion has written to the president of the dominion command asking that some thought be given to the matter of the position that the many war memorials throughout Canada would be placed in should this proposed flag be forced upon us, who do not feel the desire to have the change.
For our protection and for those who feel alike it is suggested that the dominion government enter into some guarantee to the general public that all memorials, wherever placed retain the same scheme of draping that they at present have.
That places designated as a gift of the government or as a war memorial-people that now fly the Canadian ensign or the union jack be so authorized to continue.
That the next of kin of those whose names feature upon roles of honour in churches, public halls and such places be asked their respective opinions on a majority basis before any change of drape is allowed.
This letter is written, at the wish of more than 500 members, who feel that they have given some of the years of their lifetime in the service of their country and who now continue in the service of the Royal Canadian Legion as true sons of Canada, sworn to obey the laws of our country and to protect the servicemen and their families to the best of their abilities.
Yours very truly,
J. M. Gaiger, Public Relations Officer, Branch 133, Cobourg, Ont.
I would like to ask the hon. member if she feels she has a better right to pick a flag for Canada than these veterans she represents in the house? With all due respect to the hon. lady the veterans and their families were not mentioned in her speech. They were bypassed completely and they are the people who should be making the decision-not a political party.
Scores of organizations in Canada representing millions of Canadians have passed resolutions and are sending them to the

government. They are requesting the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag. These signatures come from people in every province in Canada but they are being ignored by our Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). The right hon. gentleman stated that if the government were forced into an election he would make the flag an issue. I disagree with this. I believe our flag should never become a political football. I believe it should be kept free of politics. In my opinion, the free vote which was announced came too late because members of the Liberal party had been whipped into shape before the free vote was ever announced.
The Prime Minister realizes that every member has received letters and telegrams from Canadian Legion branches all across Canada. I know that these Legion branches and their members would be very fair with the government if they were approached in a proper manner and asked to sit down and help decide on a new emblem which would help bring about unity in our country. I also feel that every province would be fair about this if approached in the proper way. The English speaking people do not want a flag forced on them and I know that after listening to this debate the people of Quebec would not want to force an emblem on the people of this country which the majority of them cannot accept.
The members of the Canadian Legion are not the only ones whose opinions have been disregarded. I have here a letter which I think has been put on record several times before. It is from 12 people. One of them is Mr. D. G. Creighton, professor of history at the University of Toronto. Another, Mrs. Dyde, of Edmonton. Another signatory is Dr. Eugene Forsey, director of research, Canadian Labour Congress. Three of the signatories come from Peterborough, and this is why I am mentioning this letter. They are Mr. T. H. B. Symons, president of Trent University which will be opening in Peterborough this fall. Another is his assistant, Mr. Denis Smith. The third is a former member of this house, Mr. Walter Pitman, head of the history department of Kenner Collegiate. Mr. Pitman is a man very well regarded both in this house and in the city of Peterborough. This letter was sent to the Prime Minister on May 27. I will read two or three paragraphs from it. It begins:
We have thought deeply about the flag issue, and believe it necessary to write this open letter to you as an expression of our common feelings.
Canadian Flag
May we emphasize that we do not speak as political partisans, but only as concerned Canadians representing several parties.
Later on, the letter says:
We are not in the position of a country with a revolutionary tradition, creating itself anew; we exist because we have inherited the past without a revolutionary upheaval. It is false and dispiriting to adopt a flag which subtly ignores the truth of our own nature. This is not the kind of symbol to rally a bewildered and demoralized nation.
We respectfully suggest that you withdraw the maple leaf design for the time being, and that you convoke at once a private meeting of the parliamentary leaders of all parties to agree upon a new design which asserts our history. We profoundly believe that the present proposal will only deepen the spiritual malaise of Canada.
If the Prime Minister had sat down with these gentlemen or with the leaders of the parties to consider this question further we should not now be engaged in this long debate which is doing this country no good.
I have another letter here, this one from a young man. I do not believe the young people are supporting a new flag in the way the Liberal party would suggest. It says:
I am proud of your stand on the flag issue. I have never voted Conservative, but I assure you you will have my full support in any national referendum, or should Pearson shove it through parliament in the dictatorial manner which he proposes, I would stand behind you to the fullest.
I am in my early twenties. I speak for the young people of this community when I say: Keep the red ensign.
May I say that before this debate concludes I should like to hear more from supporters of the Liberal party. I should like to hear from cabinet ministers. I should like to hear from members representing Newfoundland and Nova Scotia. I should like to hear from more members from Ontario.


