1964-07-02

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk of the house has received from the chief electoral officer a certificate of the election and return of Mrs. Eloise Jones, member for the electoral district of Saskatoon.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



NEW BROCHURE CONTAINING SEATING PLAN OF CHAMBER

Mr. Speaker:: Hon. members will have noticed the new seating plan which is on each member's desk today. This is the publication mentioned in the ninth report of the special committee on procedure and organization tabled in the house on June 24. The copies on hon. members' desks are from an advance and very limited supply delivered to me yesterday, Canada's national holiday. It will be available in quantity for distribution to visitors and for the general use of members some time within the next two weeks or so. The brochure is being printed in one million copies. However, in order to keep the seating plan up to date, the coloured side only will be printed initially and the black and white portion will be run in smaller lots as required so as to reflect seating changes that occur from time to time.
May I acknowledge our appreciation to the queen's printer and those engaged by him to produce this handsome brochure for getting it out in record time. It represents the first step only in a long range program to make available a variety of attractively illustrated, well written publications, postcards and other material that will, I hope, give to Canadians and to our visitors from other countries a better appreciation of the significance of parliament.



PRIVILEGE

[Stage Direction]
MR. c6t£, CHICOUTIMI


Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. At the close of the impressive ceremony of "La nuit des lies" sponsored by the city of Montreal on the evening of June 30, 1964, to mark the taking over of St. Helen's island and the island of Notre Dame by the World Exhibition Corporation, the band played England's royal anthem, to the obvious displeasure of most spectators because only the national anthem "O Canada" appeared on the program.
In view of the fact that this awe-inspiring event was bound to have world-wide repercussions the time was very ill chosen to show that Canada is still a subject country. Under those circumstances when every trace of the red ensign had been removed from St. Helen's island, I feel that the playing of the English royal anthem was a truly provocative action. Whoever took that step had no right to do so, and I wish to protest most emphatically against such a gesture of colonialism.



MR. PAUL    REQUEST FOR COMMUTATION OF SENTENCE OF CONVICTED MURDERER

Mr. Remi Paul (Berlhier-Maskinonge-De-lanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege to get the house acquainted with an urgent problem involving the life of a man, Mr. Georges Marcotte, and the sound administration of justice in our country.
To begin with, I want to emphasize that I have no personal sympathy for Mr. Georges Marcotte and no relationship with him- [Text]


Hon. J. Watson MacNaughl (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe the hon. gentleman is out of order in his representations at this time according to citation 160 of Beauchesne.

Question of Privilege [Translation]


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I understand the attitude of the Solicitor General but if he would kindly listen to the remarks I wish to make on the basis of the information I have here, he could perhaps rise on a question of privilege or a point of order afterwards.
As I was saying, I have no sympathy for nor relationship with Georges Marcotte who is to go to the scaffold at twelve o'clock tonight, or with any member of his family or any of his accomplices.
If I intervene, it is merely because I feel that as a practising lawyer I must call the attention of the house to certain events which occurred yesterday.
I have here a certified copy of a sworn statement made by the first eye-witness of the shooting which followed the armed robbery at the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, in December 1962, during which two men of the Ville St. Laurent police force, constables Denis Brabant and Claude Mari-neau were killed. Mrs. Ilona Szucs, wife of Zoltan Dallos, residing in the city of Hamilton, in Ontario, was not heard at the trial of Georges Marcotte while her testimony should have been considered essential and of such a nature as to identify the person who shot at the police officers.
Because of new developments in this case provided by Mrs. Dallos, I ask the government, in the name of justice under which, if justice is to be dispensed in full, an accused must have the benefit of any reasonable doubt, and so that Marcotte may not be hanged unless proof of his guilt is ascertained without any doubt, to follow either one of these alternatives:
(a) Postpone the execution of Georges Marcotte-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. My attention has been called to citation 160 of Beauchesne, which reads:
Parliament does not appear to have any part to play in the matter of clemency which is a prerogative of the crown that should not be interfered with by proceedings of the House of Commons while the subject is under consideration by His Excellency and his advisers.
Due to the importance of the matter I thought it advisable to allow the hon. member to bring his suggestions or complaints or new evidence to the attention of the legal authorities of the house; but having done that, in view of those circumstances I think the hon. member should desist and not make
[Mr. MacNaught.l
any further comments. He has, of course, the full opportunity of bringing these matters personally to the attention of the Minister of Justice at the proper time later on this day.


Rémi Paul: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I am well aware of that citation from Beauchesne which I carefully examined before coming into the house, but I still think that when the life of a man is at stake, the standing orders of the house should be by-passed.
I therefore submit to the government- [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. As I have pointed out, this is a matter of great concern to many people, and certainly to the hon. member, but it is not a question of privilege especially in view of the citations given, and I am sure the hon. member has full opportunity to present his evidence, if any, whether it is new or old, to the Minister of Justice. [Translation]


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, if I did not abide
up to now by the provisions of Beauchesne's citation may I be allowed to complete my remarks, which include about five more lines. So far I have only stated facts, but I should now like to put my request to the government. [Text]


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member could limit himself to five lines I think the members of the house might hear him. May I ask first, does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the house to speak about five lines?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I therefore ask the government to grant a stay of execution to Georges Marcotte for a determined period so as to order the necessary investigation, which might justify a further trial, or to commute the death penalty for a life term so that he many receive the same treatment as his accomplice, Jean-Paul Foumel.



On the orders of the day:


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Solicitor General.

Can the minister tell us whether a decision has been taken in connection with Georges Marcotte following the meeting of almost two hours which he had this morning in his office with the crown attorneys, the counsel of the accused and officials of the Quebec provincial police and the federal Department of Justice?


John Watson MacNaught: I understand that a press release was issued some time ago giving that information. For the information of the hon. member, a decision has been taken not to interfere. [Later:]


Hon. Paul Martineau (Pontiac-Temisca-mingue):: A supplementary question to the one which the hon. member for Berthier-Mas-kinonge-Delanaudiere (Mr. Paul) has just asked. In view of the facts submitted to the house this afternoon, is it the intention of the government to take steps in order to postpone the execution of the sentence against Georges Marcotte?


John Watson MacNaught: In view of what is contained in citation 160 of Beauchesne I think there is nothing further I can tell the house.


Paul Raymond Martineau: With regard to the point of order-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This matter was raised as a question of privilege and a decision was given. The house has been referred to citation 160 of Beauchesne. The hon. member is now seeking to do indirectly what has been prohibited directly, and I think he will be out of order very shortly if he does not desist.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Well, would Your Honour mind my making a very short observation because of the seriousness-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member a question to ask? If he has, let him pose his question.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Yes, I do have a question to ask. Does the government or the Department of Justice intend to postpone for a few days at least the execution of that sentence against Georges Marcotte on account of the new facts which have been revealed today? As the Solicitor General has just stated, the decision not to commute the sentence was taken before these facts came to the attention of the proper authorities, and I think, Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.
Question of Privilege


Paul Raymond Martineau: I have one more remark to make-


Mr. Speaker:: That is just the point. The hon. member is making remarks, not asking questions. Again I would draw attention to the statement in Beauchesne that parliament does not appear to have any part to play in the matter of clemency. In view of the urgency of this matter, if the minister wishes to make a statement that is line, but I do not think he is called upon to make any statement.


Paul Raymond Martineau: The Solicitor General has raised a point of order, and I think I have the right to speak to that point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: May I suggest to the hon.
member that he listen to the remarks which the responsible minister is about to make.


John Watson MacNaught: Mr. Speaker, for the information of the house I might say that all the information contained in the affidavit referred to by the hon. member who first raised this question was carefully considered by cabinet, and the decision was made not to interfere.


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, may I put a supplementary question?
Could the Solicitor General tell us whether officials in charge of the investigation have been informed this morning of the evidence given by that person to the effect that police officials had not summoned her and that that witness had kept silent because she was afraid of being ill-used by the provincial police, and that is why she said nothing until yesterday-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The purpose of having authorities and rules is to prevent unlimited discussion, and we seem to be developing that type of discussion at the present time. The minister must assume his own responsibility. He has given a statement to the house, and I think the matter should be left there.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask another supplementary question?
I should like to ask the Solicitor General whether his department would consider taking the appropriate steps ordering a complete inquiry on the new developments and postponing Georges Marcotte's execution until this inquiry is completed?
Canadian Flag


Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question on this same line. Would he give consideration, so that we will not have to be constantly worrying about saving people's lives, to letting the house call a vote on order No. 44, in my name, to abolish capital punishment?


Rémi Paul: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. Could he tell us whether it is true that, as far as he is concerned, the fact of not hanging Georges Marcotte would have the effect of establishing the principle of abolition of capital punishment in Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: This question, I am sorry to say, is out of order.



CANADIAN FLAG


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that the Clerk has laid upon the table the tenth report of the clerk of petitions.
With regard to the report of the clerk of petitions I must declare that the petition cannot be received for the following reasons: (1) It is not addressed to the House of Commons in parliament assembled; (2) it is not in the form required by standing order 70; (3) it does not conclude with a prayer; in this connection see Beauchesne's fourth edition, page 256, citation 332; (4) it is not endorsed by a member of the house-see Bourinot's fourth edition, page 233; and (5) it is not dated.


Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of privilege I wish to congratulate the Clerk on unrolling a 75 foot petition and finding it is not in order. I shall bring it in in an amended form to see it is correct.



FOOD AND DRUGS


Mr. H. C. Harley (Halton) moved: that the third report of the special committee on food and drugs, presented to the house on Monday, June 29, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Mr. Gregoire.i


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-107, to repeal the Tobacco Restraint Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to repeal an act which has been on the statute books since 1908 and which makes it an offence for a person to be about to commit an act. I do not believe we should exercise thought control in that manner.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



&quot; FORESTRY AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to constitute the department of forestry and rural development to be presided over by a minister of forestry and rural development who shall be appointed under the Great Seal of Canada; to authorize the appointment of a deputy minister by the governor in council and of such other officers, clerks and employees, as are necessary for the proper conduct of the business of the department, in the manner authorized by law; and to provide for the transfer of certain members of the staffs of the departments of forestry and of agriculture to the new department.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Yes, sir.']
Hon. Mitchell Sharp (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution, which has been recommended to the house by His Excellency:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the revision of certain fiscal arrangements with the provinces and to provide adjustments of fiscal arrangements and taxation provisions consequential upon the provision of youth allowances to parents resident in certain provinces.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs to bring the house up to date on the Cyprus situation. In particular, is there any foundation for press reports to the effect that 4,000 Greek troops have landed secretly on the island? If this is so, will this unexpected development have any effect on the continuance of the United Nations force and the Canadian presence in that force?


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the situation in Cyprus is certainly not free from serious concern. The secretary general of the United Nations was in touch this morning with our representative at the United Nations. I was in touch with the secretary general before Sunday last, following the talks I had with the prime minister of Greece and the prime minister of Turkey. The secretary general of NATO is in Ottawa today and we are glad to have the opportunity of discussing this matter with him, particularly in view of his visit on June 4 to the governments of Greece and Turkey.
I cannot say whether the press reports mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition are exactly in accordance with the facts. There are reasons for believing, however, that there have been importations of one kind or another. Beyond that I do not want to go at this time.


John George Diefenbaker: Oh?


Paul Joseph James Martin: When I say I do
not want to go beyond that, the right hon. gentleman will know in a matter of this delicacy that there are some things which should not be said until there has been complete verification. In view of my responsibilities I do not propose to make statements unless I am sure they represent the facts.
However, I will say that the introduction of regular army units by one or both sides involved in the Cyprus dispute would be contrary to the security council resolution of March 4, which calls upon all member states to refrain from any action likely to worsen the situation. It would be contrary also to the obligations undertaken by all members of NATO. If such regular forces from the mainland were introduced on Cyprus 20220-313
Inquiries of the Ministry a new and dangerous situation would be created for the United Nations peace keeping force, as it has neither the mandate nor the strength to interpose itself between large, well equipped forces if hostilities should break out. Indeed, the force was not established for that purpose.
In my discussions with Prime Minister Inonu and Prime Minister Papandreou last week I stressed our concern over the possibility of such a development. I stressed the responsibilities of both Greece and Turkey to abide by their obligations to the United Nations and to NATO.
Our mission to the United Nations in New York has been instructed, as I have already indicated, to keep in close and continuous contract with the United Nations secretariat in order to make known our concern about the position of the Canadian contingent in the peace keeping force, because of the possibility that additional troops are being landed on Cyprus from the mainland. The Canadian forces participating in the United Nations peace keeping operation are under the command of the United Nations commander pursuant to the security council resolution of March 4. Any action taken by Canada will be as a member of the United Nations force.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, not only apparently is the matter very delicate, but after the verbose explanation by the minister I am sure the house knows less now than it did when the question was asked.
I should like to ask the minister this. When he had the conversation with the prime minister of Greece, did he have any indication that the Greek government intended to send any troops into Cyprus? I am rather surprised that the minister, after 48 hours, was unable to give any information as to whether these troops are there when all the influential press indicate that they are. However, I should like to ask the minister again, what was said in this regard? Was there any suggestion that such an eventuality would arise that would cause the Greek government to send troops?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am not going to be tempted in a matter of this importance to reply in kind. I regret that the right hon. gentleman should seek to ask questions which I do not believe are in the national interest or in the interests of preserving peace on that island.


Mr. Monteith:: Oh, come off it.


John George Diefenbaker: That is utter nonsense.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Paul Joseph James Martin: My hon. friend may not agree, but I must say that the hon. gentleman surprised me, particularly having in mind that he once held the post of prime minister of this country. There was nothing in our conversation in the way of an admission that Greek soldiers were participating or were infiltrating into Cyprus, as is implied in my right hon. friend's question.


John George Diefenbaker: In view of the gratuitous observation, may I say to the hon. gentleman that the manner in which he carries out his responsibilities in parliament is not in keeping with his responsible role in this government.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he ascertained from the prime minister of Greece or from the secretary general of the United Nations the exact status of General Grivas, who states he is not accepting any official post in the Cyprus government and who is attached to the defence department of Greece, yet who the other day addressed a mass rally in the presence of Archbishop Makarios and announced what was virtually an ultimatum to Turkist Cypriots. What is General Grivas' status, and is he there with the consent and agreement of the secretary general of the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: The secretary general of the United Nations has, of course, no authority over the movements of an individual from one country to another. General Grivas is not in Cyprus with the consent of the United Nations, nor has his presence been formally opposed. The relations between General Grivas and Archbishop Makarios may be a matter of conjecture; I have my own views, but I do not believe that at this time it would be in the public interest to state those views.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether the intervention of General Grivas, who I understand is attached to the national defence department of Greece, is consistent with the resolution of the security council of the United Nations.


Paul Joseph James Martin: I would not wish to answer that question specifically at the moment. I do not believe the general's statement is contrary to the resolution as such. Whether it is conducive to tranquility on the island may be a matter of opinion; there are arguments both ways. General Grivas has made an appeal not only to the Greek but also to the Turkish Cypriots involving an

assurance of amnesty. This could be conducive to a relatively more satisfactory situation. It remains to be seen, however, what will be the full consequences of his statement.
The hon. gentleman will understand, I am sure, that in a matter of this kind it is neither possible nor desirable to expose fully one's knowledge and information or, what has been done in the situation. I assure the hon. member that the government is deeply concerned, as are members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization and the secretary general of the United Nations. Every step is being taken by all these bodies to avoid exacerbating a difficult situation in Cyprus.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Can the Secretary of State for External Affairs tell us whether the Canadian government has expressed its concern about the activities of General Grivas to the secretary general of the United Nations for transmission to the government of Cyprus?


Paul Joseph James Martin: There has, of course, been the fullest consultation in all matters involving the maintenance of peace on the island.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Will Canada be represented at the independence celebrations of the new state of Malawi next Saturday?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, sir.



SAFETY OF CANADIANS FOLLOWING UN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question. Has he any further word to give the house concerning Canadians in the troubled area of the Congo? I understand the minister has constituents who have relatives in this area, as have I, and I was wondering whether there was any further information available.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I regret
there is no further information. I am happy to say that some of those who were missing

have been located in Albertville, but the exact location of the others has not been determined.



PARLIAMENT HILL

[Stage Direction]
REQUEST THAT R.CJVt.P. IN ATTENDANCE BE BILINGUAL
On the orders of the day:
Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, my question is intended for the Prime Minister and follows up two questions I have already asked on the same subject during the past month.
Could the Prime Minister tell us what progress has been made in his investigation concerning the bilingualism of R.C.M.P. officers on parliament hill and whether he will try to get bilingual officers to attend to the many tourists who take in the house sittings every day?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that, having already been asked a question about that, I had a talk with the commissioner of the R.C.M.P., who told me that, inasmuch as it would be compatible with priority assignments of members of the mounted police, every effort would be made to ensure as complete and consistent a bilingual service as possible.


Gilles Grégoire: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Is the minister aware that, yesterday, as thousands of tourists came to parliament hill, the majority of members of the R.C.M.P. who were there to greet them did not speak a word of French?



USE OF WORD &quot;DOMINION&quot; IN DESCRIPTION OF HOLIDAY CELEBRATION

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John Cole: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a question to the Secretary of State. Can he tell us why the official program of yesterday's brilliant celebration on parliament hill had in it the words "celebration of Dominion day" when Canada is no longer a dominion?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I shall inquire of the people responsible for that publication and report later.
20220-313J
Inquiries of the Ministry


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. If I might, I should like to congratulate him and through him his other colleagues who were involved in the very interesting Dominion day ceremonies yesterday. Can he say whether he and his colleagues have been able to arrange that the spectator stands be allowed to remain in position for the summer so that visitors may watch the colourful and entertaining changing of the guard ceremony?



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN CURRENT ECONOMIC STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Does the government intend to invite the provincial governments to take part in the investigation which he is planning on the economic ties uniting the various parts of Canada?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker. This inquiry is being made by certain experts of the Canadian government for the Canadian government.



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Herbert Wilfred Herridge: wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the announcement by Dr. Hugh Keenleyside, chairman of the B.C. hydro and power authority, that a five man Columbia board of review is being appointed to review the designs, sites, selection of construction material and plans for Mica, Arrow and Duncan riamg in the Columbia basin, and in view of the fact that three of the members of this board of review are United States citizens and none are B.C. citizens, has the minister any information to give the house with respect to this most unusual announcement?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: This is obviously a question which should be addressed to Dr. Keenleyside and the government of British Columbia.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Does the hon. gentleman agree with this type of action on the part of the British Columbia hydro and power authority as a result of which three senior engineers of the United States will be in a majority with respect to all these considerations affecting the Columbia?


Paul Joseph James Martin: I am sure that, as a distinguished citizen of British Columbia, the hon. gentleman would be the first to criticize me if I were to comment on actions taken by the government of British Columbia in matters which come within its exclusive competence.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address another question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the assurances given by him to the committee on external affairs that the sites of the dams were the best, that the construction costs were definitely known, and that the safety of the dams was known and satisfactory, would the minister inform the house whether he thinks it is necessary for the government of British Columbia to call in three United States engineers to clarify his assurances and to make sure he was giving the committee the facts?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, whatever might be my views or those of the hon. gentleman, this is a matter that does not arise under the responsibility of the government of Canada or the parliament of Canada. This is a matter for the province of British Columbia under section 92 of the British North America Act.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: As one more supplementary question, does the committee appointed by the B.C. hydro and power authority supersede the permanent engineering board on the Columbia?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: Of course not, Mr. Speaker. The one is an obligation that arises out of the treaty and the protocol. The other is a subject that arises out of the discretionary use of the provincial authority.
[Mr. Herridge.)



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Labour?
Could the minister tell the house whether it is true that the federal government, in conjunction with the Liberal government of the province of Quebec, directly supports the management of the newspaper La Presse in its dispute with the employees, in order to make that newspaper the official organ of the Liberal party?


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



INDUSTRY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, I have a question I would like to direct to the Minister of Industry. I regret not having sent him notice, but my secretary is on holiday; I have not had a replacement, and I am not a very good typist myself. My question arises out of the recent announcement with regard to the ore strike in Timmins, to the effect that this ore will be shipped to North Carolina for processing.
In view of the fact that the Timmins area has been listed by the government as a designated area, and in view of the growing need to encourage and stimulate employment in Canada and more particularly in such designated areas, could the minister inform the house what action his department or the government is taking to ensure that a smelter will in fact be built in the Timmins area to process the ore from this strike, which has been estimated to be in the neighbourhood of 300 million tons?


Mr. Speaker:: This is a question for the order paper.