An hon. Member:: Do not forget British Columbia.


Fred Frise Stenson: I should like to hear, also, from more members representing Quebec constituencies. My deskmate has spoken on the subject, and I have referred to that speech. As I say, I would appreciate hearing more speakers from Quebec. I cannot help but feel that their constituents are interested in a referendum or in having this issue sent to a parliamentary committee where there would be both representation from this house and from the Senate. In this way a national symbol could be chosen which would not be labelled a political pennant. It would be one fairly chosen by the people of this country, one which would link us together for the next hundred years, one we shall be proud of when we open our fair in the centennial year.

Canadian Flag
I feel that if this flag resolution is settled properly this country will remain united and become even stronger in the future.


Mr. O. W. Weichel (Waterloo North):: On
June 17, 1964, I spoke on the resolution concerning a distinctive Canadian flag. At that time I gave many reasons why we should continue with the Canadian red ensign. As a 100 per cent Canadian of German descent 125 years ago, I felt that in accordance with our democratic way of life I should express my views according to the dictates of my conscience, regardless of political leanings, and other pressures so prominent during the debate of such an important question.
In talking over this question with many of my constituents during the odd week end, I found support for the new flag as well as for the Canadian red ensign, and for that reason I came to the conclusion that a plebiscite or referendum should be held during the next election so that each and every Canadian could express his own opinion. Such a vote in my estimation is just as important now as was the referendum on concription years ago. I am sure we all realize that when such a vote is taken we as sound and loyal Canadians will abide by such a decision and bring unity to our country, probably to an extent we have never seen before.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said in this house that every member should have the opportunity to express his views on this important question. Up to the present time most hon. members on the other side, many of them in the government, have not done so. Why? Because it is my sincere belief that the flag they have chosen fails to express anything significant. In other words it is not an emblem or representation of anything real. So far, when any one of our members rises to speak on this issue all we hear from across the floor are the familiar words "Carried" and "Question". By making such remarks hon. members opposite are going contrary to the wishes of their own leader, who said all members in the house should be heard. It is their obligation to rise and make themselves heard so that the people in their constituencies may know what their opinions are on this important question. Then if a referendum should be held we could be guided by their suggestions or expressions of opinion.
The vote of the people is by far the fairest way in which to settle this problem once

and for all. Millions of people in Canada believe this is the only way of seeing as far as possible that this is not made a partisan issue. It has been suggested in certain quarters that a free vote of members or senators should be allowed. But as I explained in my previous address to this house, there would be a natural tendency, human nature being what it is, for government supporters to vote for their government's own design, and it is far from certain that a vote in the house on any issue of this nature would really reflect the feelings of the people of Canada. No doubt the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) had the following words in mind when he brought in an amendment in favour of holding a plebiscite. The May issue of the Royal Canadian Legion journal had this to say:
In a free, democratic country, where public opinion is neither regimented nor suppressed, instances occur when the people are stirred to the innermost depths of heart and soul. Then it is that government by the people, for the people, is given true effect by a national vote on the issue at stake, and on that only.
I was impressed with the remarks made by my good friend the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More), as I was by many other speeches that have been delivered since this debate was brought forward. Like the hon. member for Regina City, I believe that his subamendment has a great deal of merit, because we need to have further clarification. Yes, Mr. Speaker, we need to know what the plebiscite would be on. Let us look over this subamendment and carefully scrutinize its important points:
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?
The hon. member for Regina City has given the voters a wide scope for their choice, and I believe it is the most democratic way of solving this problem. No matter how we look at this great flag issue, we are reminded of the Gardens of the Dead. The commonwealth war graves commission annual report, so well prepared by this wonderful group of men, deals in considerable detail with the commission's work in all parts of the world where members of the armed forces of the British commonwealth are buried. How many Canadians realize that no less than 1,106,380 men from commonwealth countries fell in the first great war and are buried in 15,386 different cemeteries. In world