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: Mr. Speaker, in view of the importance and urgency of this matter I would like to have it transferred for debate at 10.30 tonight.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the meeting today of the presidents of the C.N.R. and the C.P.R. with the Prime Minister, could the Prime Minister tell the house whether the railways have rejected the recommendations of the conciliation board in the dispute between them and the non-operating railway brotherhoods; and if so, what action does the government propose taking to avoid a railway strike?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, there was no question of rejection, in the discussion with the railway presidents, of the award made by the Munro commission.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question I would like to ask the Minister of Labour. Have the railways informed the government whether they have rejected or accepted the conciliation board report?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, I have received no notification of rejection or acceptance from the railways.



DISMISSAL OF CANADIAN SAILORS BY IMPERIAL OIL CO.

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. Has his attention been drawn to the case of the ship Imperial St. Lawrence belonging to a wholly-owned subsidiary of Imperial Oil, which plies between Venezuela and Canada, which apparently docked at Portland, Maine and laid off the entire Canadian crew of 28 men, 14 of whom have been absorbed on other ships of the company and the remainder dismissed on the ground that their salary of $300 a month was too high and West Indians could be hired for $140 a month? I want to ask the minister whether he will look into this case and what action, if any, the government proposes to take to deal with such vicious treatment of seamen on a Canadian ship.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, this case has been drawn to my attention, and I have asked the officers
Inquiries of the Ministry of the Department of Labour to investigate to see whether any constructive steps have been taken in the situation.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question. Will the minister be reporting to the house as to what action the government proposes to take in regard to this matter?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I will determine through this investigation whether there is any possible way in which we can intervene.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. Yesterday in London the Minister of Finance, when questioned about the proposed new flag, suggested that it would be a three maple leaf design on a white background with gold bars. I am wondering whether the colour and the design have been changed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I would like to ask the Prime Minister whether the navy flag, the army flag and the R.C.A.F. flag are going to be replaced once the new flag is adopted by this house, or are the services going to continue flying the same flags that they have at the present time?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That question surely is premature, Mr. Speaker, until we reach a decision on what the national flag will be.



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barnett (Comox-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. It is based on an Associated Press dispatch from Seattle in this morning's Globe and Mail covering a statement made by Senator Warren G. Magnuson. I would like to ask the minister whether the government has been informed of plans by the United States to call a world fisheries conference, including the Soviet union, for March or

Inquiries of the Ministry April of next year; and if so, has Canada been invited to participate in such a conference?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, we have no knowledge of any such proposal. If the government received such a request from the United States, it would have to be considered.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Is the government prepared to take the steps required to regulate and control the water level in the great lakes in agreement with the provinces and the American states, as advocated by his parliamentary secretary in Montreal last Tuesday? [Text]


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, what was indicated by my parliamentary secretary in Montreal was that discussions are going to be stepped up in this very important matter. It would be entirely premature to say now what action will be taken, but certainly this matter is before the public, it is regarded as a matter of urgency, and I think the I.J.C. probably will be taking a leading part at an early date.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. In view of the intention of the government to refer general problems of water levels to the international joint commission with a view to examining the whole problem of the great lakes basin, will the government consider independent action with relation to the problems of lake Huron, which the conference assumed were much greater than those in other areas?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, all these matters are under active survey at the present time, and have been for several months.



COMMONWEALTH RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, with the approach of the commonwealth prime ministers' conference I should like to ask the Prime Minister what attitude he will take on behalf of the Canadian people regarding the suggestion made by Prime Minister Douglas-Home that the commonwealth should develop a system of technical assistance for underdeveloped countries within the commonwealth on a general rather than a bilateral basis. Also, what would be his attitude regarding the setting up of a commonwealth loan and development fund to enable assistance to be given to countries within the commonwealth, and thereby assure their economic advancement?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as to the first question, as my right hon. friend knows there is already effective machinery for technical and other forms of assistance within the commonwealth, and proposals which may be made at London to increase that assistance or to increase the effectiveness of the machinery will be given very sympathetic consideration by the Canadian government, having regard to the fact that we are already committed to assistance through the United Nations and in other ways.
As far as the second question is concerned, this proposal will certainly be given very sympathetic consideration, but again we would have to relate that to the forms of assistance we are already giving through the United Nations and through other sources.



REDISTRIBUTION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. K. H. More (Regina Ciiy):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister and ask him whether the government of Saskatchewan or Premier Thatcher has shown any concern or made any representations to him regarding the effect of the proposed redistribution on the representation from Saskatchewan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to me, Mr. Speaker, but I will have to make inquiries whether he has made any representations to any of my colleagues.



SOCIAL ASSISTANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, might I ask the Prime Minister whether Premier Thatcher has made representations to the government to the effect that unemployed people should be engaged in profitable work; and what is the attitude of the federal government to the latest view enunciated by the new premier of Saskatchewan in this regard?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No such representations have been made to the government, Mr. Speaker.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. C. E. Millar (Middlesex East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. Will the government give consideration to producing a Canada postage stamp depicting the red ensign?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will be glad to discuss this with the Postmaster General, Mr. Speaker.


Campbell Ewing Millar: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the fact that the government used this method of advertising their own design, does the Prime Minister not think they should do this, in fairness to the people of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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



THETFORD MINES, QUE.    CONTRACT AWARDED TO HIGHER TENDER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Raymond Langlois (Meganlic):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege at the moment is twofold. First of all, I do not want to cast any reflections on the house but I would ask the Speaker to cast his eye a little further over this way, because I have been trying to get
Inquiries of the Ministry recognized for three quarters of an hour. I have been the only one recognized in our group except the hon. member for Lapointe, and I was not recognized on three supple-mentaries.
My question of privilege arises from the statement of the Postmaster General on Tuesday, June 30, 1964, relating to a question I had raised in this house the day before. The Postmaster General has asked me to withdraw the words I used, namely:
I agree, Mr. Speaker: the only thing I should like to get clear is that if the minister does not clarify the point he either lied to me or he is completely incompetent to do the job-
I must admit, Mr. Speaker, that the minister has clarified the point, and I hope no more contracts will be transmitted from father to son when they are on crown business.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Has the government ascertained whether the parliament at Westminster has yet passed the amendment which we requested to the British North America Act with respect to the inclusion of survivors' and other benefits in the Canada pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker, but as a result of inquiries made over the week end we have been informed that the cabinet at Westminster are considering the matter this week with a view to finding time in their parliamentary schedule so this matter can be dealt with before the end of July.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Can the Prime Minister give this house the firm assurance that the legislation respecting the Canada pension plan will be proceeded with and concluded during this session of parliament?


Lester Bowles Pearson: It will certainly be proceeded with during this session of parliament, Mr. Speaker, but I cannot give an assurance that it will be concluded. We will certainly attempt to have it concluded.


John George Diefenbaker: Bring it on before the flag question.

Youth Allowances Act


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will it be called early in any fall part of the session which may take place?


Lester Bowles Pearson: That is our intention.


Mr. W. H. A. Thomas (Middlesex West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question along the same lines for the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Can the minister tell us whether a target date for the issuance of the white paper covering the national pension plan has been set and, if so, what that target date is?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, it will be introduced in the house just as soon as it is available. We anticipate that this may well be next week, although I cannot give a definite date at the moment.



FINANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice.
Are the officials in his department considering at the present time the amendments that could be made to the Bankruptcy Act?


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, the Bankruptcy Act is being actively examined by the Department of Justice.



YOUTH ALLOWANCES


Julia Verlyn (Judy) LaMarsh: that the house go into committee to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to introduce a measure to provide for the payment of allowances of $10 per month to parents in respect of dependent youths between the ages of 16 and 18 years who are maintained by such parents and are attending school or university or are precluded from so attending by reason of disability.
Motion agreed to and the house went into committee, Mr. Lamoureux in the chair.
Resolution reported and concurred in.
Miss LaMarsh thereupon moved for leave to introduce Bill No. C-108, to provide for the payment of youth allowances.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Tuesday, June 30, consideration of the motion by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves joined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweather@Royal: Mr. Speaker, at 10.30 p.m. on Tuesday I had suggested to the house a formula for the selection of a flag by means of a plebiscite, giving to the people five distinct choices. I contended that by this formula the final choice would be the design that received the largest number of votes. That is the preferential system. I also suggested that by using this method no hint of partisanship would remain like a dry and bitter ash once the fires engendered by this debate had died away.
In the remaining time left to me I wish to comment on a letter sent by special delivery mail and addressed to the Prime Minister, from 12 distinguished Canadians of varying academic disciplines and the professions. I suggest their views have been dismissed out of hand by the Prime Minister as being of no consequence. Their position, however, has been endorsed by the editor of the Canadian Commentator and also by several other academics and people of good will.
I suggest that the core of the trouble with the way the Prime Minister has attemped to foist his flag upon us is that little or no attention has been paid to the thoughtful efforts of interested Canadians to remind the government of the traditions which should be embodied in any design for a flag. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that rather than engendering in Canada any fervent feeling of patriotism and pride, the new flag will only produce a yawn of indifference.
Patrick Duncan, in writing of Jan Christian Smuts, the last statesman of South Africa, said something which I think might be applied with remarkable exactitude to the Prime Minister. He said:
I only wish I thought that his fine sentiments were more intimately hitched on to the springs which govern his actions. They do sometimes get turned on, but they spend much of their time in the cupboard of his soul.

The cupboard of the Prime Minister's soul has been a crowded and confused place of late as he repudiates those traditions of scholarship which were his first vocation.
I want to be very frank, Mr. Speaker. I am not at all convinced, or have not been convinced as yet by any argument I have heard, that the new flag will be a source of national unity; and if it is not that it is nothing. I am not all convinced that by tearing up the past we will in fact be adopting any formula which will bring inspiration to most Canadians in the future.
Most of the letters which have been sent to me by hundreds of my constituents are very reasonable about the flag. These letters show a remarkable desire for compromise, in that they indicate support for any flag which would include symbols representative of the best traditions of both the founding races. Obviously in my part of Canada these symbols would include the union jack, but are we about to turn our backs on this evidence of good will and select a flag which is neither a source of national unity nor unmistakably Canadian in character? Are the people I represent to be deprived of all their traditions and find a substitute is not even acceptable to their partners in other parts of Canada?
The letter to the Prime Minister puts it this way:
The very essence of this country's history, and the reason for our national distinctiveness, has been the long and often turbulent marriage of French and English heritages. We have faith that in their depths Canadians pride themselves on this *union, and on its parliamentary and non-revolutionary tradition. Canada has a continuous history of 350 years of French speaking and English speaking life together in North America, and 200 years of union. The creative tension between the two founding peoples has been a guarantee to other racial groups of their continued identity, in contrast to the American concept of the melting pot. These are the positive facts of our history; we cannot change them; they give Canada its sinews. The nation is strong enough to face its own past proudly, and to assert it. Whatever may be said about the use of the maple leaf as a Canadian emblem in the past, it has never gained anyone's vigorous allegiance, and it involves no commitment to the human fact of Canada.
We believe that Canada has a distinguished culture of its own. We believe that this is a positive culture. We believe that the basis of this positive culture is a frank acceptance of both the English Canadian and French Canadian civilizations. We believe that a distinctive Canadian flag should reflect this positive fact.
It is not enough, I suggest, to use a flag to get rid of something, to repudiate the task or to deny the facts of history. We in Canada are becoming a nation of jellyfish, to use an expression of the late Dr. Sidney Smith. In 20220-314
Canadian Flag
an interesting speech at the University of New Brunswick in 1962 Dr. Frank Underhill recalled the suggestion made in 1865 by Henri Joly de Lotbiniere, who proposed the adoption of the rainbow as our emblem. Dr. Underhill said that he himself "sometimes played with the idea of submitting his own design for a national flag to the authorities. It would consist of a green maple leaf in the centre, surrounded by Joly's multicoloured rainbows, the whole upon a background of pure white to signify our Canadian innocence of colonialism, imperialism, unitarianism, Americanism, capitalism, socialism and all the other 20th century sins."
The design proposed in the resolution before us, Mr. Speaker, is neither positive nor affirmative. It is an artificial attempt to honour an election promise hastily made. It is devious in that a palliative or sop is being offered in an obscure way by means of a second resolution to those whose views on flags can never be reconciled to the otherwise acceptable position taken on various aspects of policy by the government. Perhaps in the short run the new flag will find acceptance in Quebec but I predict that before too many years have passed it will be ridiculed and turned aside because of its utter failure to incorporate anything of the French heritage in its design. Pierre Elliot Trudeau is quoted in the Toronto Star of June 12 of this year as having said:
Quebec doesn't give a tinker's damn about the new flag. The flag is a matter of complete indifference in Quebec.
The Prime Minister must bear the heavy responsibility of forcing the flag to become a contentious party issue. His sense of timing, I suggest, is little less than appalling. His sense of history is non-existent. His sense of magnanimity is totally absent. So, Mr. Speaker, both the founding races are going to be the ultimate losers if this new traditionless and septic flag is adopted, a flag proposed by a minority government because the latest techniques of opinion making falteringly urge it on.
What a sordid place this parliament has become. How denuded of any sense of relevancy. We who are asked by the vast majority of our constituents to stand by and honour our heritage are derided as somehow being against Canada itself.
I wish to end by recalling again the appeal to realism in politics by the group of seven young French Canadian intellectuals who are able to understand a concept beyond the

Canadian Flag
narrow provincialism which is so much and so unfortunately a part of our land. They say:
The most valid trends today are toward more enlightened humanism, toward various forms of political, social and economic universalism. Canada is a reproduction on a smaller and simpler scale of this universal phenomenon. The challenge is for a number of ethnic groups to learn to live together. It is a modem challenge, meaningful and indicative of what can be expected from man. If Canadians cannot make a success of a country such as theirs, how can they contribute in any way to the elaboration of humanism, to the formulation of the international political structures of tomorrow? To confess one's inability to make Canadian confederation work is, at this stage of history, to admit one's unworthiness to contribute to the universal order.


Miss Jewett:: May I ask my hon. friend a question with regard to the earlier part of his remarks on Tuesday? I was very interested in his proposal to have five questions on a referendum. I wanted to ask my hon. friend if he would envisage the use of some kind of preferential voting system whereby one would knock off the least popular, the one that received the fewest first choices, then give the second choices to the others and gradually in that way build up to the one most popular choice.


Mr. Fairweather:: If my hon. friend had been gripped as she should have been by my first remarks this afternoon she would have noticed that I used the phrase "preferential system". That is what I implied in my suggestion.


Pauline Jewett: May I ask one more question?


An hon. Member:: Not an argument.


Pauline Jewett: No, just a question. I am really interested in knowing what the hon. member would do if some people only put down one choice. As my hon. friend knows, the provinces of Manitoba, Alberta and British Columbia used a preferential voting system, and that was why they abandoned it. People tend to plump for one thing. They only give one preference, with the result that you might get 20 per cent, 15, 15, and 20, with no majority at all. What would my hon. friend do in that case? How would he get them to put down their choices?


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: I cannot presume to speak for the people of Canada on how they would vote or not vote on what to me is a reasonably simple selection of five alternative choices. If people want to use the system known in New Brunswick as the plumper I have no real criticism of that system.


Mr. Joseph P. O'Keefe (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have been a Canadian for just over 15 years, and my feeling is that too much has been made in Canada of issues that tend to divide when the emphasis should be on the things all Canadians have in common, the things that should help, even impel, us to unite. If I did not believe with all my mind that a truly Canadian flag would help to unite all Canadians, particularly all future Canadians, I could not in conscience support this resolution. We must look at this flag not only with our eyes but with our intelligence and our imagination.
I feel that new Canadians in Newfoundland see this flag situation in a better perspective than may be available to others; and these new Canadians, nearly 80,000 of whom are my constituents, are asking this question and are waiting for an intelligent and satisfactory answer. Should the flag be an issue? I think it should, even although this government's decision and solution may be regarded by some as a political compromise. Even if that view is correct, what is wrong with this kind of a solution? It has been tried successfully all through history.
A distinctive flag is adopted for the purpose of international recognition. I am confident that it will, in time, become a truly national symbol. There is a good argument in favour of this resolution which those who prefer the red ensign and the union jack may acknowledge, since they are not denied the right to fly a flag of their own sentimental preference. On May 20 I signed a telegram addressed to my Newfoundland constituents which read:
I am prepared to support a national flag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of any other country, provided official recognition is also given to the union jack as a symbol of Canada's membership in the commonwealth and of our loyalty to the crown.
I believe, with all the sincerity of which I am capable, that now is the time for Canadians to fly a flag that is truly distinctive; a flag easily recognizable as Canada's own, easily identifiable; a flag that cannot be mistaken for the symbol of any other country; a flag for our Canadian future which recognizes and honours the past; a flag that has little new but contains all the best of the old. This, I believe, the new flag does.
May I emphasize that when I made my decision on this matter it was not necessarily my own, personal preference. I attempted to make a choice, not for myself, indeed not just for my constituents in Newfoundland but, as a member of parliament should, for the whole of Canada. I have always accepted and indeed,

as a Newfoundlander, supported the union jack and, as a Canadian, the red ensign. But when there was, as there is, presented to parliament a flag which I believe to be more representative of Canada and Canadians as a whole, especially when looking into the future, then I gave, and I am giving my support to the adoption of this flag.
I happen to be a Roman Catholic of Irish descent. Despite the quietening effect of the passing years, memories of old world strifes, of wrongs and of bitter oppression are not easily forgotten. We still read history. There are those of us who remember. My Irish forebears gave up most of their possessions to live in rugged Newfoundland, where living has never been easy. In many cases, even here oppression and bigotry followed them. Where indeed, a little more than 100 years ago it was a crime to even live. Great and heroic men took part in the early colonization of my island, and the glory which their names shed on its history should never be forgotten. A knowledge of the changes, the struggles and the suffering through which my people of Newfoundland passed can never fail to be one of deep and abiding interest.
It may be of some interest to our Quebec friends to know that there was a time when Newfoundland actually helped to save not just Quebec but Canada. It was late in the eighteenth century, when in a moment of crisis, with the American invaders at the gates of the city of Quebec, Captain Colin Campbell of the volunteer force known as the royal highland emigrants sailed to St. John's. There, in spite of other demands on the island's manpower for the defence of the port, he succeeded in rallying 180 men to his cause. Quebec was then only a town of 1,000 people and was defended by 100 volunteers. They faced much superior forces from the United States led by Benedict Arnold and Richard Montgomery. Talk of surrender filled the town; in fact all seemed lost until 130 of the Newfoundlanders arrived on the day before Arnold's men appeared at Levis across the river from Quebec. History records Lanctot as saying:
Without the added strength of these 130 fighters -the recruits were all such to a man-the town might have capitulated for an active movement was on foot advocating friendship with the Americans.
The Newfoundlanders made all the difference and Lanctot ended his paper by saying:
Now that Newfoundland has joined the Canadian confederation, it is doubly worthy to recall that the two oldest British colonies have in common the pride of having joined and fought to save Canada from foreign domination.
20220-314i
Canadian Flag
No one would deny that we have a tradition and a responsibility to the past. But we have also a greater responsibility to the present and to the future. I suggest that responsibility to the past would be best fulfilled by our being true to its real substance and its meaning. Like many others I am concerned about this whole question of national symbols, national anthems, a national flag and all they mean to our country. Yet I am far more concerned with making Canada the kind of country where injustice, grinding poverty, and so on to the best of our ability have been vanquished and where freedom, social justice and equal opportunity for every Canadian can be found, the kind of country which may be proud to have a flag fly.
The union jack will not be abolished, any more than the union jack was abolished when the red ensign was adopted. Canadians, Newfoundlanders or anyone else, cannot be forced to fly any flag. I expect to see the union jack flown now more than at any other time in our history. I can understand the British feelings of the wonderful ladies of the I.O.D.E. I can understand the intensity of the emotion of our gallant war veterans, so honoured in war and so often forgotten in peace. I am not a war veteran. I did enlist, but I was rejected.
I might point out, too, the experience of one of the newest states of the United States, Hawaii. This state, as you know, was at one time British. It is now part of the United States, yet the union jack still proudly flies over all the public buildings in this state.
In my opinion the flag issue will move along these lines. Our new flag will be adopted. This resolution will be passed. Within 50 years, or perhaps much sooner, it will be considered rather odd, rather quaint that Canadians ever lived under a flag that could be confused with that of another country. What will be remembered is that this Prime Minister, Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson, of whom so many of us are so very proud, did the job when Sir John A. Macdonald, Sir John J. Abbott, Sir Mackenzie Bowell, Sir Wilfrid Laurier, Arthur Meighen, Mackenzie King, Alexander Mackenzie, Sir John Thompson, Sir Charles Tup-per, Sir Robert Borden, R. B. Bennett, Louis St. Laurent and John Diefenbaker did not. It is no easier for him now than it would have been for them. It is my earnest hope, indeed my sincere conviction, that under this distinctive and truly Canadian flag, in which is contained little new and only the best of the very old, Canadians will eventually, at long last, unite.