75Co
war II, 580,058 men from commonwealth nations made the supreme sacrifice and are buried in 15,551 cemeteries which also contain, however, 7,220 1914-1918 war graves.
I mention this fact, Mr. Speaker, "Lest we forget", and second so that we do not forget the many Silver Cross women whose hearts are still bleeding for these men who have been gone now for almost 50 years. I mention the Gardens of the Dead for the simple reason that they refer to men who fell in the first great war and in the second great war from commonwealth countries, of which we are proud to be one. With this in mind I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I was terrifically impressed with the flags floating outside the west block, where the third commonwealth education conference is being held at the present time. The red ensign, representing Canada, stands out above and beyond all other flags, having beauty and distinction.


An hon. Member:: And you can't mistake it.


Oscar William Weichel: And, as one hon. member has said, you cannot mistake it for any other flag, even at two miles or four miles distance. May I ask all those who wish to tear down the red ensign to give serious consideration to the part it has played in the growth of this great nation of ours. At the turn of this century thousands of immigrants left their homes in Europe with the hope of making a new life in Canada, and after the first world war another great immigration wave gave our population another tremendous lift. Then once again after the second world upheaval, Canada again became a haven of refuge and a chance for a new life.
Hon. members, I say to you that the magnet, the beacon, the beckoning light that brought those people to our shores was the red ensign. Hopeless and discouraged by conditions in their own lands, these new Canadians recognized in the union jack, an integral part of our flag, a promise of justice, freedom and opportunity for all men. We must never in any way appear to repudiate the part that the Magna Carta and the British parliamentary system have played in our development as a nation. As I said in my previous speech, Mr. Speaker, when I was wounded in the first great war the greatest people in the world to me at that time were the English, the Scots and the Irish. I was taken to hospital, and after four years of war I was treated in just the same manner as any man who was wounded in the 1914-18 war. From the bottom of my heart I say that the English, the Irish and the Scots are amongst the greatest people in the world.
Canadian Flag
As I left the parliamentary restaurant tonight my eyes wandered over the framed portraits in the adjacent gallery. I looked at the portraits of Gladstone, Pitt, Churchill and all those other great British prime ministers. If we are determined to uproot all our traditions and symbols, we should consider turning the faces of these men to the wall. Mr. Speaker, it might be well to remember that of Canada's male population of 30 or more years of age there are 25.6 per cent, or 1,056,768 veterans, according to the 1961 census. If we included the dependants of these men it would make these figures look quite impressive. The total of veterans includes all males who reported service in world war I, world war II, and the Korean operation, whether or not their service was with the Canadian forces.
Lest we forget, these men represented every province in Canada from Quebec, the mari-times and all across this country to British Columbia. The unity and co-operation of these men brought success to the army, the air force and the navy. Mr. Speaker, I do not believe for a minute that all these fine men are in favour of the continuance of the Canadian red ensign; but I assure you that a great majority will show how they stand if a plebiscite is forthcoming. Let us not be deceived, as facts always tell the truth in regard to such an important question.
Remembrance day is just around the comer. It plays a big part in such an important issue, as we should remember in these few hours before the flag is settled once and for all. It would be well to reflect on what Frederick E. Elmslie says in his circular for poppy day and Remembrance day, namely that Canada was not built in a straightforward, cut and dried manner, but rather has suffered cuts and bruises in its growing up. We are not a new country without a flag. Many countries have taken centuries to accomplish what we have done in 97 years-* strangely enough, much of it under the red ensign-and during these years of growth, Canada has always tried to make the world- as her men are today, serving in many parts of the globe-a better place for all of us in which to live.
It seems to me that abolishing the Canadian red ensign is as if one were to propose a bill to abolish the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, because the musical ride originated from men riding as a pastime on Sunday afternoons. Yes, and how would the suggested new flag represent the thousands of people who reside in hundreds of square