Canadian Flag


Mr. W. M. Howe (Wellinglon-Huron):: Mr. Speaker, I deem it my duty as a member of this house and as the elected representative of the constituency of Wellington-Huron to speak against this resolution and in favour of the amendment calling for a plebiscite.
First, however, I should like to take this opportunity to join other members in the house who congratulated the Minister of Public Works and his department on the beautiful arrangement and display of flags we saw about the lawns of parliament hill for our Dominion day celebration. I cannot but feel that any Canadian who saw that display was proud of that beautiful flag flying as it was yesterday and the day before. I cannot really believe there are many Canadians who would not like to see that display left for the summer period during which the guard is changed in that fine ceremony every morning of the week. Those flags make a beautiful background to the ceremony. The red ensigns, the red coats of the guards and the green grass make a combination of which we can be very proud. I cannot but think that a great many of the people who saw that flag flying did not have in their hearts the hope that it would fly permanently as Canada's distinctive national flag.
Therefore I should like to add my views to those of all hon. members who have spoken before me to plead with the Prime Minister and the government to reconsider the course of action which has been advanced. That course was outlined in the words of the right hon. gentleman when he said "In any event, when the matters I have mentioned are dealt with we shall return to the flag resolutions, and the debate on those resolutions will be continued until a decision is reached".
This reminds me very much of another parliament and another extended debate. I refer to the defence production debate of 1955. Those of us who were here at that time will have vivid recollections of that particular debate in which one of the very distinguished cabinet ministers in this house, a man who had proven himself as a wartime administrator and as one of the greatest organizers of wartime production this country has ever seen, showed that he was not able to change from wartime to peacetime ideals. During the war he had been given extraordinary powers so that he might harness the facilities and production machinery of this nation for military purposes, and his political downfall was due to his failure to adapt to

peacetime circumstances. I refer to the late Right Hon. C. D. Howe who, I repeat, was a distinguished member of this house. The attitude of the Prime Minister, as exemplified in the words I have just quoted, is the attitude which helped bring about the political downfall not only of that fine gentleman but also of the Liberal party in 1957 and 1958.
We all remember some of the phrases coined at that time, and one of the outstanding ones was "If we want to do it, who is going to stop us?" Does this not smack of the words used by the the Prime Minister just the other day? Another well known phrase I can remember the Liberal benches repeating in those days was "We shall let the people decide". This is what is involved in the amendment now before us, that in this great debate we should let the people of Canada decide.
I am reminded of a story I used at that time. It is the story of a traveller who was lost on a back concession of one of our townships one wet, rainy night. He saw a light in the distance, headed for the light, and found refuge in a farmhouse for the night. In the morning he woke up, looked out of the bedroom window and was amazed to see the whole countryside covered with water. He was also amazed at an occurrence which he could not understand; when he looked out the bedroom window he saw a straw hat going up and down, back and forth, in front of the house. When he went downstairs he asked his host for an explanation. The reply was "Oh, that is just grandpappy. Last night before he went to bed he said 'Come hell or high water I am going to cut the grass tomorrow.' " That is the attitude this government is displaying in relation to this flag debate; come hell or high water we are to stay here, whether there is a summer recess or not, until such time as this flag debate is completed.
We also remember how that debate was finally brought to a conclusion. The minister of trade and commerce-the minister of defence production-was conveniently away on government business for two or three days, and during that time the prime minister brought in an amendment limiting the duration of the emergency powers contained in the bill to three years. I am happy to say that when this period expired our party was in power, and nothing more was heard about emergency powers after that.
Mr. Speaker, this is an important debate. It is a debate in which I feel every member

of the house should participate. It is a debate in which all the people of Canada are interested. It would appear that despite all appeals to his better judgment by Canadians of integrity, as well as by many organizations, the Prime Minister intends to proceed to a conclusion with the threat of "no summer recess" hanging over the heads of all members.
My feelings in connection with this issue are well known both in this house and in my constituency. My feelings in favour of the red ensign are well known, because I had a resolution on the order paper last year indicating that I was in favour of the red ensign as Canada's distinctive national flag. I have had tremendous support from my own area in favour of this stand, as is indicated by the many letters I have received from Legion branches, I.O.D.E. groups and other organizations, editorials in weekly newspapers and a resolution from my own county council in the county of Wellington. I may say the council passed the following resolution. I will not quote the entire document; the important part is:
Be it therefore resolved that the council of the corporation of the county of Wellington hereby recommend that the "Canadian red ensign" with the shield of the Canadian coat of arms in the fly be adopted as the national flag of the dominion of Canada and that copies of this resolution be forwarded to His Excellency the Governor General of Canada, the Right Honourable Lester B. Pearson, Prime Minister of Canada, Mr. Maurice Lamon-tagne, Secretary of State, and that further copies be forwarded to the lieutenant governors of all the provinces in the dominion, to Mr. Alfred Hales, M.P. and Mr. Marvin Howe, M.P., to Mr. C. c! Sparline, dominion president of the Royal Canadian Legion and to all county councils in the province of Ontario.
I am happy to say this resolution was endorsed by the other county I represent, the county of Huron. That is an indication that I have the backing of my own people in connection with my stand. However, after talking to many of these people at home I have come to the conclusion that had the Prime Minister carried out the decision he made on May 12, 1964, members of the Legion, members of the I.O.D.E. branches and even my county council would not take precisely the position they do today. I will quote the right hon. gentleman's words. He said:
When the time comes to submit the decision of the government in this matter to the House of Commons I would hope every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictates and that there would be no question of confidence or of non-confidence in a party sense.
As I say, after talking to people in my area I believe that had the Prime Minister agreed
Canadian Flag
to a free vote on this question in the house, and had the new flag which he endorses been approved by the house on that basis, then all the people I have mentioned would have accepted the decision because they believe in the traditions which are associated with those grand old flags, the union jack and the red ensign and, for this reason, they would have accepted a flag which had been approved after a free vote.
However, that is not to be. As has happened so many times, the vacillations, the changing attitudes of this government have been of such a degree that we never know what is coming the next day. Those who talk about the new flag and are in favour of it indicate that there is something in particular ir. the design for new Canadians. They say that the new Canadians who have come to Canada within the last number of years are not in favour of the flag we have at the present time. Once again I can refute that statement with evidence I have from my own riding. I am very happy to say I have received a letter from a lady in one of the communities of my riding. This letter is from Harriston and is dated May 22,	1964,
addressed to me:
I am not in the habit of writing to my member of parliament unless the issue is important. This one is.
It is the issue of a new flag versus the red ensign. It looks like we shall not be given a chance to express our opinion on the flag, because Mr. Pearson intends to keep that one of his election promises.
I am therefore writing to you as the only chance to vote on this issue. I am very much against any new flag and sincerely hope that we will retain the red ensign as our national flag.
As a former German citizen I have not found it difficult, upon becoming a Canadian, to swear my allegiance to this flag and can see no reason for desiring a new one.
My husband also thinks this way. We have no intention of ever flying anything but the red ensign.
Yours very sincerely,
Rita Bedell.
That is a letter from a former German citizen who came to this country in the last few years. I also have before me a petition that was circulated in the village of Drayton. In that village there are a great many people from the Netherlands who have settled there. A great many of the names here endorsing the red ensign are of people who came to this country realizing that this is our national flag. The petition reads as follows:
To: The honourable the House of Commons of Canada in parliament assembled
The petition of the undersigned humbly sheweth:

Canadian Flag
That because a meaningful national flag demands the broadest possible acceptance, recognition, and respect
That in the interests of the greatest possible measure of national unity.
They do most earnestly and urgently beseech that the question of a national flag be democratically resolved by granting every Canadian the right to vote on this vital matter by means of a national plebiscite.
And your petitioners as in duty bound will ever pray.
This is a petition signed by a great many people, as I said, in one of the communities of my riding, and a great many of the names appearing in the petition are of Dutch immigrants.
In connection with this immigration problem and the fact that it has been suggested that these people might be in favour of a new flag, it is interesting to note that all prospective immigrants to Canada have been informed by the department of immigration as follows:
The flag 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.
As I understand it, Mr. Speaker, that is the information given to all prospective immigrants to this country. The Prime Minister has put forth many arguments to condone his actions, one of which is the idea of keeping an election commitment. There were many commitments made, and I am just wondering whether the commitment made by the Minister of Agriculture is going to be kept one of these days. I refer to the commitment to bring in quarterly deficiency payments for agricultural products, which is something that would be of great assistance to the egg producers of Canada at the present time. I well remember how during the election campaign candidates ran up and down the side roads and into the small communities of my area talking about another commitment made on behalf of the Minister of Industry. This was that the Department of Industry was going to bring industry into all the little towns that had been crying for it for years. That was a commitment made by this government, and I wonder when it is going to be kept.
As the hon. member for Marquette said the other day, the highways leading to Ottawa are
[Mr. Howe (Wellington-Huron) .1
paved with election commitments which have never been kept. So the argument that this is an election commitment does not hold any more water than do a great many of the arguments which are being put forward in connection with this flag. This is the reason the Canadian people all across this country are wondering why this legislation is being given such importance at a time when more important matters should be considered. This was pointed out over a year ago in an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of May 22, 1963, headed "A silly issue":
Prime Minister Lester Pearson promised the House of Commons last week that his government will propose the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag within two years. And so, once again, the issue of a national flag has been grasped and promises made-to what end?
Surely we are not so politically immature as to think that keeping or discarding the red ensign or creating an entirely new design is in any way related to the practical degree of our independence. It would be dispiriting to think that people still believe that the loyalty of Canadians would in any way be affected by the colour arrangement on the flag flying on parliament hill.
There are muted suggestions that the separatist tendencies in Quebec might be curbed if the red ensign were replaced by another flag, perhaps with a fleur-de-lis on it. Mr. Pearson should know by now that Quebec cannot be bought, and certainly not with a new flag.
In this age of internationalism the question of a national flag is irrelevant, time-wasting and more than somewhat silly. Mr. Pearson has more important things to deal with than the various ways in which crosses, stripes, and assorted animals and other symbols can be arranged on a piece of cloth.
That article was written over a year ago, and the same thing holds true today. Yes, Mr. Speaker, there is a time for doing things and a time for leaving them alone. The autocratic manner in which this resolution was introduced has definitely created a feeling of animosity throughout the whole country. I was reminded of the debates in 1955 and 1956 when the Prime Minister spoke the other day at the beginning of this debate. I could not help but remember what had been said about trained seals when I heard the regulated applause on that side of the chamber every time the Prime Minister made some announcement in connection with this flag. It reminded me, as I say, of the autocratic, overbearing attitude of that former government, which led to its downfall.
Then there is the question of unity. How much will this new flag add to the unity of Canada? I feel that the actions of this government have not in any way improved the conditions of disunity which seem to have become more grievous since this government

came into power. The royal commission on bilingualism and biculturalism, by the very nature of its proceedings and meetings, has done nothing to bring about unity in Canada. This flag debate has aroused feelings of animosity throughout this land which will take generations to heal. I would like to quote from an editorial which appeared in one of the newspapers of my riding. In the issue of the Drayton Advocate for Thursday, May 28 there is an article entitled "The great-grandsons of confederation". This article reads as follows:
Unity should be the ideal of every nation. A disunited nation is an impotent one. Here in Canada the Prime Minister has given as his reason for repudiating the Canadian red ensign that by so doing we will be a more united nation. As his choice of a national flag he tells us it should contain no reference to the British and French founders of this nation. When he talks on the flag issue, Mr. Pearson is emphatic that unity demands a national symbol that makes a clean break with our past.
At other times, and especially in the appointment of the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism, he tells us we must recognize our great British and French traditions. It is little wonder that the Canadian people find the Prime Minister's assertions confusing. Almost in the same breath he is telling us to recognize our past and at the same time to dismiss it.
The strongest possible reason for retention of the Canadian red ensign is that it recognizes our national roots as an inspiration for the future. Canada has been too unaware of its history A visitor to our newspaper office the other day looked up at the picture of the fathers of confederation that has long hung there and said, it isn t even in our school books now". However, if everything goes amiss at Ottawa, this is Printed the Canadian red +?S!g" "fill be headed for oblivion in the belief that unity will come from a switch in heraldry.
This editorial speaks for itself, Mr. Speaker, and substantiates my argument that this new flag will in no way bring about greater unity in this land of ours.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, 1 appeal once again to the Prime Minister to alter his course of action and allow a free vote to the representatives of the people of Canada, rather than to pursue an overbearing and autocratic course of action which, by promoting symbols which deny our historical, spiritual and national traditions, will not improve the unity of our nation.


Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Fronienac):: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have to speak on this resolution concerning the flag, because I have received more than 5,000 letters from my voters on this matter, asking me to stand up for an exclusively Canadian flag.
Canadian Flag
As an hon. member said here, at the start of this discussion, we are now living historical moments, which will be written in the great book of this country's history as the crucial minutes in which the survival or the agony of Canadian confederation was decided.
In order to place this discussion in its historic context-which, for some, may be somewhat sentimental, but which we all recall with a certain nostalgic feeling-this country was without a flag for many long years and, during the last conflicts, 28 nations pooled their arms, their resources and their human potential for what was called the fight for civilization and freedom.
Each of those countries had its own identity, each was proud of its regiments, its personality and the symbols by which it was represented.
Alas. Canada, a political embryo, England's ill-nurtured offspring, had no distinctive flag. Yet, Canadians were as proud and brave as the other soldiers of other nations. Our feats in battle prove that we were right there in the fray so that other countries might preserve their freedom and their flag, and not be overpowered by the enemy.
When victory came, every country hailed by the crowds carried its own flag, muddy and torn, but the more cherished by the people. Glory and valour took shelter underneath that standard which remained to bear witness.
Canadians, where were we? Did we have the right to remain incognito, when so many sacrifices had been made by the nation as a whole? Should not our politicians have been conscience-stricken when, on parliament hill, among all the flags of the United Nations, the Canadian flag was conspicuous by its absence?
The union jack led Canadians into battle. But the union jack is Great Britain's flag. Salute it proudly, if you wish, but Canada is not England. The union jack cannot be Canada's flag.
As Canadians, we have all paid our debt to our mother countries, and it shows no lack of respect toward the institutions that have guided us to give evidence of maturity today, to show that we have learned our lesson and that, on our own, we are able to organize our structures and our national life at all levels. If we recognize "God Save the Queen" as the royal anthem in Canada, why not recognize "La Marseillaise" or the national anthem of the U.S.A.? If we recognize the union jack, why not recognize the

Canadian Flag
American star spangled banner as a friendly-flag and a tangible evidence of the American economic presence in our country? It is enough for the American people to know that we respect their symbols; it is not necessary to impose them on us to satisfy the fanaticism of some, the ancestral nostalgia of some others and the immaturity of all of them.
But we know that the flag will not be the wealth of the country.
We also know that it will not help Canadians who have run into debt, that it will not give bread to anyone, that it will not protect Canadian families from cold or want, that it will not raise family allowances, and that it will not have any bounteous effect on the country.
The flag will not settle the problem of our farms which are mortgaged up to the hilt, so much so that farmers have to find other employment besides farming. Big landowners will still exploit the people and small landowners will still be money collectors for the exploiters.
We will have, once again, with more determination than ever, under the shade of the flag, to undertake the economic reconquest of Canada; otherwise political reconquest, symbolized by the proposed flag, will only be a faked Canadian emancipation.
We, Canadians, hope that this flag will offend the oppressors, the mealy-mouthed and sanctimonious governments and politicians, the unscrupulous zealous and make them more respectful of justice, so as to restore their rights to the people and their cultural and ancestral heritage to individuals.
We are proud to endorse the resolution concerning a distinctive flag, but we are determined to discard the union jack.
We want "O Canada" as an anthem, but we are unwilling to recognize "God Save the Queen" as Canada's anthem on any score. We shall always honour this flag and this anthem only as those of England.
For us, this new flag is a symbol of hope in the triumph of freedom, and we reject any attempt to hold us back and to compel us to take one step forward while looking back.
In a country where people understand democracy, the problems of the multitude are tackled before the individual interests. We hope that this flag will be a symbol of freedom, security and a vital minimum for all.
[Mr. Latulippe.l
Many Canadians who are living here remain fond of other countries. To accept two flags and two national anthems in Canada would justify the stand of separatists and many Canadians who cannot bear a compromise not to say degradation.
For a thing to be distinctive it must be without any connection, independent, free and a complete whole in itself. Such is not the case of the proposed flag, since the acceptance of two flags suggests the idea of dependence.
It is useless to try to deceive the people. With that second flag, we dress up the Canadian political skeleton which remains without substance. Until we repatriate the constitution to break any direct link with England, our symbols of an adult Canadian life will remain only smokescreens in front of a half dead colonial reality which still has some trembling movements.
We have proven today to the other countries of the world that we lack political maturity, that our initiative is limited to motherly instructions, that we are still only colonials dreaming of national unity but who, caught at their own game, do not have the necessary maturity to get for themselves the essential tools to acquire that unity, namely the conscience of a Canadian entity without ties and without compulsion.
Let this flag be the hope that our common efforts to build a united Canadian nation, in line with international and national realities, will be put in concrete form, a symbol that could endear itself to all Canadians regardless of their origin.
Adapting to this debate the words of the late President Kennedy, I say: Let us ask ourselves not what this flag can do for us but what we can all do for the flag, particularly for what it must stand for, a proud and united Canada, a Canada aware of her national life.
For some years now, French Canada has been playing an increasingly greater part among modern nations. New responsibilities must therefore be assumed by our people.
It must cultivate the wisdom to give without vexing others and to receive without giving up any of itself. For a nation which has reached adulthood, it means taking conscience of itself before others. It means going on with the dialogue between equals, starting new exchanges.
Since the French Canadian nation has decided to develop more than ever its numerous resources and to expand as much as

possible, while taking into account its collective responsibility, it must show great respect for the whole of mankind while doing it; to become what we are, we must be attracted by what we are not.
One is different only with regard to others, and to serve them the whole of Canada must develop its own personality so that its human values can express themselves for the greater benefit of all after everyone's contribution has been added to them.
Therefore, the love of the nation for that flag must be actively encouraged. The progress of institutions working for the advancement of other nations must also take place in that concept.
Of course, we must first of all be charitable to our neighbour.
That flag should help us to remember all those underdeveloped nations where man lives under conditions which are indeed a denial of his dignity.
That noble flag should really fulfil the true yearnings of the nation, but justice does not simply mean to refrain from doing wrong to others; it means also to help them to the best of our ability.
If a nation really wants to be strong and respected, it must serve at all times the cause of justice, claiming its rights with energy and respecting with equity the rights of others.
The Canadian nation, because of its particular political situation, cannot turn a deaf ear to the cause of justice.
On that score, an investigation of the exact nature of our cultural and political community is required as a necessary preamble. We must also try to establish and take advantage as clearly as possible of the legitimate aspirations of the nation.
Highly qualified men must try to discover all the implications and possibilities of unalienable rights and strive for recognition of those that have not been asserted, regain those which may have been withdrawn. Everyone must strive always to respect the dignity of others in this fight for one's rights.
A true and authentic patriotism which respects justice requires that each citizen honestly accomplish his daily task.
Any claim respecting rights which ignores the corrective duties may end up in a frightful hoax. It is only when each individual carries out his work with competence, when his intentions are pure and when his work is continuous that a people can claim its rights. Justice cannot be established in passion and confusion.
Canadian Flag
This, hon. members, is of perspective in which we should envisage this matter of establishing a distinctive Canadian flag, as a serious-minded member should do, a member who wants a flag that will represent something true to his people, that will symbolize all the greatness and the nobility of his heart and mind.
We should stop being bellowing politicians, hungering for votes, and we should try to be statesmen, hungering for the welfare of our people and the greatless of our country. Is that not, for each one of us, the mandate entrusted to its representatives by the nation?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, my personal feelings about the flag are quite simple. They are summed up in those immortal words we used as school children: "The maple leaf, our emblem dear, the maple leaf forever". I shall not however break forth into song on this occasion.


Mr. Mandziuk:: The old version?