Canadian Flag
miles in our country where there are no maple trees? Nearly all the speeches in this house have explained the red ensign and what it stands for. Why design a new flag when the ensign already has on it three leaves on a white background?
Mr. Speaker, it is rather hard to make a speech when there are so many others going on over there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Oscar William Weichel: Surely not all suggestions which are made are improvements or represent progress.
What surely could be more uniting than the fact that working side by side to build this great country in one century have been Indians, French, English, Negroes, ethnics and Jews, people who fought, shed their blood and immortalized the bloody beaches, trenches and battlefields of the world so that we might have what we now possess? I could bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker-a fact which you already know-that at the battle of Ypres 50 years ago green Canadian troops attacked, and later many of them choked and died as a yellowish-green fog of poisonous chlorine filled the trenches. I can recall many battles waged under similar circumstances, all of which demonstrate the terrific sacrifices made by our brave men, our brothers and cousins and friends under the red ensign for their country and for upholding freedom of religion, freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
I can well remember, Mr. Speaker, serving in the front line trenches with Indians, French, Negroes, ethnics and Jews made up of Protestant, Catholic and Jewish faiths, and when any of these men were wounded no one questioned their religion or race. When someone was wounded all of his pals came to his assistance, showing the true value of fellowship, companionship and unity. These and others are the type of men who should have a real say about our future flag. A plebiscite would give them this right. Thousands of our comrades will never come back to tell us about the horrors of war, but we certainly know some of them paid the greatest price- death. Is this in itself not enough to make the ensign official? Or was this, the greatest of human sacrifices, meaningless and wasted?
The least we can do now is to show our humble gratitude, reverence and respect. I say in all sincerity: Let the ensign alone and make it official. If the ensign was not distinguished in the beginning before the wars, it certainly was distinguished after the wars.

Canada's sons have fought and died under the ensign for our freedom. Surely it is now unquestionably distinctive, and distinguished enough for us. Lest we forget, remember for a moment before a decision is made.


Mr. Eric Siefanson (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I make no apologies for rising to take part in this debate because it is no ordinary debate. The subject under discussion at this time is the flag resolution, the amendment and the subamendment and is something which will not be dealt with by every parliament. When parliament passes a bill and the legislation concerned does not do the job it was designed to do, then the following session or the session after that parliament can bring in amendments to correct the deficiency. The flag is different. Once we adopt the flag, that flag will be here to stay for scores of years, even centuries. Therefore it is most important that this subject be thoroughly debated, and I would certainly like to see more members from the government benches rising to take part in this debate.
So far, Mr. Speaker, there have been many outstanding speeches, but I do not intend to start naming those who have made such excellent speeches. Incidentally, all of the good speeches have been coming from this side of the house because, as the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) said, on the other side there is a filibuster of silence.
I am in the same position as that of the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr), the hon. member for Marquette, the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp) and many others. I do not belong to either one of the founding races, and I belong to a different nationality than they. Both my parents came from Iceland, a small island in the north Atlantic which is of great importance to the western world. Iceland is a country with the comparatively small population of 185,000 people. It is a country which cherishes freedom and democracy. Great Britain is referred to as the mother of parliaments. Iceland can truly be called the grandmother of parliament because Iceland established the first democratic parliament in the world in the year 930. The old Icelandic sages indicate that Leif Ericson came to North America in the year 1000, which is a long time before Columbus discovered America in 1492.
I have indicated that both my parents came from Iceland. My father came as a young boy in 1886 and my mother at the turn of the century. Both my wife's parents also came

from Iceland. They came to this country because they felt there would be greater opportunity here than in their own native land. I am sure that practically all those who came to this country are glad they came. They have made a living for themselves and have fitted into this country very well. Incidentally, the first Icelanders when they arrived in Canada settled in Ontario briefly, and then settled in Gimli, Manitoba, where they were given a tract of land which was designated as an Icelandic reserve. This was in October of 1875, and the Icelandic reserve started at Boundary Creek. They were given land along lake Winnipeg and some islands in lake Winnipeg; and they were actually a sovereign state. They remained a sovereign state and had their own self-government, establishing their own schools during those years. However they became very loyal to this country and have participated very actively in everything.
I was surprised the other day to hear the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) give the members of the House of Commons a lecture about the length of debate. In fact I got the impression that he thought debate should be limited, although he did specify that this specific debate now in progress should not be limited. In view of all the talking he does in this house I feel he is not on firm ground when lecturing the house about the length of the debate. I suggest to him that if there were 265 members like himself in this house, who love to talk, no session of parliament could be completed, and certainly would not be completed within the year. If members like that hon. member wish to contribute to the reformation of parliament they should commence by restraining themselves. People who love to talk generally do so for the sake of publicity.
Mr. Speaker, the only suggestion referred to by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) referred to was that in respect of extending the sitting hours. The Minister of Justice made an amazing speech last Thursday during this debate. He suggested that his party would be willing to consider other legislation on Monday, provided the hours of sitting were extended on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays from eight until midnight. I should like to point out that during our consideration of the estimates of the Department of Industry on Friday afternoon, attendance in this house was very poor. At one time there were five members present in the government benches, and for a time there was not a single member
Canadian Flag
of the New Democratic party, of the Social Credit party or of the Creditiste party in this chamber. Before these members commence to suggest longer hours perhaps they should attempt to sit in this house and pay attention to what is taking place.
The amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) is:
That all the words after "that" in line one be deleted and the following substituted:
"As the proposal to change Canada's national flag will affect the unity and destiny of Canada now and for years to come, the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite prior to any further action being taken by the House of Commons, in order that all Canadians may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag."
I certainly feel that every member of this house should be able to support that amendment.
The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) proposed:
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 was very pleased while listening to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Her-ridge) to hear him say he had been back to his riding and the people with whom he spoke urged him to support the suggestion that a plebiscite be held.
I was not away as long as that hon. member but I did spend a Saturday and Sunday in my riding. The people with whom I spoke certainly are in favour of a plebiscite. They feel we should move on to more important business and settle this flag issue by referendum at the time of the next general election. That would not be too costly and would certainly settle this question once and for all.
Mr. Speaker, I was very interested to hear the hon. member for Kootenay West relate his experience in respect of the three maple leaves design flags that have been flying here in the capital city, and I certainly agree with his theory that once the price of an article is cut, that is an indication the demand is decreasing. When the price of an article is cut down as low as 19 cents I would suggest that

Canadian Flag
is an indication there is practically no demand. Surely this is a clear indication to the Prime Minister and the treasury bench that they should act on this subamendment and refer this issue to the people.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that there are people in my riding of many racial origins and backgrounds. The 1961 census shows a total of 50,320 people in the federal constituency of Selkirk, broken down as follows: British Isles, 15,790; French, 3,747; German, 3,506; Italian, 57; Jewish, 122; Netherlands, 1,220; Polish, 3,304; Russian, 242, Scandinavian, 6,847; Ukrainian, 7,922; other European, 1,437; Asiatic, 118; native Indians, 5,765, and others and not stated, 243.
There are many religious denominations in my riding including Anglican Church of Canada, Baptist, Greek Orthodox, Jewish, Lutheran, Mennonite, Pentecostal, Presbyterian, Roman Catholic, Ukrainian (Greek) Catholic, United Church of Canada and others. These people with this variety of background and religion in this part of Canada live together, work together and play together in peace, understanding and harmony. They all think of themselves as Canadians first, and think in terms of one Canada. These people are tolerant and understanding. They are not rigid or inflexible. They believe in principles and they believe in God. They believe that symbols should be steeped in history and tradition. These people are all loyal to the flag of Canada.
The red ensign, as has been pointed out by many previous speakers, has been used by Canada since confederation, and was declared as Canada's official flag by order in council dated September, 1945. The thought of destroying or removing this flag arouses deep emotions in many people. This is the most controversial and emotional topic that has come before parliament since I came here in 1958. I fail to understand the Prime Minister in his determination to force this issue, despite the knowledge of the tremendous opposition to both the method by which this resolution was introduced and the design itself. For the Prime Minister to continue this stand is nothing but straight dictatorship. The opposition has moved an amendment proposing a national plebiscite, and a subamendment suggesting the form of that plebiscite. These suggestions have been made in an attempt to extricate the Prime Minister from the dilemma in which he finds himself.
I should also like to point out that I have received a great deal of mail in respect of this flag issue. I have received far more letters