Pauline Jewett: Whether the flag should have one maple leaf, as has been suggested, a cluster of three maple leaves or something that has not yet been widely canvassed, 10 leaves, is of less moment than the basic maple leaf concept itself. Ten leaves actually might be rather good. For one thing, such a flag would enable us to add more leaves should the spirit of manifest destiny seize this nation once again. For another thing, I think, 10 leaves would give greater scope for artistic expression, although I realize that members of parliament should not go too far in the sphere of artistic expression after our world fair symbol experience.
I am quite happy, very happy in fact, with the cluster of three maple leaves. The fact that it has historic and heraldic significance, as has been pointed out many times in the house, the fact also that it has the sanction of nature, seem to me decisive. However, the fact that I personally prefer the maple leaf concept, and in particular a cluster of three maple leaves, is not of course really relevant. Like all of us, I have been getting a great number of letters both pro and con on this subject, and the fact that a great number of my constituents prefer and favour the maple leaf concept is surely not the main point either. As has been stated by speakers on both sides of the house in this debate, the main point is surely that we adopt in this house that flag which will unify and not divide us as a nation. This is the

Canadian Flag
crux of the whole issue it seems to me, and indeed so many speakers have referred to this that my feeling is that the majority of members regard the basic question as what will help most to unify Canada, what will least divide us-


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Drop the subject.


Pauline Jewett: -as by far the most important question. We as members of parliament are here to make a decision on this matter, as we try to do on all other matters in the economic, social and other spheres. It is particularly important in a matter like the flag because, as we all know, a flag is and must be a national symbol. It must say something to all parts of the nation. Above all, it must not go totally against the grain of any significant part of the nation.
I submit that the new maple leaf flag does not go totally against the grain of any large part of the nation. I realize that it is not universally loved. Many of my constituents have written to tell me that they would prefer to have the red ensign. My constituency is a largely Anglo-Saxon one. Indeed, my own people on my mother's side settled there in the late 18th century as United Empire Loyalists. But what I have noticed from my correspondence and from my conversations, and they have been many, with the supporters of the red ensign in Northumberland is that, with the exception of a very few, they are prepared to accept the new flag rather than have a flag which is not acceptable to a large, significant and important part of our nation.
I must confess that there are a very few who are rabidly anti-French, almost rabidly raceistic, if there is such a word. As the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) pointed out the other day, and I entirely agree, the concept of racism can be carried dangerously far. We have people in English speaking and French speaking Canada alike who have this kind of herrenvolk attitude. However, except for a very few in this category the red ensign supporters who have written me about their feelings in regard to the flag have invariably said that it is true they love the red ensign and would not like to have to switch their allegiance, but would rather do so than to have a flag not acceptable to a large and important part of our nation.
Surely it is better to choose the flag that will divide us the least. It seems to me this is the only really important point. I am not suggesting that the only Canadians who favour the new flag are the five and a half

million French speaking Canadians to whom I have referred. Indeed, as we all well know, this is not the case. Judging from my correspondence it is obvious that a large majority of young people prefer the new flag. I have also found that new Canadians, although not universally, generally feel the same way. If we read the ethnic press carefully we can ascertain that they would prefer a new flag. But above all the young people, the people of tomorrow in all parts of Canada, feel strongly about the maple leaf concept, and they are the ones who will be waving the flag when we are all dead and gone from this chamber.


An hon. Member:: You will be gone before you are dead.


Pauline Jewett: In other words, Mr. Speaker, to adopt the new flag rather than the red ensign would not, it seems to me, deeply alienate any large cultural group in Canada, whereas to adopt the red ensign or some modification of it would. Let us face it. We all know that to do so would alienate deeply and permanently, I fear, a large and important section of this one Canada. We do not need a referendum to tell us that. All a referendum would do would be to exacerbate our cultural diversities.
In the last 97 years Canada in my view has moved a long way toward becoming a strong and united nation. We have become much more an economically integrated nation. We have found increasingly that our social problems are ones that touch us from coast to coast. I am not suggesting that we have become a uniform nation either in the social or economic spheres, but we all know that we have increasingly moved a very long way toward a national unity, toward a unity which does have, as I say, common problems in the economic and social spheres right across this nation.
In one area, however, we have not it seems to me, and I am glad we have not, found ourselves becoming entirely nationally integrated. This is in the area of cultural traditions and outlook. One of our trouble spots, it is true, but surely one of our great strengths, something that enriches us all, has been and is our cultural diversity.
I suggest that we could go on and have an even greater expression of cultural diversity, not only amongst those who came here in the 18th century or earlier but amongst the many who have come to Canada since. We could have a great deal of cultural diversity, and at the same time

move toward trying to achieve those things that all Canadians need and want in the social and economic spheres.
We must, however, take special care when it comes to discussing any matter that is directly within the cultural arena. Such a matter is, of course, a national flag. It is on this ground, and on this ground alone therefore that 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. In English speaking Canada, most of us find that our constituents are sharply divided on this matter. Regardless of these things, important though they are our personal feelings and the divided views of our constituents the important thing for all of us as members of parliament, it seems to me, is to pursue that policy which, as I have said, will divide us least and will help, I am convinced, to unify us even more in the future.
A referendum, Mr. Speaker, is only really suitable in a culturally and socially homogeneous society. I, personally, do not object to it so much because it is contrary to parliamentary democracy-although in fact it is. As important as this is, I object to a referendum because all it will do will be to reveal more sharply our cultural diversities, our strong feelings on this matter. All it will do will be to alienate still further a very large number of Canadians, French speaking Canadians. Whether we like it or not, French speaking Canadians are people who have lived in this nation a long time; are people with whom we share this nation and who are particularly strongly of the view that a distinctive, new Canadian flag is the right thing for us. They are not the only ones who feel this way, as I have said. I feel this way and many others feel this way too. But the fact that they do, the fact that to go against their feelings would be to split our nation asunder, seems to me to be the only really crucial point.


Mr. Lambert:: May I ask the hon. lady a question?


Pauline Jewett: I have just about finished.
Finally, there is the question, why act now? We all know that the problem of a national flag is not a new one. We all know that whenever it has been discussed it was difficult to reach a decision on it. We all know that all parties in this house have spoken about it for some years. It is really not new. We all know, too, that there is going to be a substantial amount of time for discussion in
Canadian Flag
this house, and for all the groups in society that have strong views on this matter to get their views across. One cannot deny that the groups in society that do have strong views on this subject have had enormous opportunities, and are continuing to have those opportunities, to get their views across. This is important. I think it is vital in any democracy. It seems to me that if we make this decision this summer, given the time we have for debate, given the time there is for those outside interests to present their views to us, we ought surely to be able to make our decision here which we feel is in the best interests of this nation. After all, it was this nation for which we fought in the second world war, and the values for which it stands. It was not a particular flag for which we fought; it was for freedom, tolerance and understanding, and a respect for minority rights. These are the things for which we fought. These are the things we maintain, and I hope will continue to maintain.


Norman Platt Lambert: I wonder if the hon. lady would permit the question I wished to pose earlier?


Pauline Jewett: Yes.


Norman Platt Lambert: Does the hon. lady feel the same sentiments in regard to the acceptance or non-acceptance of the red ensign should apply to the union jack, as provided for in the second portion of this resolution?


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, this is not a debate on the second part of the resolution. The second part of the resolution is not to create a national flag for Canada. All I am concerned about is the creation of a national flag for Canada.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I ask the hon. lady a question? What evidence has the hon. lady that the ethnic press is clamouring for this new maple leaf flag?


Pauline Jewett: I have not got it here, but I will be glad to send it to the hon. gentleman.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Has the hon. member any clippings or quotations?


Pauline Jewett: Yes, and I will be glad to send them to the hon. member later.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I think it would be worth while to put them on the record, as I did.


Pauline Jewett: I shall be glad to do that if I get another opportunity in the course of the debate.

Canadian Flag


Mr. Jack A. Irvine (London):: I should like to say a few words at this particular time in this debate in support of the amendment and in opposition to the resolution before the house. I think, Mr. Speaker, I would be remiss if I did not, at this time, say a few words on behalf of the constituents of the London riding. It is not the largest in Canada, but it is one of the largest. It is a completely urban riding. I know that the hon. member for Middlesex East (Mr. Millar) and the hon. member for Middlesex West (Mr. Thomas) have made surveys in their respective ridings which adjoin mine. These surveys have not produced results exactly the same as mine, and this is understandable because they are different types of ridings.
However, I did make a survey through the medium of broadcasting. I sent out word to the people of my riding that they should communicate with me by letter, telephone or whatever means suited them best, and let me know what their feelings are with regard to the flag. I received some 842 letters. Of that number, 824 were opposed to the new flag as proposed. The vast majority were in favour of the retention of the red ensign. I know that some of these letters I have received may have reached me as a result of the efforts of an organization, a group of people who got together and decided they would make representations. So I will cut the number I gave in two. Suppose half these letters were inspired. If we do that, then the majority is still 23 to 1 in favour of the retention of the red ensign, and on that basis it does not take much imagination for me to establish exactly which way I should go in the interests of the people who have elected me as their representative here.
Of the remaining 18 letters, 17 were in favour of a new flag. Perhaps I might say that even the 18 were. Nine of these were not in favour of the flag as proposed. The other writer I mentioned told me what he thought would be a good flag; he described it to me, but parliamentary language does not permit me to tell the house exactly what it was.
However, I would say this: Before we have another national flag-and I think I should say "another" because we already have one- it would be a good idea if we approached full nationhood. There are some things which are lacking. I had occasion recently to pick up a passport on the inside of which were words to the effect that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) and Queen Elizabeth II grant the passport and offer the

bearer certain privileges. If we look further into this passport-which is not a Canadian passport; it is a British passport-we find the words "A Canadian subject is a British subject". These are some of the details to which we should address attention before we lay claim to complete and full nationhood and go on to change the flag we already have for something new. Then again, on the applications for employment we have in this country, some of them governmental, appears a column asking details of nationality. If you put down "Canadian" in that column, in most instances the application is returned because they want to know the racial origin. This is one of the things which I contend is causing great disunity in this country and it is something we are condoning. As I say, we must first reach the point of complete and legitimate nationhoood.
To think in terms of hyphenated Canadians is I think completely wrong. I do not think we should refer to people as Ukrainian Canadians, Dutch Canadians, German Canadians and so on. I do not think anyone should be considered in that way. Once people have taken out citizenship papers in this country they are Canadians and we should do everything we can within our power to make them proud of this country. I feel I am a Canadian, not a hyphenated Canadian in any sense of the word. After six generations I feel I am almost as Canadian as a full blooded Indian, and I am very proud of the fact. On the other hand, these people who come to us from various countries for the protection-I was about to say of the red ensign, but I will not say that-these people who come to our shores for the protection they receive in Canada so that they may live in peace and harmony, all bring to us a certain amount of their culture. We are pleased to have this so that eventually we may be in possession of aspects of all these cultures, put them together and, as a result, have our own distinctive Canadian culture.
I feel that one of the things which is incensing the people of Canada today is the manner in which this resolution has been presented. I think this is something the people are concerned about. We have a freedom loving people in Canada and they do not like to see this sort of thing shoved down their throats and enforced in a dictatorial manner. One of the other things which I feel is puzzling the people of Canada at this moment is the fact that members on the other side of the house do not have an opportunity of voting freely on this issue. They cannot have the opportunity of a free vote. The Prime

Minister said recently that he hoped everybody would vote as they pleased. On the other hand he said later that the government stands or falls on the fate of this particular resolution. In such a situation how can those on the other side of the house vote against their leader, vote against the government and bring about the dissolution of this parliament? These are things to which the people of Canada take severe exception.
The Prime Minister was once considered to be one of the greatest diplomats in the world. He was a man of whom we were particularly proud in that capacity. Indeed he received a high award for the services he rendered in that field. I know that hon. members on the other side of the house, as well as some who sit elsewhere-and I am going to count myself among them-were proud of him. But, Mr. Speaker, what has happened? There is no diplomacy in the manner in which this resolution has been presented. There is no democracy about the way in which it has been presented. On the other hand, the Prime Minister gave us all an invitation to speak on this subject in the house and I am just wondering whether, after what could run into a great length of time, someone will have the temerity to turn round and say: "This is a filibuster". It cannot be. This was an invitation addressed by the Prime Minister to each and every one of us to get on our feet and express our views on behalf of our constituents.
What was the right hon. gentleman looking for? What was in the back of his mind? Let us think about this for a moment. Was this a way out? Was he looking for some way to back out of this, or was this a smokescreen to cover up the ineptness of the present administration? Was it possibly because of trouble in the commission on biculturalism and bilingualism? Did he want to cover that up in a cloud? Was it put forward as a smokescreen to cover up the increasing economic difficulties of this country? We could cite many possibilities. Was it to force an election before it was too late? Maybe the right hon. gentleman thought the sands of time were running out. Maybe he thought the proverbial chickens were coming home to roost and that he had better have an election now, because in the spring it would be too late. I am wondering about these things and I think we should give them careful thought.
There are three ways in which this flag proposition could have been approached, in
Canadian Flag
my humble view, and I will list them though not necessarily in order of importance. The first is by way of a federal-provincial conference to which the premiers of each of the provinces and select small committees could have been invited, to sit with a full committee representing all five parties in this house around the conference table to produce something which would be acceptable to at least a majority of the people. Then the people, through their representatives, would have the opportunity of exercising a freedom of choice. I submit this freedom of choice is being denied.
On the other hand, Mr. Speaker, there is an educational approach to this question. In the last general election campaign the Prime Minister mentioned that there would be 1,000, 10,000-it does not matter about the figure, because we have not had them, anyway- awards for students. Why did we not turn this whole problem over to the educational authorities in this country and say to each educational district, "Have the students in your area submit what they think would be the proper design for a distinctive Canadian flag". They could then have selected two or three of these designs, sent them to the central headquarters of the district, and the committee of the house I have mentioned could have picked out the six best designs. We could have awarded $1,000 each to the students who submitted what we thought were the best designs. That would have been a great deal cheaper than spending $100,000 a day for this house to sit in the discussion of this problem and we would have given the students an opportunity to take part in the choice of a flag, to express themselves in this connection, to become more patriotic and better Canadians.
The third manner in which this question could be handled is by a plebiscite or referendum. I would like to suggest a few words that could be put into the questionnaire on this particular subject, although I do not suggest the questions should be asked necessarily in this order. The questionnaire could be worded something like this:
1.	Are you in favour of the design of three maple leaves joined on one stem, on a white background?
2.	Are you in favour of retaining the red ensign as Canada's national flag?
3.	Do you favour a change in the red ensign by removing the coat of arms and substituting therefor a maple leaf and fleur-de-lis?
4.	Do you favour a national flag with neither union jack nor fleur-de-lis thereon?

Canadian Flag
There could be added one or two more questions. But at least, Mr. Speaker, we would get a true expression of the opinions of people on this matter and they would have the opportunity of saying what they wanted by way of a flag. In this way we would be getting back somewhat to democracy. On the other hand, why should we be treated like children? This is a most unreasonable thing. Why should the hammer be placed over our heads in the form of, "You pass this resolution or you get no summer recess". As far as I am concerned, I am prepared to sit here all summer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Alfred Irvine: I do not care whether we have a recess or not. But let us put before this house some legislation which we can handle, and let this issue sit for a while. Then we could come back to it later, when it could be considered a little more dispassionately. The way this issue has been thrown at us is indicative of, "You be good boys and you will have a holiday", and it reminds me of the little boy who had a ball and bat and went up to the playground, gathered all the other boys around him, and wanted to be the pitcher. They did not want him to be the pitcher, and he said, "All right. I will take my ball and bat and go home". I cannot see the wisdom of the manner in which this matter has been handled; it is very difficult to understand.
There is something else we must face, Mr. Speaker. We cannot go around like the proverbial ostrich, with our heads buried in the sand forever. There are some things we have to face. One of the things we have to face, whether we like it or not, is the separatist movement in Quebec. I know this is not indicative of the feeling of the majority of people in Quebec by any means, but still it is there and we have to face it. I think we would find the majority of these people to be in the age bracket 18 to 24. So six years from today, if we are still together then, these people will be in the age bracket 18 to 30, and this represents a great proportion of the population of Canada. This is something that is very serious; it is of major importance- and we cannot afford blindly to look away from it.
I think it is time our Prime Minister-who is known for his diplomatic prowess; who is known to be a great statesman: we will not say anything about his ability as an administrator-approached the premier of Quebec and obtained a commitment from him that they are going to be with us in 1967 when we have

our centennial celebrations. If we do not obtain that commitment, I say let us get a new site, and get it now, before we start pouring millions and millions more dollars into this particular site.


Mr. Prud'homme:: Get back on the flag.


John Alfred Irvine: What is the result? Confusion; complete and utter confusion. Two new flags have been suggested to the house. We have one old flag which we have been using for some time and which was officially endorsed. There is a move afoot whereby the province of Ontario may opt out of this flag, just the same as Quebec opted out of the pension plan in its original form. If they opt out, we will get four flags. And there could be other provinces that will decide they want their own flag. Perhaps the province of Quebec will decide to fly their provincial flag. We could end up with 12 flags. What confusion and what disunity.
This is a real problem, one that cannot be handled on the spur of the moment. This is a problem on which we will have to take a little time and perhaps do a little compromising. What we are doing now is continually driving wedges between groups of people, driving them further and further apart. This is nothing new, and I would like to refer hon. members to the House of Commons Debates of 1900, 64 years ago. I shall read from from volume 1 of the debates of that year, page 1842, half way down the right-hand column. These are the words of a very outstanding man of this house at that time, the first officer of this house, Sir Wilfrid Laurier. I might preface this by saying that these words were spoken in reply to a statement made by, I believe, the attorney general of that time. This was in the debate on supply with regard to sending troops to South Africa. The prime minister said this:
It is only too true, sir, that if we had refused at that time to do what was in my judgment our imperative duty, a most dangerous agitation would have arisen-an agitation which according to all human probability would have ended in a cleavage in the population of this country upon racial lines. A greater calamity could never take place in Canada. My hon. friend and I have long been on terms of intimacy. He has long been a political friend and supporter of mine. He knows as well as any man in this house knows that if there is anything to which I have given my political life, it is to try to promote unity, harmony and amity between the diverse elements of this country.
My friends can desert me, they can remove their confidence from me, they can withdraw the trust which they have placed in my hands; but never shall I deviate from that line of policy. Whatever may be the consequences, whether loss of prestige, loss of popularity, or loss of power, I feel that I am in the right, and I know that a time will

come when every man, my hon. friend himself included, will render me full justice on that score... We are a British country and a free country, and every man in it has the right to express his opinion.
Those were the words of Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1900.
In the Montreal Gazette for October 22, 1963 there is a letter which contains a quotation from Sir Wilfrid Laurier which is as follows:
I am proud of the country that gave me birth-
-and the letter indicates he was referring to Canada-
-and I am proud of the country that gave me liberty-
-referring to Britain. Mr. Speaker, this is the kind of Canadian, one of the greatest of all times, that the Liberal party presented to the house in 1900, or a little before then. What a change we have today; times have changed. We have a flag now which I am sure is acceptable to the vast majority of the people of Canada, so why change it? After the next election when we have a new government another flag resolution may be brought in, and then we will have more confusion and the same trouble all over again. I do not think a new government would do that but it could happen. We should remember that we are all Canadians and that we should get together in a spirit of unity, and in a spirit of compromise work something out which would be satisfactory to the vast majority of our people.
I should like to quote another item which I think is very interesting. It originates from "Viewpoint", a show with which I am sure all are familiar. On June 16, 1964 this statement was made by Mr. Robert Needham of the press gallery:
But, whatever the merits of the tri-leaf, the red ensign or any other flag, I cannot conceive of poorer circumstances under which a supposed emblem of unity is being presented to the nation.
What other conclusion is possible, when a splintered house is held hostage by a minority government. A distinctive flag now-or a general election. That's the choice. That's the ransom demanded of a captive commons.
Such is the birth and baptism in bondage decreed for a flag of freedom.
Now let me go to another man whom I presume some people have heard about. His name is Newman; I think his first name is Peter. He has written other articles, but the one to which I wish to refer is in the July 4 issue of Maclean's magazine. He starts off: Just after Lester Pearson became the fourteenth prime minister of Canada, he described his stewardship, in a television address, as "a time to
Canadian Flag
excite the daring, test the strong and give new promise to the timid"...
Now. 14 months later, it is evident even to the Liberals that their administration has yet to earn the title to these brave words. What may be less evident, althought here in Ottawa it seems clear enough to me, is that in the day-to-day business of governing the country the Liberals are falling short of even the most basic demand made on any government: that the administration control events and shape the course of national affairs ... But it seems to me that on almost any afternoon of this session there has been some evidence to be seen in the house of vacillation and retreat... in my opinion the domestic policies of the Liberals have been a grey, quiet failure.
My point, Mr. Speaker, is this. Why should we be wasting so much time when there is so much legislation we should be getting on with? Why do we not set this measure back for a while, give it a chance to simmer and let the people look at it from a sensible sort of viewpoint rather than push it through now? Let us debate this question of the flag later. Our present flag or any new flag which might possibly be, I will not say forced upon us, but any new flag we might acquire through a pressure medium, should stand for justice, for freedom and for liberty. But most of all it should stand for unity, and I do not see where this proposed measure will inspire any unity in any part of the country. It should represent further the sacrifices which were made by our forefathers when they forged for us from a vast continent a new country where we might live together as individuals in freedom; where we might enjoy freedom of choice, freedom of worship and freedom of speech regardless of race, colour or creed. I say long may this freedom live, Mr. Speaker. Let us proceed slowly. What we do today we have to live with for a long time. Let us go back to the days of trade and barter and perhaps we can compromise a little and get together on this matter. But whatever we do, let us not break faith with the people of Canada. Let us give them an opportunity to express themselves individually, in line with the amendment to the resolution before us today. Let us shelve this question temporarily and look at it from a dispassionate point of view. Meantime, let us get on with the business of Canada. Our constituents sent us here to legislate, so let us go to work on legislation, and let the flag sit so that we may get together on the matter a little later on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business

Motions for Papers
as listed on today's order paper, namely private bills, notices of motions (papers), public bills.