on this subject than on any other, and all the letters with few exceptions have expressed favour for retention of the red ensign. I have received only one letter from my constituents favouring the three maple leaves design. All the others are for the red ensign and oppose the suggested flag. I believe every Canadian Legion branch in my riding has written supporting the red ensign and requesting that it be retained as the flag of Canada.
I do not intend to read the letters I have received except one short one from Home-brook in my constituency. It reads as follows:
I hear on this morning's radio that the flag issue is again to the fore. Am enclosing clipping which expresses my sentiments. I certainly will never fly Pearson's choice for a flag. Our family and neighbours always flew the red ensign and I would not object to some symbol being added recognizing French contribution to our country.
Shame on all those who would forsake the flag which represents all that has protected us for hundreds of years. How long will it be before they tire of this new flag?
In his letter he encloses a letter that appeared in the Western Producer of July 16, 1964. I think it is appropriate that I read that letter too because this gentleman said that it expressed his opinions. The letter to the Western Producer is headed "Flag Won't Promote Unity" and reads as follows:
Though I have never been a rabid sentimental flag waver I find I did not realize just how much the old flag meant to me until the almost certainty of losing it forever was brought home to me by recent events.
For more than 60 years I have observed it flying from many a flagpole all across the country. Always the sight of it brings to me the same feeling that comes to me when I see and hear a flight of Canada geese winging on their way-a mystic sense and realization of the immensity of our country and its past history. To me the old flag is more than an old bit of bunting. It stands for and exemplifies the hopes and aspirations of many generations of every ethnic group who have sought for and found security and happiness beneath its folds. Unfortunately it is an historial fact that to a large section of our population the old flag or even the red ensign is and always has been obnoxious for reasons that are quite obvious.
For this reason and the fact that our present federal government owes its very existence to these people we are to have a new flag of strange design thrust upon us, a design that features prominently three maple leaves. Most of us in western Canada have never seen a genuine maple leaf, yet this is supposed to convey a feeling of unity from sea to sea.
The government is evidently determined to pursue this matter to its ultimate end-a new flag. Quebec must be appeased no matter how many other feelings are hurt.

We cannot prevent the institution of a new flag -but no one can make us love or respect it. Nor will it promote unity. More likely the reverse.
George Watson.
I have many more letters I could read but I will go on with something else. As I said, I have received many letters from my constituency and all of them ask for the retention of the red ensign, except one in favour of the new three maple leaves flag.


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Eric Stefanson: The odds are at least 100 to 1 so maybe you would like to read it. There are some questions I should like answered. Who asked the Prime Minister for a new flag? That question has been asked before but no answer has been forthcoming. I know that the Prime Minister visited Selkirk during the 1962 election campaign and again in the 1963 election campaign, and he certainly made no mention of a new flag during either one of those visits. He made one specific promise in Selkirk in 1963 which was reported by the Canadian Press. He promised to establish a committee of inquiry to investigate the effects of railway branch line abandonment, but to my knowledge such a committee was never established. However, 1 suppose in that regard we should accept the view of the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) who said the other day that when you are in opposition and trying to get enough members to form the government you make promises to get votes, but after you assume office it is not necessary to fulfil those promises. The Prime Minister was in opposition at that time and I suppose he was only trying to get himself elected to office.
The Prime Minister has indicated that he promised a new flag within two years. I would suggest that the promise of a flag is in the very same category as the promises to which the Postmaster General referred the other day. There is another question I should like answered. Why did the flag issue become urgent all of a sudden and take priority over all other legislation? This question has also been asked before but certainly no answer has been forthcoming from the Prime Min-istre or anyone else on the government side.


Mr. Nielsen:: Politics.


Mr. Clancy:: They have got no legislation ready.


Erik Nielsen: Just a smokescreen.


Eric Stefanson: Is it a coincidence that this piece of legislation became urgent shortly after the visit or safari of the Minister of
Canadian Flag
Forestry (Mr. Sauve) and the Prime Minister's chief adviser to Quebec city last April? According to Time magazine, when they made that visit to Quebec city they almost collided with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickers-gill), but he was shooed out another door because he is too clumsy and has not got the technique or the finesse to be able to negotiate with the premier of Quebec.


Mr. Muir (Cape Brelon North and Victoria):: Is that three flag Jack?


Eric Stefanson: Did this visit have something to do with the flag question becoming urgent? If it did, the people of Canada certainly have a right to know and there should be an answer forthcoming.


Erik Nielsen: There never will be. No answers; all promises.


Eric Stefanson: Many editorials have appeared supporting the stand we have taken in asking for a referendum as set out in the subamendment and the amendment. However, I only want to read one short editorial because I do not want to take too much time in this regard. Many editorials have appeared in newspapers across Canada saying that the only logical answer, the only fair proposition, is to refer this matter to the people and let the people decide what type of flag they want. In today's Toronto Telegram there is an editorial headed "Stop It" which reads as follows:
The flag debate has gone on far, far too long. The Canadian people are wearied of it and people abroad must be looking at the performance of our 26th parliament with sniggering amazement.
Prime Minister Pearson's stubborn insistence that the Pearson pennant, or some modification of it must be approved before parliament rises is reckless and extravagant of time and money. The issue could be dealt with fairly if Mr. Pearson would agree to a plebiscite through which Canadians from coast to coast could express their preference for retention of the Canadian ensign or some new banner. The cost and inconvenience involved in such a poll would be less than that occasioned by wasted hours in fruitless debate and the stalling of parliament's business.
If Mr. Pearson is afraid of loss of face in taking this course, the matter could be put in the hands of an all-party committee. The recommendation of the committee then could be incorporated in a plebiscite.
It has been said that a plebiscite would be divisive. The late prime minister Mackenzie King did not hesitate to call a plebiscite on a far more explosive issue-military conscription-in the emotionally charged war years.
That article certainly suggests that the Prime Minister should accept the subamendment and the amendment, and that he

Canadian Flag
should refer this matter to the people themselves. It also refers to a committee. These suggestions have been made in the house.


An hon. Member:: Seven more minutes.


Malcolm MacInnis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, you saw fit to call attention to the remarks being made on this side of the house in support of the speaker. For the last five minutes the speaker has had trouble getting himself across-


An hon. Member:: How do you know?


Malcolm MacInnis: -because of the continuous interjections like the one we have just heard. I think it is about time members on this side enjoyed the same privilege as members on that side, and that they be called to order when it is absolutely necessary that they should be.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to point out to the hon. member that when the Chair called for order it was calling on members from the other side of the house.


David George Hahn: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, now that the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is back from his extended holiday, I would point out that his remarks have been preventing me from hearing the interesting speech to which we have been listening.