MOTIONS FOR PAPERS


David Orlikow: That an order of the house do issue for a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am not only surprised but I admit I am bitterly disappointed that I have to move this motion. On a number of occasions since I came to this house some two years ago the house has discussed the whole policy of security matters, the rights of people who work for the government to know what they are accused of-if they are accused-and their right to an opportunity to give their side of the story, in other words an opportunity to defend themselves.
This matter has been raised not only by members of parliament but by organizations such as the Canadian association of university teachers and the Canadian union of students representing all the students in Canadian universities. Last session we thought we had finally got a policy from the government, a policy which was fair, which would protect the rights of government employees and which would ensure that justice would be theirs.
I wish to quote a couple of paragraphs from what I thought was a very important statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in this house on October 25, 1963. Members will find this on pages 4043 to 4046 of Hansard for that date. In it he said:
If our security policies ignored, or did not take sufficiently into account, the basic rights of the individual, they could operate not to defend but to destroy the liberties which are our first concern.
Later he said:
The first of the new requirements is to inform the person involved when his security or reliability is in doubt and may have to involve his dismissal. Employing departments and agencies will in future be required to tell an employee everything that is possible of the reasons for the doubt, if there is a doubt, and to give him an opportunity to resolve that doubt...
The second new requirement is to ensure that a second look is always taken by a separate body before dismissal is finally decided upon. Once the individual is told of security doubts he will have the opportunity to give his side of the case.

Finally he said:
1	feel confident that the procedure which we are now adopting will assist us in making judgments concerning loyalty and reliability in a manner which will protect individual rights as well as national interests.
That was an excellent statement. The Prime Minister always makes excellent statements when he talks in broad generalities, but when you try to pin him down to anything you find there is not much in it. He made this statement and he met with representatives of the Canadian association of university teachers. I see the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) here. She was at that meeting. The Prime Minister gave that organization assurances that the government would work out satisfactory policies, that it would keep in touch with the organization, and hold discussions with it in future. I am told that as of today the members of that organization have not heard a further word from the Prime Minister.
On May 7 of this year I asked the following question:
1.	Has the new policy regarding security investigations promised by the Prime Minister last session been established and, if not, how long will it be before it is ready?
2.	If it has been completed and approved, have its terms been made known to the employees of the government and their associations?
3.	Will a copy of the policy and its regulations be tabled in the house?
The answer to that question came down on May 25 last and was as follows:
1. Yes.
2	and 3. The terms have been formally communicated to all government departments and organizations. It is not customary to send directives such as this to employees or associations, nor are administrative directives normally tabled in. the House of Commons.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, this is precisely the reason we have had this kind of difficulty, because security is not just the business of the government ministers and their departments. Security is the business of the people involved. It is the business of all members in this house, and if the members of this house and the people in the Canadian association of university teachers and the Canadian union of students had been satisfied with the former ring-around-a-rosy which we had between the government, the R.C.M.P. and other people, we would never have had these discussions; but the fact is that the policies have not worked out, and many mistakes were made.
I refer hon. members to the Knott case, raised by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Co-wichan-The Islands (Mr. Cameron) in which the government, because of the evidence

presented to it, was forced to admit that a mistake had been made. It admitted Knott had been dismissed from the navy because his uncle was a member of the communist party, and then it admitted a mistake had been made because in fact the person in the communist party was not his uncle.
I want to ask the Minister of Justice this question. Supposing his uncle had been a member of the communist party, what had that to do with the man in the navy? Have we reached the situation in this country when a person is judged guilty not because of what he does himself but because of what his relatives may have done or may be arguing?
If that is the kind of procedures we have, then we have taken a leaf out of the book of nazi Germany, because it had this kind of law. Nazi Germany enacted a law which, in rough translation, was entitled a law dealing with the clan responsibility. Under that law when a person committed a crime against the security of the state every person in his family, his father, his mother, his sister, his brother, his uncle, his aunt and his cousins to the 'nth degree were adjudged to be equally responsible. I am not saying we have that kind of law here. If we had, then we could fight it, but what we have had are administrative procedures exactly like those which were followed in nazi Germany.
I have talked about the Knott case which was settled satisfactorily, and following that we had the Petersen case. Eric Petersen of Esquimalt, B.C., had been a member of the navy for ten years and, according to himself and his counsel, he was dismissed from the navy. The reason given was that his father-in-law was a communist, but the fact is that his father-in-law was a communist when Petersen was one year old.
I asked questions about this in the house and got the usual run-around which always takes place when one gets into security matters because, after all, an ordinary backbencher cannot be expected to understand the fine points of security. This is for that select group, the Minister of Justice, his assistant, other people around him and the R.C.M.P. When I did not make any progress I went to see the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer) who told me very plainly that this was not the reason Petersen had been dismissed from the navy. He said they had other reasons, good reasons; but I can tell the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) that the Minister of National Defence did not tell them to me, and I am satisfied that until today Petersen has not been told why he was dis-
Motions for Papers
missed from the navy, so that he could really defend himself. He has to take the word of some faceless accuser that they have information which makes it necessary for him to be dismissed from the navy.
Last session I had a letter from a young man in my constituency, who told me he belonged to the naval reserve for three years and when he and his friends, with whom he had served in the naval reserve for three years, went to reinlist, his friends were taken back in but he was turned down. I asked him to call on me and I spent an hour with him in Winnipeg going over the possible reasons. I got the assurance from him that he had never belonged to any organization which could possibly be classed as subversive. He told me all the organizations to which he belonged. However, having had some experiences in these cases, which I would be very happy not to have had, I asked him about the members of his family, and it came out that his father worked for an organization which I am sure the government would consider to be communist dominated.
Let us assume for the moment that his father was a communist 20 years ago or even that his father is communist today. Is there anybody here who is going to suggest that because a person's father is or was a communist that person therefore ought not to be able to be a member of the naval reserve? We are not talking about atomic research or nuclear bombs. We are talking about an ordinary seaman.
I am not going to mention this person's name because he did not authorize me to discuss the matter publicly, but what about the person who wanted to work for the C.B.C. and who was turned down because his father allegedly is a comunist? This is precisely the kind of thing that has gone on and I am satisfied it is still going on. I will believe it is going on until the government realizes that if they really have a new policy there is nothing wrong with telling the house about it, and also telling the organizations representing employees and the people of Canada what that policy is.
I never wanted and I do not want today to know the details. I do not want to see the actual questions which are asked. I am not really concerned about the answers. I am not concerned about every position in the government which requires security clearance. But surely to goodness there can be nothing wrong with the government making a clear policy statement in a broad way of what the requirements are, what departments

Motions for Papers
require security clearance, what the reasons are and what kind ol matters are involved in security. Until we have this type of procedure there are going to be complaints and members of the house and people outside the house are going to continue to ask questions and to be critical.
We have heard all the arguments why there cannot be an independent group to look into these matters. We have suggested such a body. We have suggested that if the government is going to lift the security clearance of any person employed by it that person should be told first of all that he is losing his security clearance. Second, he should be given some indication of what the general reasons for such action are. Third, he should have an opportunity to explain, to make a defence.
If such a practice should be adopted I will not be satisfied and the members of this group will never be satisfied if the only people to whom the employee can make his explanation are people in his own department. These is no reason at all why there cannot be an independent semi-judicial review committee. I point out to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) that during world war II when the defence of Canada regulations were in effect, not in a time of peace but during a war when thousands of people were interned-I am not questioning the necessity of that for a moment-provision was made for a review committee to which people who had been interned and thought they had been unfairly treated could make representations. I understand that committee had on it a representative of the judiciary and it was empowered to hear not only the government's side of the story but to hear the defence, the explanations of the people involved. It also had power to recommend that people who had been interned should be allowed to go free. If we could do that in wartime surely we can do it in peacetime.
I want to say that the kind of answer the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) gave to my question was most unsatisfactory. I had been assured before by the Prime Minister's office that he was sympathetic to my motion to produce this material but that the security people were unhappy about it. It is obvious that the security people persuaded the Prime Minister that he could not do this. That is precisely the sort of thing to which I object.
The Prime Minister and the government indulge in fine talk, though in generalities, when they want the support of organizations like the Canadian association of university

teachers. The question of security procedures at universities is a separate one which we will also be pressing. But we got this very nice answer from the Prime Minister who likes to think of himself as a liberal with a small "1". When the chips are down, however, when it comes time for action, when it comes time to tell the security people and the R.C.M.P. that maybe they are going to have to explain to somebody besides themselves, the Prime Minister loses his courage and we get the kind of nonsense we had in the refusal of the government to table these directives. If the Prime Minister could not table the directives he could have made a statement explaining to members of the house and the public what the situation is with regard to security.
I said in opening my remarks that I was sorry I had to raise this matter. I assure the Minister of Justice that unless we receive a good deal more information that we have got up to now this matter will be another one on which we will have to spend a lot more time at this session than it should take simply because the government has not got the guts to take the people into its confidence.


Guy Favreau: Mr. Speaker, hon. members will recall that during the consideration of the estimates of the Department of Justice on October 25, 1963, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) said, as reported on page 4043 of Hansard for that day:
The security measures which have been developed here in Canada, through sometimes bitter experience, are intended to be preventive and not punitive. Their purpose is to protect the safety, interests and indeed the freedoms of all Canadians. They are under constant and continuous review, with the purpose of striking the balance I have referred to between the protection of the state and the protection of the individuals who, in a free society, alone give the state its direction, its purpose and indeed its meaning.
He said further, as reported on page 4044:
The granting or the denial of a security clearance is an administrative matter, one of managerial responsibility. In making a decision that an applicant or employee may not safely be given access to secret and confidential information, the head of a department or of an agency is not denying an individual a right. No person, of course, has a right to see official secrets. The department head is merely exercising the judgment he is expected to apply on the basis of all the information available to him in the way that any sensible person would exercise such judgment in hiring a secretary, a cashier, a lawyer or a doctor, ensuring that such person could be trusted with his property, his private business or his physical health. The government also has an obligation to provide itself with every reasonable assurance that those of its employees who require access to the government's, the nation's secrets are loyal and trustworthy and not vulnerable to persuasion, coercion or blackmail.

I feel confident that the procedures which we are now adopting will assist us in making judgments concerning loyalty and reliability in a manner which will protect individual rights as well as national interests.
Following the statement which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made at that time the then minister of justice went on to outline in some detail the security screening arrangements which had been devised. At that time he said, as reported on page 4046 of Hansard:
I do so with some reluctance because the effectiveness of even these measures is usually reduced in providing information about them. At the same time, I fully appreciate how frustrating it is to members of this house as well as to the public generally, who are rightly concerned that individuals be treated fairly, to be faced with official silence on this vital subject. There will always be matters in this area which cannot be discussed fully in public if our defensive arrangements are to have any effect at all. I am sure all members of the house will agree with the principle of that statement. On the other hand, the effectiveness of these arrangements does not depend solely upon the measures or the individuals involved with them. They depend too upon the understanding and cooperation of all Canadians on whose behalf, in the last analysis, these measures have been instituted.
It was the purpose of this statement, Mr. Speaker, to explain to the house, and to all Canadians, in as much detail as was consistent with national security and the general interest, the means by which the government intends to safeguard these vital secrets as well as the rights and interests of its employees in this regard. These statements were, I believe, the fullest which any government of Canada has ever made on this difficult subject. They were made in the knowledge that they would probably lead to demands for further information. It is my firm impression that they have assisted materially in achieving the purpose which I have described. The statements were completely in accordance with the administrative directive which has been sent to all departments and agencies.
The motion before the house is that an order of the house do issue for a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations. There has been only one such directive, Mr. Speaker, and after the most careful consideration the government has decided that it must, in the public interest, decline to accept the motion to provide a copy of the directive. The hope was expressed that, for this reason, the hon. member might be prepared to withdraw his motion. However, as was his right, he has not seen fit to do so.
Motions for Papers
In declining to accept this motion, the government has taken into account and essentially agrees with the stand taken on this matter by every Canadian government which has had to face this difficult problem. It is essentially this: To divulge publicly the means by which the government instructs its agencies to counter the efforts of those who would steal our vital national secrets and subvert our institutions, would have the effect of impairing the effectiveness of these counter measures. As it was very aptly put in the white paper presented to the parliament of the United Kingdom by the secretary of state for foreign affairs in 1955:
Espionage is carried out in secret. Counterespionage equally depends for its success upon the maximum secrecy of its methods. Nor is it desirable at any moment to let the other side know how much has been discovered or guess at what means have been used to discover it. Nor should they be allowed to know all the steps that have been taken to improve security. These considerations still apply and must be the basic criterion of judging what should or should not be published.
From our experience, and I am sure the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) from the experience he has had will agree, there is no reason now to change the view that has always been taken in this respect. As one of my predecessors in office, Hon. Davie Fulton, minister of justice in the previous administration said on April 29, 1959, as reported on page 3152 of Hansard:
The government has consistently followed the policy of complete reticence concerning security work-
The government which preceded that of which Mr. Fulton was a member also consistently upheld this principle. The present government has gone further in modifying the principle in the interests of supplying information on security matters than any previous government. We fully recognize that it is the government and no other body or individual which has the heavy and undeniable responsibility of advising and administering security policies and procedures which have been agreed upon after years of study based upon our Canadian experience and the collective experience of our allies. We are convinced that to open these detailed procedures to public debate further than has already been done would seriously reduce the effectiveness of these procedures and would lead inevitably to the injury of individuals who have committed no offence under the law. We cannot believe that either of these results would be in the public interest.

Motions for Papers
This is in no sense, Mr. Speaker, a partisan matter. I am sure that hon. members on all sides of the house would be deeply relieved if we did not have to deal with these harsh, complex and difficult matters. But deal with them we must, and in a manner which, based on the best possible knowledge of the circumstances, will afford the best possible protection to the people of this country. In this connection I would ask that hon. members do not underestimate the weight of the responsibility that rests upon the Prime Minister in facing these problems. Indeed I was deeply gratified to hear the right hon. Leader of the Opposition express his recognition of this fact when he said on October 25 last:
Mr. Chairman, the matter under discussion is one of the most difficult problems that faces a government today. It is understandable why the Prime Minister should have made a statement this evening as to the policy of the government, for the responsibility of national security rests primarily on the Prime Minister.
A little later, he went on to say:
From time to time these matters are brought before the people. He carries in his head information in respect to the subject of security that he is almost frightened at times of revealing. The Prime Minister has spoken of the difficulties.
How are you going to maintain security while at the same time preserving and maintaining the fundamental rights of the individual? It is a difficult problem. It is so easy to criticize, but it is so much more difficult, having that responsibility, being desirous of maintaining those freedoms, to be able to carry out one's wishes. Loyalty is expected of all Canadians. It is imperative as a quality of public service.
The maintenance of security is of prime importance to the survival of the state. How often do cases come before a prime minister and he cannot go into the details in the House of Commons? You have the evidence. Often it is secondary evidence; sometimes it is hearsay. The accumulation of hearsay placed before one has an effect, no matter how one endeavours to adopt a judicial attitude.
At the conclusion of his speech, the right hon. gentleman said:
I know the weight of the responsibility that is on the Prime Minister in matters like this-this matter above all. He cannot put it off on somebody else. He in his person has the custody of our survival and our security. In the views he had placed before the house he has been given the benefit of the study that was made by dedicated public servants whose purpose was to assure that justice shall be done. Fiat justitia ruat coelum- 'Let justice be done though the heavens should fall'.
The responsibility is, indeed, a heavy one and not a pleasant one. I am sure it would have given the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) great relief when he was prime minister to have been able to be open and public about all of these things. It is contrary

to the principles on which our society and nation is based to have to maintain secrecy about actions that can, at times, affect the careers of individuals. Yet it is essentially for the protection of our nation, based on those principles, that these measures regretfully have to be taken. Other free nations are faced with the same unpleasant facts of life and recognize that the strong light of publicity cannot be admitted to every detail of security precautions if they are to be effective. It is for this reason that the Prime Minister and the government had to take the position that it would not be in the public interest to publish the current directive on security in the public service. I can however assure hon. members that the new and improved measures to protect the rights of individuals, as described in this house on October 25, are covered in the directive and are in effect.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: had thought at the last session of parliament that we had made some progress in this matter of security investigation, but after listening to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) I am convinced we are right back where we started.
The minister has treated the house to the usual parade of the mystique of security- something so secret, something so mystical that it cannot be disclosed to the uninitiated. He tells us of the great burden of responsibility which, he says, the government alone must bear. I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, that this is a democratic country in which the government is responsible to parliament and parliament is responsible to the people. The government has responsibility for conducting these security programs. The minister says this is not a partisan matter, and we agree. We have never suggested it was. This is a matter of human justice; it is a matter of deciding whether or not persons who are labelled as security risks and who, in consequence, are either denied employment or dismissed from employment shall have, first, the right to know what they are accused of and, second, an opportunity to present their cases. That is what we are arguing.
All this talk of the minister about the fact that many of these security questions cannot be opened to the light of day is not in dispute. We know perfectly well that security investigations cannot be carried on in a glass house. We are simply contending that people who are accused and who, as a result of the accusation, made, as in some cases, as the minister himself admits from pure hearsay,

shall have the right to lace those who accuse them, the right to defend themselves and to know with what they are charged.
Instead of facing up to this problem the Minister of Justice trotted out the old slogan "Father knows best". I have been listening to this for a quarter of a century. Ministers of justice say: You must leave it to me; you must trust my good judgment and good sense; I am very busy, so this means trusting the good judgment of the officials of my department or of some other department. As a matter of fact we have brought up case after case to show that neither the ministers of the crown nor their officials are infallible. The Gordon Knott case has already been referred to. A number of other cases came before the house in the last session of parliament. I myself have taken up cases with ministers, cases in which the individuals concerned were either being dismissed or threatened with dismissal upon grounds so flimsy that when the ministers themselves looked into them they discarded them and managed to have the cases cleared up. But supposing no one had brought those cases to the attention of the ministers concerned. Supposing the deputy minister or the head of a branch, acting on the report of a security panel, had dismissed the persons in question or refused to hire them. These individuals would then have suffered a great injustice. I pay tribute to the ministers to this extent:	In many cases when certain
matters have been brought to their attention they rectified the situation and saw to it that justice was done. But the number of cases which come to our attention and which we can discuss with ministers amounts to only a small proportion of the cases which occur.
It is not enough, as the old English slogan says, that justice should be done. Justice must appear to be done. It must be clear, beyond doubt, that injustice is not being done. It must be worked into the warp and woof of our government administration that people cannot be unjustly dismissed or discriminated against on the basis of hearsay evidence, on the basis of malicious gossip or on the basis of mistaken identity-and there has been plenty of that-but that the individuals in question shall know why they are being dismissed and what is the case against them, besides having an opportunity to present their cases and, I think, an opportunity to be represented by counsel while a case is being conducted. This is all we are arguing.
Motions for Papers
Last year, the former minister of justice for a while gave us the "Father knows best" routine, and we were relieved when on October 25 the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) made the speech to which the Minister of Justice referred this afternoon. The Prime Minister was very generous in saying this:
Since they were introduced in this country in 1947, the so-called security screening procedures adopted have, on the whole, worked well, though of course, Mr. Chairman, there have been mistakes. But I believe we have for the most part avoided excesses both of over-caution and over-confidence. There are nevertheless admittedly certain flaws in the system and it is to these that the government has been directing its attention recently. It is also to these that members have been addressing questions to the government in the House of Commons.
The Prime Minister admitted there have been mistakes and that the system is not without its weaknesses. So he went on, as reported on page 4044, to say this:
After careful consideration the government has come to the conclusion that the essential advantages of these procedures can be achieved within our system by requiring all departments and agencies of government to do two things which they have not previously been required to do. The first of the new requirements is to inform the person involved when his security or reliability is in doubt and may have to involve his dismissal. Employing departments and agencies will in future be required to tell an employee everything that is possible of the reasons for the doubt, if there is a doubt, and to give him an opportunity to resolve that doubt.
That met the first objection. The individual was going to have a chance to know wherewith he was charged, and was to have an opportunity to present his side of the case to the official of the government under whose direction he came. The Prime Minister went on:
The second new requirement is to ensure that a second look is always taken by a separate body before dismissal is finally decided upon. Once the individual is told of security doubts he will have the opportunity to give his side of the case. The employing agency will consider it, consult the staff of the government security panel, and arrive at a conclusion.
I will not bother reading the rest of it; it simply says that if after making his case in the department, the department still abides by its decision, certain things may be done. Then the Prime Minister went on:
But if it is that his dismissal must be recommended, the individual will be given a second hearing, this time by the deputy minister or head of the agency. If that interview does not resolve the doubts, and if the agency head agrees with the view that dismissal is necessary, the whole case and the relevant information, including anything that the employee himself has submitted, will be submitted to a board of review.

Motions for Papers
That was the second thing we wanted. We wanted a quasi judicial board of review. We did not get a quasi judicial board of review; we got an administrative board of review made up of deputy ministers. We are willing to settle for that as an experiment. Therefore the Prime Minister's speech really said two things: First, a man was going to have a right to know what evidence there was to suggest that he was a security risk, and be given an opportunity to answer the charges; second, he was going to have an opportunity of appeal, first from his immediate superior to the deputy minister and then to a board of review. On page 4045 the Prime Minister said:
I feel confident that the procedures which we are now adopting will assist us in making judgments concerning loyalty and reliability in a manner which will protect individual rights as well as national interests.
The Prime Minister said he was confident that this system he was proposing would work. The Minister of Justice has told us today that the government has gone much further than any other government in setting up these two requirements outlined in the Prime Minister's speech. If the Prime Minister is confident that these two procedures are effective in eliminating any possibility of injustice, and if the Minister of Justice really believes that by these procedures the government has gone much further than any other government, why should the government now refuse to make public the material requested in the motion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North? All this motion asks for is a copy of all government statements and directives to government departments during the past year regarding security procedures and investigations.
The Minister of Justice says there is only one directive. If this directive contains the two proposals outlined in the Prime Minister's speech of October 25, 1963, why should the government hesitate to make it public? If on the other hand it does not carry out the Prime Minister's commitments, I can understand the government's hesitancy about making it available to the members of this house.
Mr. Speaker, on the basis of this directive members of the public service and the armed services in Canada can be dismissed. These people's jobs depend upon the terms of that directive. It is a basic precept that people have the right to know the law. Individuals have the right to know the terms of a directive which affects their security,
[Mr. Douglas.)
their jobs, their reputation and their future. The minister has not given us any reason at all why this directive should not be made public. He has told us that there are a great many security matters which cannot be discussed fully in public. We agree. We are not asking the minister to make public all the facts about any particular security case; we are merely asking him to table a directive sent out to the departments of government setting forth, we hope, in detail the commitments which the Prime Minister of Canada made to the House of Commons on October 25 last.
I know of no reason whatsoever why we should be denied access to this directive. What possible secret information can there be in it? If this directive follows the speech made by the Prime Minister, it should be saying two things: First, that any person about whom there is some doubt as to his or her security status will have the right to know on what that doubt is based and will have an opportunity to resolve the doubt; and second, that directive, if it follows the Prime Minister's commitments, will say that there shall be available to that individual the right of appeal, so that he can go to the deputy minister and can go finally to a board of review and present his case and seek to remove any doubt upon which his dismissal has been recommended. That is all this directive can contain. What is secret about it? What mysterious formula is contained in the directive that is not to be disclosed to the eyes of poor, ignorant members of parliament?
Mr. Speaker, this is just too ridiculous for words. This is part of the mystique of secrecy that has beclouded security in this country for years. The Prime Minister said, when he wound up his speech last year, that he was confident the procedures he was promising would clear up the situation. The Prime Minister having confidence is not sufficient; this house has to have confidence that the procedures have been established and are rectifying the situation which it was all too clear obtained last year. We have not that confidence; we have not been shown anything that would give us that confidence. If the government wants us to have confidence that they have kept faith with the commitments the Prime Minister made on October 25 last, they will give us a copy of this directive. After all, I presume, this directive has been sent to deputy ministers, maybe to branch heads, and to certain personnel in the armed services. Is there any reason why the House of Commons, the members of

which are concerned about this question, should not see the directive? The minister has not given us any reason at all. We are not asking for confidential information; we are not asking for classified material. We are simply asking for a simple directive sent out to guarantee that the ordinary, basic precepts of justice are being adhered to in so far as the public service of Canada is concerned. Surely, Mr. Speaker, that is not too much to request.
I hope the minister will give this some further thought and will come back and give us a frank reason for this directive being denied us. I ask him not to treat us like children and expose us to another talk about the difficulty of security measures and the burden this places upon him. We are not asking him to disclose classified data. We are only asking him for a simple directive, a directive which will either prove to us that the government in good faith has carried out the procedures which it promised this house it would implement, or it will show that the government has welshed on its commitments to parliament and has not instituted those procedures. Until the government discloses such directive we have to draw the conclusion that they have failed to implement the procedures the Prime Minister promised would be implemented when he spoke in the house last October.


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who just sat down stated two alternatives; one from which he drew a conclusion favourable to the government, and the other unfavourable. The first alternative is that the directive referred to today by the minister contains no more than was outlined by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in his speech last October; the other alternative is that the directive failed to carry out the procedure referred to.
I think on reflection the hon. member will realize in all intellectual honesty and fairness the existence of a third possibility, namely that the directive in question would contain not only reference to the procedure which was set out in this house on October 25, but would also contain additional confidential material, material which could prejudicially disclose the nature of the security structure itself, which would be very prejudicial to our security system as well as prejudicial to the people of Canada and to this parliament to make public at this time.
Motions for Papers


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Certainly.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Could I ask the hon. member whether that is purely hypothetical conjecture, or is he making the statement on behalf of the government that it does contain such material? If so, why did not the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) say so?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out to the hon. member that this is what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau) has said, and said in his statement a few minutes ago, that there was content in this particular directive which, if disclosed, would be prejudicial to the public interest acting through the security system. I think that is a fair observation to make and one which the hon. member in a spirit of fairness would accept.
The hon. member and before him the hon. member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) cited examples which spokesmen for the government in October, and again today, have acknowledged as representing a breakdown in the security system. They referred to the Knott and Petersen cases, and I do not think anyone makes the pretence that there was not a definite failure there. It was to meet that particular failure that the procedure set out on October 25 was invoked. I do not think that anyone in any honesty pretends that there may not be some circumstances, very marginal circumstances, in which it might be possible, even through the screen of the new procedure, for some injustices to be done; but I think we recognize that those particular measures which are now being applied would have caught the examples referred to by the hon. member.
I think it is significant to point out-


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, might I just ask a question. Did the hon. member say, as I thought I heard him say, that there had been an error in the Petersen case? Second, is the parliamentary secretary saying that the procedures now are such that in a similar case the person concerned would be told what were the difficulties so that he could answer them?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: No, Mr. Speaker, I did not say that. What I said was that the hon. member referred to examples; and I was referring particularly to the Knott case when I said that the problem which arose there in my opinion would have been adequately caught by the present procedures. As to the second part of

Motions for Papers
-the hon. member's question, I am not saying that even now it would be possible to do this under all the circumstances. As the hon. member requested before, the actual nature of the complaint in some circumstances was that the security officer responsible be presented for confrontation.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege, I have never said on any occasion that the actual person making the charge against an employee should be brought forward. What I said, and what I will continue to say, is that the nature of the charge should be told to the person concerned. In the Petersen case, Petersen should have been told that it was because his father-in-law was thought to be a communist that he was discharged from the navy. But in his case he was never told what were the reasons for his discharge. I have never said personally, either today or any other time-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest to the hon. member that he is arguing his case rather than raising a question of privilege.


David Orlikow: No, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member said-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I suggest to the hon. member that the correction of a misstatement is not a question of privilege. The hon. member has the opportunity later on in debate to correct a misstatement.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On that point, Mr. Speaker, he certainly has the right to correct some misquotation of what he said, and this is what he has done.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Absolutely; but that should not be done under the guise of a question of privilege.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: The hon. member cannot speak again in the debate, so how else can he do it?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Yes, the hon. member is entitled to speak a second time during the debate to make a correction.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: I would point out that I have absolutely no intention of misrepresenting the hon. member's opinion, but I have a genuine belief from having heard him before and having heard him again today that that is what he was calling for, namely the right of confrontation in a proceeding similar to a judicial proceeding. If that is not his intention,

then I thank him for making clear to me what was not obvious before.
What I was saying when I was interrupted was that hon. members have not come forward with any instances in which the procedure set out by the Prime Minister and which is now invoked with regard to security matters has failed. The examples which they brought before this house are examples which arose before this procedure, and I suggest that this is a good indication of the effectiveness of the government's measures at meeting this particular problem.
In the course of his remarks the hon. member for Winnipeg North made reference to the procedure which was established under the defence of Canada regulations. I would suggest to him that there is a very substantial difference between the basic merits being decided under those regulations and the very delicate issues being decided by the particular security tribunal concerned. I would point out that the defence of Canada regulations have been promulgated for the purpose of determining the status of someone in Canada during wartime so as to decide whether or not that person would be entitled to be free in our society. They do not determine whether that person would be entitled to access to restricted government information. I suggest, just as was suggested in the speech on October 25 by the Prime Minister, that you have in connection with these security regulations a much more difficult and subtle problem, the problem of determining in a particular case the reliability of a particular employee. That problem would have arisen in Canada in wartime apart altogether from the requirements of the defence of Canada regulations.
May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour
appointed for the consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to provisional standing order 39A to inform the house that the question to be raised at ten o'clock this evening is as follows:
The hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Martin), shifting of ore from Timmins to North Carolina for processing.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, it is with very close attention and indeed with respect that, the other day, I listened to the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) when he introduced a project for a national flag-three maple leaves on a white field with two vertical sections-and told us, at the same time, the significance for our country to have a truly national flag.
If, on some occasions, I do not always approve of the economic and especially of the financial policy of the government which, in many respects, I consider as retrograde, because it is not in keeping with the needs of more than three million Canadians who are living in want, it gives me pleasure, on this occasion to offer to the right hon. Prime Minister, my most sincere congratulations for the speech-transcendent on many scores -which he made on that occasion when he asked parliament to adopt the proposed national flag so that Canada may be given an emblem which will create a new patriotic climate in favour of our country a mari usque ad mare, because it will contribute to unite all Canadians, since it is a model or a design free from any foreign figurative symbol, and it will mean at long last that our country has attained its majority, that is the age when our bicultural nation reaches adulthood. By adopting that flag, we will give proof of our national maturity.
It is most amazing to see in this house and even outside some parliamentarians who have not yet cut the umbilical cord binding them to another country and who prefer to stagnate in a state of colonial immaturity. Their fanatic opposition to that flag design, typical of Canada in 1964, indicate that they 20220-315
Canadian Flag
are not true Canadians because even if they live in Canada their mind is elsewhere.
The right hon. Prime Minister, in his speech, said this:
The flags we have used for Canada have already changed as Canada has evolved from colony to self-governing dominion to Independent nation, to a sovereign state respected among the states of the world.
In this evolution, the time has now come for another change by the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for or confused with the emblem of any other country but Canada.
Those are the words of a prominent Canadian, more logical than those of a certain provincial premier who stated, in the last few days, that as long as he would lead his province, the government would fly the red ensign.
Such a statement, like others almost identical to it, reveal the worst kind of separatists that can be found in Canada. Ordinarily, I am a very accommodating man, but faced with such fanaticism and prejudice, I become uncompromising.
The Prime Minister proved with facts that the three maple leaves have a historical and heraldic importance. But, in my opinion, other reasons dictate the choice of the three maple leaves. At all times in history and ancient times, the figure three has been a good number. The three maple leaves express in fact a historical trilogy which marks the development of Canada: the French administration, the English administration, the Canadian administration.
On the other hand, from the viewpoint of natural resources, three leaves make a perfect trio and would show that Canada is a land of plenty, while one leaf would indicate a still life.
In science, three maple leaves could symbolize a triode, for in this automation age, a three-electrode electronic tube plays a major role in quite a number of electronic apparatus.
In music, the three maple leaves could represent a triplet, or three notes of equal value: French Canadians, English Canadians and new Canadians, all of them having equal rights under a bicultural confederation.
From the viewpoint of Christians, who represent the majority of the Canadian people, the Trinity symbolizes unity and, therefore, it is the most beautiful symbol which could grace the future national flag.
For all those reasons, Mr. Speaker, I approve of the proposed design unreservedly. Besides, as matters stand at present, this is no time for quibbling over this matter, for if we were to pick out a design to suit every

Canadian Flag
member's taste, we would have to approve of 265 different designs.
In concluding, may I add that having advocated for 25 years the establishment of a Canadian republic and called for the red ensign and the union jack to be set aside and replaced by a distinctive flag, I will vote for the three-leaved flag with great patriotic earnestness.


Mr. C. S. Smallwood (Battle River-Cam-rose):: Mr. Speaker, I must say that it has been years since a more important matter than our flag has been brought before the parliament of Canada. In many quarters of this house it is being treated too lightly. We have a flag in our country that has flown for many years. There may be reasons why we may need a more distinctive one. However, first, it must be shown to me that over 50 per cent of the people in this country desire that. It must be shown to me that there are good reasons for changing our flag.
This afternoon the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) said the young people would like this new design and we should please them. I am glad they like this new design. However, there are many who were brought up to honour the design we have today. I have children, and they were taught to honour the flag that flies over our country today. I am sure there are many other young people throughout this country who have the same feeling as my children. We must remember our young people, but at the same time we must not forget the older generations, our fathers, our mothers and our grandfathers and our grandmothers, who lived under difficulties in the pioneering years to build Canada for the younger generation.
I rise, Mr. Speaker, to support the amendment for a referendum on this flag issue. We heard the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) say she was not in favour of a referendum. I may say there are some referendums of which I am not in favour. As an example, I may cite the one held at the exhibition in Winnipeg last Saturday when the Liberal party held a referendum on the question of a sales tax in Manitoba. This is the type of referendum I do not favour, because as I stood there watching these people who were controlling the referendum, one young fellow said to the fellow worker in the booth, "I voted five times today". The other fellow said, "I voted 14 times". I am not in favour of a referendum under those conditions. I want an honest referendum held
[Mr. Cote (Chicoutimi).1
across this country by means of which the people can speak their minds.
I object, Mr. Speaker, to the way in which this resolution was put before this house and the dictatorial manner in which the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) refused his party a free vote. He held a hammer over the head of the opposition parties by saying, "You either vote for my design or we have an election". I am not in favour of that design. Before I resume my seat tonight, sir, I shall place evidence upon the record which I am sure should cause the Prime Minister to drop his head in shame. I am sure that every Liberal in this house and throughout the country will drop their heads in shame. I am sure this evidence will give those who are supporting this design something to think about.
This flag resolution, Mr. Speaker, is not the type of legislation which can be introduced in this parliament and amended in the next parliament. This is a moral issue across this country, an emotional issue. Speaking for myself, I may say I represent 58,000 people in this House of Commons. I have been sent here on three different occasions to represent these people, the last time with a majority of nearly 10,000. However, I do not feel I have the right to stand in this house and vote on behalf of the people on such a moral and emotional issue as interfering with our flag.
Some people might ask, how would a referendum work? I brought this up before in the house. I feel, sir, we should have a committee of all parties in this house to pick out three designs to put before the people of Canada. The first design would be the red ensign. No. 2 would be an alteration of the red ensign and No. 3 could be a green maple leaf on a red background. The people of Canada would then have an opportunity to choose No. 1, 2 or 3. By a process of elimination of the third and second choices, we would come to a decisive decision of 51 per cent, and whatever that 51 per cent decided I, as a true Canadian, would be glad to support. We understand that at the exhibition in Winnipeg last week, the New Democratic party held another poll. What was the result of that poll? Fifteen thousand people voted, and 75 per cent of them voted for a referendum on the flag. I wonder why there should be such a hurry about getting this flag. What's the hurry all of a sudden? On May 15 the Prime Minister listed the urgent business before the house and there was no mention of a flag. Then, suddenly, we have a flag resolution on the order paper. It appears as

though the flag resolution is nothing more than camouflage to cover up the mess this government has got itself into. The question of a flag should not be mixed up in politics in this way, or used as a means of covering up the weakness of the administration. We have a great deal of urgent business in front of us and we should set about choosing a flag in a better, more democratic way.
We have been united in this country for 96 years. No issue which has been before us has caused so much disunity across this country from ocean to ocean as this flag resolution we are now considering. It is a burning issue across the country. In my opinion it should be shelved so as to give the people a chance to think the matter over. Then it could be brought back into parliament in a more democratic way.
The main reason for the present confusion over the flag issue is that no one has taken the time to study the red ensign and teach it to our children. Let us look at the history of our Canadian red ensign. I should like to thank the Canadian Legion for much of the information I shall be giving in the course of the next few minutes. The Canadian red ensign has gradually grown up with the dominion until today it is the symbol of Canada's place of importance not only among the great dominions of the commonwealth but also among the nations of the world. By common custom the Canadian red ensign has been recognized as a distinctive Canadian flag, and this position was tacitly acknowledged and confirmed publicly by prime minister Mackenzie King, who in 1945 when welcoming General Crerar to the city, turned to the peace tower where the Canadian red ensign waved, and stated:
And that, general, is another problem which your Canadian army has solved for Canada-the matter of our national flag.
Flags, national anthems, and other expressions of a united country grow out of the true history of a people, and the Canadian red ensign has grown out of Canadian history. Next to the staff, the red ensign has the union jack-the emblem which links together all the Queen's subjects. All the dominions use this jack in their flag, proclaiming themselves to be members of the great family of nations who, standing shoulder to shoulder in the last great struggle, sacrificed themselves to aid the oppressed peoples of the earth and who, by announcing to all the world that they will remain firm in that unity, can do so much to stabilize world affairs in the future, in peace as in war. Are we as Canadians ashamed to 20220-315J
Canadian Flag
be known as a member of this great family? The union jack is a union of crosses of three saints-St. George, the patron saint of chivalry; St. Andrew, one of Christ's apostles who was martyred for his faith; and St. Patrick, a missionary who spread among the Irish the civilization learned in France. It is the union of these three crosses which gives special significance to the red ensign as a national flag for Canada.
It is not generally known that in 1921 the Canadian government especially requested His Majesty King George V to order a new coat of arms for Canada. This coat of arms is in use today, and the design of the shield has been displayed on Canada's flag. The Canadian red ensign is a distinctive flag of Canada. These emblems represent the early pioneers who were instrumental in laying the foundation of this great country-English, Welsh, Scottish, Irish and French-all branches of one great race who, coming together in the land of the maple leaf, built a nation of which all may be proud.
So the shield on the flag, while essentially as "new" as the young nation it represents, has its roots firmly in the past and speaks of the very beginnings of our race. The emblems on the shield date back to very ancient times. The couchant lion came to us from France and was the emblem on the flag of William of Normandy, and ever since 1066 has been incorporated in the heraldry of the British kings. The red lion rampant on the golden field is even more ancient. It was the emblem of the Scottish kings and came to them from ancient Ireland, where it had arrived from the east about 580 B.C. The harp emblem is equally ancient and was taken to Ireland by ancient Greek warriors. The fleur-de-lis of the fourth quarter of the shield is well known as the lily of France and held a proud place in the arms of the British kings from the time of Henry II down to the time of George III proclaiming the French ancestry of the sovereigns from the distaff side of the house. It should be remembered that it was this emblem, not the tricolour, which came with the French settlers into this country long before the tricolour was used in France. What we want in our flag, and what we have in our flag today, are the symbols treasured by the people who built Canada. The Pearson pennant is a pretty trade mark but it does not represent the sources of this great country.
In 1924, the Canadian parliament enacted legislation providing for the use of the Canadian red ensign on any Canadian building

Canadian Flag
abroad. Canadian troops fought proudly under the Canadian red ensign in world war II. The Canadian red ensign was carried by Canadians in Korea, and is carried today by them in Cyprus. All Canadian teams at the Olympic games carry the Canadian red ensign. The Canada Shipping Act states: "The Canadian red ensign is hereby declared to be the proper national colours for all Canadian ships."