Eric Stefanson: That certainly was no point of order.
People in public life generally have the same aims and objectives. They may approach these in a different manner, but one of the objectives of those in public service is to improve the lot of their fellow man. This flag controversy is making many people unhappy and is creating bitterness and hatred. Surely these are not the aims and objectives of any public servant.
In view of this I would strongly urge the Prime Minister to withdraw the resolution at this time. He would be doing his country a great service if he would do this. Many millions of Canadians are unhappy with the method the Prime Minister has used in introducing this resolution, and many millions are also unhappy with the proposed design. They feel that it is a sickly and insipid looking flag.
Some say the design is not important, but I say those people are wrong. The design should have a meaning, should be distinctive in appearance, and should be something which the majority of Canadians want and will

respect. When a new flag is chosen by parliament it will fly from flagpoles in this country for many years, perhaps even for centuries to come. This resolution is not like other pieces of legislation. When parliament passes an act, and then a few months later it is found not to be doing exactly what it was intended to do, an amendment can be brought in to correct it. Not so with a flag. Therefore extreme care should be used in the selection and adoption of a new flag.
A flag should not be associated with any political party, and the design should not be associated with any one individual. The hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) has clearly indicated that the selection of the proposed design was not submitted to the Liberal caucus before being introduced in the House of Commons. It has been pointed out that the design is the personal choice of the Prime Minister. Seeing that it is his personal choice, it then becomes labelled with the government of which he is the head, and also with the Liberal party. It has therefore become a political flag.
Many thousands of Canadians have written to their members of parliament urging them to do everything in their power to prevent the adoption of the proposed three maple leaf flag. I firmly believe that these people are right, that the adoption of this proposed three maple leaf flag would be a calamity. It can .only bring about division, disunity and dissension. I feel that it is my duty, and the duty of every member of parliament, to adopt a course to prevent this from happening.
When the time comes when the majority of Canadians want a new flag, let us act in a mature manner and select one flag, without any thought of appeasement to any region or section of the country. The manner in which the resolution was introduced clearly indicates the lack of understanding of the situation by the government, and also its indecisiveness.
It has been suggested that the matter of a flag became urgent through the pressure of the premier of Quebec. It has also been suggested that the inclusion of the second flag in the resolution was at the request of the premier of Newfoundland. Be that as it may, the timing of the introduction of this resolution could not have been worse.
The appointment of the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism was completely wrong. The expenditure of the taxpayers' money on this type of commission is unjustified. With a population such as we have in Canada, with so many racial origins, there is no room for this type of commission.

Since it was appointed it has certainly stirred up the pot. Also, with the extremists and separatists movement having been active in Quebec during the past few months and receiving nation-wide publicity, the introduction of a flag resolution was looked upon by many millions of Canadians with suspicion and disfavour. Under this type of climate it is impossible to get any resemblance of unity, support or respect for the resolution introduced by the Prime Minister.
Before the Prime Minister introduced the resolution he said there would be a free vote on this subject. Later he reversed that decision and said his government would stand or fall on this resolution and, if the resolution were defeated, he would take it as a vote of nonconfidence and call an election. A few days ago he again reversed his decision and now says there will be a free vote. But it was ably pointed out by the Liberal member for York-Humber that there could not be a free vote on this resolution, that the resolution stood in the name of the Prime Minister and was seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). It therefore was a government motion and no free vote could be held.
If there is a general desire on the part of the Prime Minister for a free vote, he should withdraw the resolution and have it resubmitted by a backbencher. Many members have made suggestions and recommendations to help the Prime Minister and the government get out of the impasse in which
Canadian Flag
they find themselves. The amendment moved by the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) to hold a referendum or plebiscite, was moved for this purpose. Having been denied the right of a free vote in parliament, and the proposed flag having become a political flag, and with the impasse the government find themselves in, the only proper and honourable course to follow is to refer this to the people themselves and let them make the choice. The subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) spells out more clearly how the ballot could be taken, and I have many editorials here supporting the stand that a plebiscite should be held.
I would strongly urge members from all parties to support the subamendment. This would put into operation the most democratic principle of all, where the decision on a flag rests with the people themselves. This could be done most easily and economically at the time of the next general election. Once the vote was over, I feel certain that practically every Canadian would be willing to accept the rule of the majority, which would leave this country united and strong.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 10.30 this house stands adjourned until 2 p.m. tomorrow afternoon.
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Tuesday, Seplember 1, 1964