An hon. Member:: Until when?


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I hear those trained seals yapping away there. They will have plenty of time to make their speeches when I am through. Until then they can sit down. When I am finished they will be able to make their own speeches.
The establishment of the Canadian red ensign through history, tradition and custom, was formalized on September 5, 1945, when our governor general signed an order in council which stated this:
The red ensign with the shield of the coat of arms of Canada in the fly may be flown from buildings owned or occupied by the federal government within or without Canada... and it shall be appropriate to fly the Canadian red ensign within or without Canada wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
It will be noted that the order in council stated quite clearly "a distinctive Canadian flag". Those who say Canada has no distinctive flag are either very careless with the truth or they are ignoring Canadian history.
I should like to put on record a letter which came to me here at the House of Commons. It states:
The enclosed article is both interesting and informative. 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 (PC 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 now 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.
That is signed by "Conn" Smythe of the Maple Leaf Gardens.


An hon. Member:: Where is "Red" Kelly.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: I will just give the trained seals a few minutes for a breather, Mr. Speaker. Since the order in council was signed in 1945, immigrants applying for Canadian citizenship are told by the department of immigration:
The flag 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.
Outstanding French Canadians such as George Etienne Cartier demonstrated their grasp of British constitutionalism as they helped launch the young Canadian nation. Lafontaine, Lemieux, and Laurier drew upon the foundations of British political ideas. As Lemieux expressed it:
If you ask me why I am a British subject and why I wish to remain one, I reply...that I prize most those institutions that secure me most strongly in our rights and liberties-
Many non-British immigrants have made it clear that they support the retention of a flag symbolizing a history in which they now want to participate. Writing as "a refugee from communist tyranny" Mr. Alex Bloschinsky of London, Ontario, states in the pamphlet: "The Canadian Red Ensign" distributed by the Canadian Legion:
In Canada I have found freedom, law, and justice. I and other non-British migrants realize what we owe to the British institutions-constitutional monarchy, parliamentary government, and the rule of law. These are the great bastions of law, order and freedom.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I am now quoting from this pamphlet circulated by the Canadian Legion. While I am speaking on this question of a distinctive Canadian flag, it will not hurt to hold up this pamphlet to show the house the banner that is depicted thereon. Two million men served under the red ensign and 111,000 died for Canada under it. This is no time for us, as Canadian citizens, to be kicking this flag about as we are today. The pamphlet says, further:
It is obvious that members of parliament who neither care about nor understand the great Canadian heritage which the Canadian red ensign symbolizes, or who perhaps will vote whichever way they think will further their political future in their party, cannot safely be left to themselves to make one of the most momentous decisions in Canadian history.
This is not a party political question at all: it is one which concerns the very soul of the nation; it is one upon which every Canadian is entitled to have a say now that the government has insisted

that it is an urgent national question. If Canadians are not prepared to act in defence of the symbols of their heritage today, they are inviting the destruction of the very substance of that heritage tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, now that the trained seals have again had a little relaxation, I will continue. I would like to put on record an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of June 15 last, written by Mr. Bruce West. It is a very fitting editorial and should be put on the record on this occasion:
Of the hundreds of letters on the flag question which have come to my desk in the past few weeks, a good 90 per cent are from correspondents who solidly support the retention of the red ensign. As I mentioned here before, it is difficult to individually acknowledge each one of these welcome notes or even to deal with many of them in this space. There are some writers who object to the idea of a national referendum being held on the flag issue on the grounds that this is a question which should be dealt with only in parliament by the representatives of the people. Yet, as the curtain rises on the flag debate in Ottawa, we are already being told that the adoption of the proposed maple leaf flag is a foregone conclusion. Under such circumstances, it seems that we who support the use of a referendum on this matter could hardly be blamed for wondering just how free and democratic will be the process by which the red ensign is being abolished as the flag of this country. There are others who say that a referendum might cause serious division and dispute in this nation. Yet, if the many who support the retention of the red ensign are ignored and legislation to provide a new flag is virtually railroaded through parliament, how much unity will such an action promote? Still others say that the whole question of what kind of flag we should have is a silly argument in the first place. I don't happen to believe that it is. I believe that the impatient efforts of many to discard a banner which symbolizes almost a century of our history may be a symptom of something gravely unhealthy in the affairs of Canada. I believe such an action might be one more large step toward the day when, stripped of our ancient background and heritage, we may stand as hardly more than another banana republic against the already powerful magnetic pull of our huge neighbour to the south. I hope I'm wrong. But I can't help feeling it, just the same. I feel that upon the day the red ensign is discarded, some vitally important threads are going to be removed from the already strained fabric of this country.


An hon. Member:: Now you ought to read the Bible.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: It wouldn't hurt you to read the Bible a little bit. The flag issue in its present form is bringing great disunity to this country. French and English people who have lived side by side, who have intermar-
Canadian Flag
ried and intermingled over the last 200 years, are now saying they are being forced to split and take sides against each other on the issue. In western Canada we have many French settlers. Many are in my neighbourhood, and we live together and are good neighbours. These people say to me: "What is wrong down east? What is all this talk about? What is all this dissension about? We came west and were welcomed and are happy". Although the founding races of the country were French and English, Canada today is a country of many races. Other ethnic groups came to this country under our present flag looking for political refuge, and got it. Under our present flag today we have freedom of speech, freedom of religion and freedom of the protection of the law.


An hon. Member:: You will change all that.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: You would like to change it but you have not changed it yet, and there will be a lot of snow on the maple leaf before you do change it. Because of our history our Canadian flag must contain an emblem representing both English and French races. Therefore, if we should change our present flag we must retain the union jack in one corner to represent the English and the fleur-de-lis in the other corner to represent the French, with a large green maple leaf on a red background.
Now I come to the important point of my argument tonight. We have heard the argument that we need a new flag because our present flag is too easily mistaken for the British merchant flag; the Prime Minister and others have used that argument. I should like to turn to page 4319 of Hansard, where the Prime Minister is reported as saying:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a national flag of the kind described in this resolution, that will be exclusively Canadian-
Remember those words "exclusively Canadian". On the next page the Prime Minister is reported as follows:
-I believe that the time has now come for another change by the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for or confused with the emblem of any other country but Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Hon. members are applauding now but they will not be in a minute. Mr. Speaker, you have heard those remarks. Hon. members opposite are concerned because the red ensign may be confused with the British merchant navy flag. I should like to
4SS8

Canadian Flag
refer to "Flags of the World" by H. Gresham Carr which I obtained from the parliamentary library. On turning to page 190 reference is made to the flags of the Soviet union. There appear to be a lot of flags in the U.S.S.R., and this is what is said about the merchant flag of the U.S.S.R.:
The ensign is white, and has a light blue border one sixth the depth of the hoist along the bottom of the flag. In the white portion are the star and crossed hammer and sickle in red-
I suggest that this proposed flag of the Prime Minister is not distinctive from any other flag. We want to destroy our red ensign because it is the symbol of the British merchant marine and replace it with a flag with the white background, the blue trim and the red of the Soviet union.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: This is a serious matter which should be considered.


Mr. Plourde:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
I should like to point out to the house that the hon. member has had the floor for 33 minutes. I interrupted only to point out to the Chair that the time of the hon. member should be checked.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member again state his point of order, as I was unable to hear it?


Lucien Plourde: Mr. Speaker, this hon. member has had the floor for 34 minutes. He started speaking at 8.15 p.m. I want to mention that the time must be checked.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I may point out to the hon. member that, according to the rules of the house the hon. member is entitled to 40 minutes.


Mr. Belanger:: Mr. Speaker, to us it seemed as if he had been talking for 60 minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Clifford Silas Smallwood: Mr. Speaker, I remember when the former minister of agriculture was speaking in this debate and said that we know what we get when we cross a jackass and a horse. We have just heard them braying. Before I was interrupted I was drawing the attention of the house to the colours of the proposed new flag and its similarity with the Russian merchant marine flag, which has a white background, a blue border and the red

emblem of the Soviet union in the centre of the white. I wonder why the Prime Minister wants to destroy our present flag and force on the people of Canada this design with colours the same as those used by Soviet union merchant vessels. This creates some doubt as to the judgment of the Prime Minister and his advisers and should make the blood of every true Canadian boil. This should give every young Canadian who is supporting this new flag concern for deep thought.
Mr. Speaker, the situation is even more serious now, and in view of what is taking place today I say with all sincerity that there are only two alternatives for the Prime Minister. One is to put this flag issue before the people of Canada by way of a referendum; or else he should resign.


Mr. Reynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add my modest contribution to that of the numerous speakers who have already taken part in this debate. But I shall be very brief, for it is urgent that our country should have its own flag.
In my humble opinion, there is no point in delaying the passing of the measure now before us by asking for a referendum, indulging in obstruction or suggesting that other bills should have priority, because the people want a flag and find ridiculous the objections put forward by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), and the way he is wasting the time of the house by trying to delay the vote on this resolution.
Could it be that the Leader of the Opposition is afraid of the way some members of his party will vote, especially those from Quebec? Or is he conscience-stricken because he never did bring that measure before the house, despite the huge number of 208 members he had in his group then, when it would have been so much easier for him to give our country the flag for which it has been yearning for so many decades?
Our country needs this emblem to strengthen its national unity and to prove its sovereignty once and for all to the whole world.
As far as the referendum is concerned, I must say to the mover of this amendment that he missed his finest opportunity to conduct a public survey early in 1961 when he was prime minister. Allow me to quote from La Voix de I'Est:
Mr. Diefenbaker has tried lately to advocate a referendum on the flag and the national anthem

issue. He reproaches the Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Lester Pearson, with introducing a resolution in the house on the subject and he maintains that only a referendum could reflect the views of the Canadian people on the selection of a flag and an anthem.
Is Mr. Diefenbaker sincere? Let us ask ourselves, first of all, if he held such a referendum during the six years his government was in office. The answer is no. Mr. Diefenbaker did not hold a referendum on the flag or the national anthem.
You can be sure that if he did not think about it, somebody made the suggestion to him in 1981.
Seeing that the Conservative government had been in office since 1957 and that no decision was apparently being taken in regard to a distinctive flag and a national anthem, a Liberal member placed a bill on the order paper of the house on January 24, 1961.
The bill was tabled on that day by the member for St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville, Mr. Yvon Dupuis. It was Bill No. 60, "to amend the Statistics Act".
Mr. Diefenbaker had in that bill everything needed to hold a referendum which would not have cost the government anything and would have revealed what the people thought about giving our country a distinctive national flag.
Mr. Diefenbaker had in the house the largest majority ever and there was a proposal he could easily have implemented himself while he was in office, which he is blaming Mr. Pearson today for not doing.
There we are. In 1961, an hon. member pointed out to Prime Minister Diefenbaker and his government how easy it would be to hold such a referendum at the time of the national decennial census, and that project which would have cost the country nothing and would have established the Right Hon. Diefenbaker in the people's mind was discarded.
We must therefore conclude that the present Leader of the Opposition was guilty of two glaring mistakes when in power.
1.	He did not make any decision on the choice of these symbols.
2.	He refused to ask the opinion of the people on the matter at the most convenient time during the last ten years, i.e. during the national census.
He is therefore unjustified to call for a referendum.
I have noted a very strange thing in the speeches of the members of the opposition, namely that almost no member has dared to say that he was in favour of a referendum.
We, Liberals, have promised the people in 1963 a distinctive national flag. The Prime Minister himself during the election campaign promised that such legislation would be passed within two years.
And, so far as I can see, the Canadian public trust our judgment. Besides, I feel a referendum is useless since, as representatives of the people, we have all received a clear mandate. It is up to us to take our responsibilities. If we fail to do so, the electorate will remember it at the next election and they will say and justly so that those who have tried to turn this important question into a political issue no longer deserve their
Canadian Flag
confidence, and their judgment will be without mercy for those irresponsible members.
Consequently, let us pass this resolution as soon as possible; let us stop this childishness; let us act as responsible politicians and the people will be happy and proud of their elected representatives. The public expect a great deal from us; let us not deceive them. If we do not put an end to this, we will be ridiculed by the people and by the rest of the world and we will have deserved it.
I should like to quote this editorial which appeared in La Tribune of Levis:
The government kept its word; the party now in office had promised in the last federal electoral campaign that if it were elected, it would take the necessary steps to give Canada a truly national flag, which, from sea to sea, would be the symbol of a true country.
From the Atlantic to the Pacific, indeed, but also in foreign countries. For, at the present time, it is not exaggerated to say that there are many people, throughout the world, who think that Canada is purely and simply a British colony. Evidently, the red ensign does not help them to think otherwise. For some years, we have been witnessing the birth of many new nations, especially that of the African countries, and we never heard of any particular problem when it came to selecting a symbolic representation which would be agreed upon and recognized everywhere.
As it seems, that in spite of "last minute" delays, the goal is at last within reach, we should rejoice, while just feeling sorry for some members of the "old guard" who refuse to admit what reason, logic and the example of other nations should impress upon us as an unquestionable fact.
Of course, those people may, for some obscure and hidden reason, have a secret preference for a Canada which would not be free but would have to continue "in vitam aeternam" to solicit from a foreign (though friendly) government the ratification of bills and legislation which concern no one but Canadians.
Traditions are a fine thing, but when, to maintain them, national honour, and, by that very fact, part of everybody's individual honour have to be sacrificed, would it not be better, once for all, to abolish those traditions replacing them by mutual goodwill, a spirit and atmosphere of freedom and total respect for the sovereignty of others?
To act, and even to think otherwise, would be to counter progress, to regress, to go backwards, in brief, to do the opposite of what the peoples of the world and individuals everywhere seek to attain.
In respect to the suggested referendum, the very fact that there have only been two plebiscites in this country's history and, I understand, none at all in the whole history of the United Kingdom, would indicate that such formula is not part of our governmental system.
We have here a symbol around which all Canadians, new and old, Canadians by birth, or naturalized Canadians of every racial

Canadian Flag
origin may rally, and which may be the centre and the core of their loyalty to Canada.
I think therefore that the content of this resolution is daring, logical, wise, and that it deserves the support of the house and of all Canadians.
If I may, Mr. Speaker, I would like now to quote the speech made by the Prime Minister when he introduced this motion in the house:
Mr. Speaker, I believe that a national flag of the kind described in this resolution, that will be exclusively Canadian, will bring us closer together; give us a greater feeling of national identity and unity. Today especially, as Mr. Massey has reminded us, we need faith and confidence in ourselves as Canadians, with pride in Canada, devotion to our country. I believe that the adoption of this resolution will help to produce that result. If I did not deeply and sincerely so believe, I would not be introducing it into this House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, this flag, if it is adopted by this parliament, will stand for one Canada; united, strong independent and equal to her tasks. It will recognize that we cannot be saved or sanctified merely by the valour and devotion of our ancestors. It remains to us in each new generation to do our own duty in changing conditions.
To conclude, I want to tell the house that I will vote against the amendment moved by the Leader of the Opposition, but I will be very proud to vote for the resolution, because I will be happy to tell my children in later years that in 1964, I voted for this flag which is our pride, because I was not afraid to assume my responsibilities and to act as a true Canadian, a true member of parliament and a true representative of the people.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the hon. member for Levis?


Mr. Laniel:: Is the question in order?


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Yes.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: The hon. member said that he would vote for the maple leaf flag. I should like to ask him whether he will vote for the union jack.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I would answer that question, since the hon. member-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. May I suggest that the hon. member's question is out of order, since we are not discussing the union jack resolution.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: You saved him from the rope, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I think it might be safe to say that students of parliamentary government, and I think all

members of the house are that, generally regard as a sort of bible of the duties and the functions of a member of parliament Mr. Edmund Burke's very famous speech delivered to the electors of Bristol well over a hundred years ago. In this speech he set out what the duties of a member of parliament are, and the reasons that he gave are just as valid today, even with radio, television, increased literacy, the press, magazines and other media of public information, as they were when he first set out his dicta. In his speech, as I am sure many hon. members will recall, he points out the difference between being a delegate of the people in the constituency and being a member of parliament, and I think this is a very important distinction to make.
I have had a number of letters, and I am sure other hon. members have had letters as well, saying that it is the duty of parliament and the members of parliament to make a decision on the flag matter. In most cases when I receive such letters I would most certainly agree because that is what members of parliament are sent here to do. As Burke pointed out in his famous speech, members of parliament are sent to parliament to do a number of things. They are sent to parliament to approve the government spending program, to pass legislation and to bring matters to the attention of the public. A great many people, particularly, I am sorry to say, some of those in the field of public media and communication, seem to have forgotten what the function of parliament is. The purpose of parliament is to discuss matters, not to sit apathetically by and accept without proper discussion any proposition that any government puts forward.
To get back to the question of the duty of a member of parliament and what his function is, Burke pointed out very well that since a member of parliament has at his or her disposal the essential facts on any public issue he or she is in a much better position to make a decision on that matter than most of the constituents. There may be some instances where some of the constituents are very well informed but, speaking in general terms, when a public issue comes up a member of parliament is informed or has the opportunity to be informed on the matter to a greater degree than his or her constituents, and it is for that reason that he or she must make the decision.

In 99.9 per cent of all cases this is undoubtedly true, but like most other things that affect human relations and behaviour there are always exceptions because human beings, thank fortune, are not things of metal or stone or computer machines. They have their idiosyncracies, and the exception when a member of parliament is not in a better position to decide certain matters is when he runs into matters of a deep moral or emotional character such as the question of capital punishment, for example. People have very strong personal views on this matter. Matters such as capital punishment are not matters that can really be made political issues because there are enormous differences of opinion even in any political party on such matters, and since these are moral or emotional issues any individual in the country has just as much right to express his or her view on the matter and can do it just as well and just as sincerely as an elected representative.
In my opinion such is the case in the very unique and unusual situation we have before us today, namely the choice of a national flag. This is not a question where a member of parliament has any additional or better information than any of his constituents. This is a moral and emotional matter, one of deep emotional feeling, and every individual in the country has just as much right as a member of this house to express his or her views, because no special knowledge is required to make a decision. This is a moral and emotional issue, one about which there are very deep feelings, as has been made all too evident in the house to date.


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


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


James Elisha Brown: Would he explain to us in what way this issue is a moral matter?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I said moral and emotional. The hon. member for Brantford may not regard it as a moral issue but I have had correspondence indicating that a great many people do. Maybe he does not, but that of course is his business. So far as the flag is concerned, I think the people should be able to express their views on the matter.
It has been pointed out that in the history of this country we have had two plebiscites or referendums. One was on the consumption or non-consumption of alcohol and took place in the last century.


Mr. Byrne:: That is a moral issue.
Canadian Flag


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: That may have been regarded as a moral issue, as the hon. member for Kootenay East points out. That matter was decided by a referendum. Then there was the question of conscription. I do not think that issue was exactly a suitable one for a referendum or plebiscite, but this again is arguable. My view is a personal one and I point out that in that case the government and the members of the house had knowledge at their disposal which their constituents did not and could not have because of security reasons. In that case, the government was in a better position to make a decision. As all of us know, there were other matters involved in the question of conscription. There were racial matters and other things involved, and for that reason it is arguable that it was probably a good idea to have a referendum.
However, I do not believe the case for a referendum on the matter of conscription during the war is the same as the question of a flag. Apparently some of those who supported a plebiscite on the question of conscription are not at all anxious to extend the same courtesy to people from other parts of Canada who feel equally strongly on this matter of the flag.
What do the people of Canada think about this question of a referendum? One hon. member who spoke a short time ago pointed out that a poll was conducted recently in the city of Winnipeg in which 15,000 people cast ballots. I understand the poll was conducted as a public service by the New Democratic party.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Free.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Free, as the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) points out. I understand from press reports that 65 per cent of the 15,000 favoured a referendum on the subject of the flag. I requested a daily newspaper in my city to conduct a plebiscite in a small way in my constituency. I might point out, Mr. Speaker, that contrary to some views I have heard expressed privately around here, my constituency is not one with a solid Anglo-Saxon background. There are a large number of ethnic groups, if I may use that word, particularly those of German extraction as well as Belgian, Hungarian, Polish and other extractions. Recently a large number of people from the Netherlands settled in this area and became citizens of this country. These people have told me they favour retention of the red ensign because this was the flag they remembered helping to liberate them from

Canadian Flag
the Germans during the last war. It is lor this reason many of these people favour this flag.
However, the newspaper was kind enough to print a ballot showing a picture of the red ensign and a picture of the flag proposed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). The people were told to mark an X opposite the one they preferred and send the ballot to their member of parliament. The result was very interesting. I have all the ballots here. Those preferring the red ensign totalled 988, while those preferring the maple leaf design advocated by the Prime Minister totalled 184. The people were not required to sign their ballots, but a good many did. I was interested to note that, strangely enough, the majority of those preferring the maple leaf flag seemed to be of Anglo-Saxon extraction, while a large proportion of those favouring the red ensign were of non-Anglo-Saxon extraction. This is something which surprised me a bit.
Many members here believe that as a result of reading newspapers and letters they know what the people are thinking about in Canada. However, I do not believe any of us really know as much as we think we do. It takes a method such as this to find out what the public really are thinking. In addition to these ballots, of course, I have received about 400 or 500 letters from persons. Making a rough calculation, I think I have received about 1,500 representations on the matter from the centre part of my constituency. This comprises the city of Woodstock and the town of Ingersoll, approximately 34,000 persons. Assuming there was one ballot per household, I think this gives a fair cross-section of public opinion on the matter.
Someone may say, well, we have listened to your speech and you have pointed out that in this case a member of parliament should be the delegate of his constituents. Why would it not be all right then for every member of parliament to conduct a sort of referendum in his own constituency and then he would know the views of these people? A national plebiscite would then not be necessary. This argument might have been very well a short while ago, but this procedure is no longer possible because of the manner in which the issue has been presented. After speaking to a great many people, I would say this, that while there are differences of view about the flag design I found no difference of view about one thing. All these people were very critical of the method used by

the Prime Minister in presenting this matter to parliament.
If the Prime Minister had suggested this design and said, "This is a matter of conscience, this design of the flag, so let members vote as they wish on it", I do not believe many people would have had too much objection to that method at all. It would have been quite agreeable. Instead of that, the Prime Minister said, in effect. "This is the flag I am proposing and if it is not adopted by this house there will be an election, the third one within two years". Nobody in the country, but nobody that I can think of, wants an election. The public certainly do not and I do not believe many hon. members in this house do. The Prime Minister made quite certain that the members of his own party would not dare to withhold their support on the matter, although I think perhaps one or two are not going to support it. Some other groups in the house feel that they must support the Prime Minister's flag, for various reasons, one of them being they realize the public do not want an election.
Another reason that I think the method that has been chosen to deal with this matter is unfortunate is that we hear around the country the new flag being called the "Liberal flag". I cannot think of anything more unfortunate than having a political label attached to a symbol which, at some date, may well become our flag. This is a very unfortunate thing, and I am very sorry to hear this reference being made. I say that very sincerely. However, the situation has been precipitated by the Prime Minister and his advisers as a result of the method used to present this flag to the house.
I do not believe the Prime Minister or anyone else should arrogate to themselves the right to design one of our national symbols and place it before parliament. Then, because of the unusual voting situation in this house at the moment, and because of the fact we have had two elections, he virtually forces it on the house. He says, "My design will be accepted or there will be an election." I do not think it is fair; I do not think it is right. Quite frankly, Mr. Speaker, I am most surprised to find the Prime Minister doing this because he has a great reputation in the field of foreign affairs.
It was because of his ability to make compromises and see different points of view. This way there is no compromise possible. There is no consideration whatever for those who wish to express their views, or who do not agree. They are being trampled on. It

seems to me to be out of character for the Prime Minister to do things like that in this country.


An hon. Member:: May I be permitted a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I have had one question already. Time is getting on, I see. At the conclusion of my remarks the hon. member may ask all the questions he pleases.
I suggest it would have been better if the Prime Minister had formed a committee of members of all parties in this house and the other place and had requested that committee within a set and limited time to recommend a design for a Canadian flag. I remember a judge saying to counsel in court during discussion of a damage action settlement, "Have you two gentlemen reached a mutually satisfactory agreement on the amount of damage?" One counsel replied, "Mutually unsatisfactory, my Lord". I imagine if a committee were formed and told they had to make a recommendation within a certain time probably the decision would be mutually unsatisfactory but there would not be just one point of view; at least there would be a compromise of viewpoints in the design.
There are many of us who feel strongly that something in this flag should represent our traditions and institutions. I of course mean that the union jack should form part of our flag. It forms part of the New Zealand flag, part of the Australian flag, and part of the flag of the Union of South Africa, and I am sure my friends from Quebec would hardly call the Union of South Africa a British colony. Yet they retain it and do not find it offensive. The state of Hawaii in the United States retains the union jack as part of its flag because of its traditions, and no one would think that the state of Hawaii was a British colony. Other people think there should be no connection with our institutions or tradition in the flag, urging that we should have something new, regardless of whether it is good or not. I agree, having heard the speech of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) and of the Prime Minister that there is some connection in some of our traditions about the three maple leaves. That we know. But to most people those three leaves do not mean very much; they have to dig around in history books to find where they came from, and I am sure most of us in this house when we learned their origin from the hon. member for Leeds and the Prime Minister were rather surprised to find this out, though I agree it is quite accurate.
20220-316J
Canadian Flag
We have heard many speeches saying that the flag of Canada should be a distinctive flag and I quite agree. Again we run into ai little problem of semantics. Distinctive means one thing to one person and another to another. Certainly to my friends in the province of Quebec, distinctive means one thing-anything as long as it has not got a union jack in it. To people in other parts of the country distinctive means a flag of unique design which cannot easily be confused with another flag, not even with the Russian merchant marine flag as was pointed out a few moments ago. In that regard I am not at all convinced that there is a strong opposition to the use of the union jack in the province of Quebec as has been pointed out. You may ask what I know about the province of Quebec. I do not know much about it, except that last March I made a speech in this house on the subject of a flag, long before this debate started, and I took the liberty of submitting to the house a proposed modification of the red ensign which I considered might be suitable as a compromise. It was a white ensign with a green maple leaf on the fly and three fleur-de-lis, because I felt strongly that not only the union jack should be retained as representative of our institutions but also that some symbol representing French Canada must be on the flag because, after all, it was the settlers from France who really started this country in the first place and I certainly feel some equally strong representation should be on the flag we have. I feel very strongly and sincerely about that.
In any event the flag was drawn up. A design was made by the Montreal Star and it was published on the front page of the second section. I received a great many letters from people living in the province of Quebec, a good many of them in French which, while I do not speak it very well, I can read as well as English. Much to my surprise the only objections I had then to the flag design were from ultra old school tie Anglo-Saxons.
I did not have any objections from French speaking Canadians. All the letters I received from Quebec on this matter were favourable, stating it was a good design and a good compromise. I am not at all sure that a number of members are not being influenced by a minority view in the province of Quebec. It is true that since the Montreal Star is an English newspaper perhaps a number of people would not have read it, but apparently the Montreal Star has some circulation in

Canadian Flag
the French speaking parts of Montreal because as I have said quite a number of my letters were written to me in French.
The next question, and this is perhaps the biggest question of all concerning the flag is, why now? Why is this matter being placed before parliament at this time and why do they tell us we shall have no chance to get back to our constituencies and find out what our constituents' problems are until this measure has been passed. I have heard it said by members of the Liberal party that this is one of their election promises and they are only carrying it out. That is true, but I do not think it was one of the principal promises made during the election campaign. As far as that goes there were a great many other promises made by the Liberal party in the last election which have been completely broken but which are far more important. I refer to the Canada development fund. And how about those students' free bursaries which were going to be given away? That has been watered down and changed to something else, like a good many other things about which I do not intend to take the time of the house at the present time. I say these other promises are not being kept and are being forgotten, promises as important as this one. Yet there has been no adequate explanation of why this must be dealt with at this time.
In any event the Prime Minister in his election promises said there would be a flag within two years. Well it is just a little over a year. There is plenty of time to appoint a committee of all parties in this house to arrive at a design, or a committee composed of representatives of each province which would probably be equally acceptable, equally good. There would be plenty of time to have a plebiscite on the matter to allow the people to express their viewpoints-lots of time, and still be within his election promise of two years. There is no reason at all why this should not be done. Then, as has been pointed out many times, only last month the Prime Minister told us of the urgent business which must be completed before any summer recess. In the first instance the flag was never mentioned, and then it was suddenly there. Why this indecent haste? Because there has been no adequate explanation from the government a great many people are beginning to wonder. Throughout the country, certainly the parts of the country in which I travel around, one hears this: Oh well, it is pressure from Quebec which has forced the government to bring this issue on. That is one

thing being said. It is also suggested that it is a cynical attempt by the heads of the Liberal party to try to get votes in Quebec, because they are going to have an election fairly soon. That is being said. Then there is another thing that is being said-that it is a quid pro quo obtained by Mr. Lesage and Mr. Levesque for agreeing to the constitutional amendment to bring in the Canada pension plan.
These are the things that are being said. If the government does not know it, it is high time they found out; because I can think of nothing more divisive to this country than the type of talk that is going on. And the reason for it is that no explanation has been given to this house or to the people of Canada as to why this particular design must be forced through-and I repeat this-1 in such indecent haste. There is no reason for it.
We talk about the flag becoming a symbol of national unity; that is what the last speaker, the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) said. It is becoming-and in fact has become already-a symbol of national disunity, because there has been no explanation in this regard. When people do not have explanations, they begin surmising; and what the people of Canada are surmising are those things I have mentioned. Nothing could be more destructive of our country than this. I sincerely dislike hearing things like this, because for years we may have to live with the dissension created by this particular matter. This morning the Globe and Mail in an editorial pointed out that the representation bill, which will re-allocate the federal constituencies, is a most important thing and asked why it is being shelved and put away. We do not hear any more about that particular measure.


Mr. Deschatelets:: Don't tell me that you don't know the answer.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I know that my hon. friend will say that the opposition has filibustered. I have heard it said that this is what the opposition are doing. This did not seem to worry the Prime Minister over the flag, but apparently it did worry him over the redistribution bill, which is something very much more important. This debate is engendering a great deal of bitterness all over the country, which is most unfortunate. To be perfectly fair, I do not think the Prime Minister intended this to happen; I do not believe for a moment that he did. But he has received some awfully bad advice from some of his advisers,

who should have been able to foresee what would happen. This question is now turning into a regular donnybrook all across the country, and it is not helped by some of the remarks that have been made in this house. In addition, it is not being helped by some of the extremist views expressed on this subject, and letters sent to the newspapers.
It certainly has not been helped by a couple of things that have been said recently in what I have always considered to be a reputable and responsible newspaper. I refer to the Ottawa Citizen. First of all there was that shocking cartoon libelling all the exservicemen in Canada, and then only last Tuesday they printed another editorial calling everybody a vigilante who dared stand up in this house and make any remarks that were not favourable to the Prime Minister's flag design. The implication of "vigilante" is that one is a lawless thug, and when a newspaper such as the Ottawa Citizen refers to members of this house, by implication, as lawless thugs because they dare to get up and express the views of their constituents, it is a very shocking thing indeed. I would hope that this newspaper would reconsider its remarks very carefully. It has been said that a plebiscite on the matter of the flag would divide the country. That is all I have ever heard said. Nobody ever said why. This has been done already. Most of the people I have talked to who are in favour of the red ensign have said, "We would be perfectly content, if a plebiscite were held, to accept the results of it; but we do not like the way this thing is being forced down our throats by the Prime Minister and his party. If there were a plebiscite taken, regardless of the result we would accept it." I am quite certain that the people of Canada would do that.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I would like to say this. I have already said that I think the Prime Minister was badly advised when he decided to bring this matter before parliament at the present time. It has already created great disunity, great bitterness in this country; and it will create more. I do not think anyone would criticize the Prime Minister at all if he changed his course of action and withdrew his flag resolution at this time and chose one of the many courses of action that have been proposed by members of this house. It has been suggested that this matter be referred to a parliamentary committee. Others have suggested that it be referred to a committee of the provinces, putting a time limit on it so that no one could say it was being stalled. A number of suggestions have
Canadian Flag
been made. It is not for me to say which is the best one, but I do not think anyone would blame the Prime Minister if he took one of these courses of action.
I have heard some of my Liberal friends say, "If we did that, we would be accused of retreat". Well, the Prime Minister has retreated on a good many other things, and I think he would have some very good reason to change his viewpoint on this matter. I do not think anybody would criticize the Prime Minister if he said, "Because of the great row that has been stirred up in Canada, quite unexpectedly, over this flag issue, I would like to reconsider the matter, refer it to a committee and see if we cannot arrive at some kind of compromise design for the flag". A design could be arrived at that all members could support, and would support. Then the government could get out and sell it, and after a period of six months a plebiscite could be held to see whether the people of Canada were prepared to accept the new design. I think the people would accept a new design if this course of action were followed. The thing which people resent is that only a minority of this house and a minority of the representatives of the people of Canada, those who support the Liberal party, have had any say in this matter. I rather gather, from what I have heard, that very few people of the Liberal party had any say in the designing of this flag, either.


Mr. Pugh:: Or even support it.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: I think the thing that really bothers people is that they have not had any chance to express their view or have any say as to what they consider should be the design of this flag. All of us want a distinctive flag, but it is the method that has been used to go about it that has chiefly concerned the people of this country. I would appeal to the government to change their present course of action and try to work out a design that is acceptable to everybody. They should consult with all the members of this house on this question. Surely the members of the Conservative party, the New Democratic party, the Social Credit party and the Creditistes have as much right to express their views as to what our design should be as has the Prime Minister or the Liberal party. Surely it is to be our flag, and we should have some right to express ourselves. But no; the position the government takes is this, "You can talk all you like, but we are not going to pay any attention to what you say". That is the attitude that is adopted. Therefore I can truthfully

Canadian Flag
say that I think everybody is very justified in resenting this method of approaching the problem.
I would certainly hope the government would decide to change its course of action and let the rest of us in Canada, who are just as good Canadians as those who sit on the government benches, have some say in the choice of our flag.


George Albert Proud: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the hon. member a question?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Certainly.


George Albert Proud: Was the red ensign, which the hon. member and many of his colleagues favour and want to retain as the national flag of Canada, chosen by a referendum or a plebiscite?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: As I recall, Mr. Speaker, it was chosen by a Liberal prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. William Lyon Mackenzie King.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr. Vincent:: And	approved by St.
Laurent.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member reconcile, for the benefit of the members of the house, a statement that appeared in his column of May 30 in the Sentinel-Review, in which he stated that his personal choice for a Canadian flag is the red ensign, with the speech he made on March 2 of this session, as reported at page 443 of Hansafd, in which he said:
Is the red ensign a distinctive flag? In some ways you could say it is, but outside of Canada it has been my experience, Mr. Speaker, that despite the coat of arms on the fly the red ensign of Canada is confused with the merchant marine flag of the British navy; to foreigners it looks very much like the old "red duster" of the British merchant marine; and in some cases it is even confused with the Bermudian flag.
How does he, speaking earlier in March for a distinctive flag, reconcile that with his comments on May 30?


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: Very simply. I still prefer the retention of the red ensign. I agree that in some ways it is sometimes confused abroad. I would favour, as I have already said, making some modification to make it more distinctive, but I prefer the red ensign, and infinitely prefer it to the present design proposed by the Prime Minister.


Mr. O. J. Godin (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I take my turn in this debate following many of my honourable colleagues in discussing what I feel is one of tMr. Nesbitt.]
the major issues and events of this century. In doing so, like a few others I wish to be brief on the subject. Above all I will endeavour to indicate throughout my remarks the respect I have for those in the house or elsewhere who do not necessarily share my views on this great Canadian problem.
First of all, I should like to make reference to my file on this matter and indicate to the house that it goes back to the early thirties. However, I should like to refer specifically to matters of more recent date in it which will definitely bear more on this debate.
I believe I can honestly say that approximately 200 personal letters have been received by my office. I must admit I have received a great quantity, 40 or more perhaps, consisting of printed matter and to which I attach less importance, because anyone could print a letter and send a copy to each hon. member or have other people send the same printed letter to all hon. members. Over and above the 200 letters, I have received 50 personal letters enclosing a flag design, which is an indication to me not only that the writers favoured for our country a distinctive Canadian flag but that they also tried to indicate what in their view may distinctively represent the will of our nation and its soul abroad. Obviously these 50 letters are in favour of a distinctive flag. Also amongst the 200 letters I have counted approximately 20 which definitely indicate the wish to retain the red ensign.
As I followed the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) I recalled that last November I had the good fortune to represent the Canadian government at the commonwealth conference in Malaysia. At the opening of the lovely parliament buildings there I had to notice the flags flying in front of these new parliament buildings, and like every other member of the delegation 1 looked at these flags flying at a distance because their arrangement did not permit closer examination. I recall that I indicated to some member from another nation which of the flags was the Canadian flag. At that time I presumed that the red ensign was being used for that purpose. A few days after the conference opened I was told by one of the personnel in charge of the bands and other matters of that nature that the flag to which I had pointed on a few occasions as being the Canadian flag was in fact the flag of Bermuda. As we all know, Bermuda is a colony of England, and one of my good friends at the conference, Colonel Tucker, who was the Bermudian representative, indicated to me that they are very well

satisfied to remain a colony of Great Britain. This just helps hon. members to realize the importance of having a flag which would be truly Canadian and distinctive as such.
1 should like to pay tribute to many people in this nation who have helped this parliament to bring about the discussion now taking place to provide a distinctive national flag for Canada.

Mr. Speaker, allow me to extend well-deserved congratulations to the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay), my colleague on this side of the house who spoke before me, for his very wise remarks.
I would like also to congratulate the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote) who, speaking for the Social Credit party, expressed so well a little earlier his views on the distinctive flag proposed for our country and his decision to support it.

I think we owe thanks to many groups in Canada for the many years work they have done to make sure that the Canadian people and the representatives of the people realize from decade to decade the importance of adopting a distinctive national flag. I am sure hon. members will appreciate it if I make special reference to the Native Sons of Canada. I carried on correspondence with this association in the early thirties and they are the type of group which have presented their views on this matter. I should also like to make reference to the league for a Canadian flag of the province of Quebec, which has done great work in making sure that all people who want to be informed on the values and significance of flags should be so informed.
It has been said that the proposed flag would either bring about unity or disunity. I am one of those who feel certain that Canada can be united, and in a way which would be permanent, by the adoption of a distinctive flag, which would mean that every Canadian from sea to sea could point to the insignia which would be the flag of Canada and could say: "This represents me. I am a Canadian".
I should like to recall the words used a moment ago by the hon. member for Oxford, who apparently found occasion to indicate the wishes of the Anglo-Saxons, the French, and others. I feel all Canadians could find in a national flag, a flag which is distinctive, a flag which is unique, a flag which caters to
Canadian Flag
no one in particular, something whereby they could unite.


Mr. Churchill:: That is right; it means nothing.


Osias.-J. Godin: I respect and appreciate the view that we should adopt the red ensign because certain people feel it should be retained. I admit the sentiments behind this. I appreciate and respect them; but surely it is a different matter when the government offers an emblem to every Canadian, an emblem which can represent each and every one on equal terms.
I know there are people who will say, "Accept this one; it is most favourable to us. It may not necessarily appeal to you but please conform to our wishes." While I respect their wishes I believe that something which is not Anglo-Saxon or French, and that does not pertain to any other national group, should be used to unite our people. In bringing this proposal before the house I trust no one will blame the Prime Minister by trying to indicate that those who favour a truly distinctive Canadian flag are disloyal to allies from whom we have received so much and whom we respect. That should not be the case.
I recall being invited to speak to a branch of the Canadian Legion in my riding, and I told the members I would indicate to this house what happened at the end of the meeting. The president of the meeting requested a standing vote on the red ensign and the great majority of the members present, some 75 or 80, stood up in favour of the ensign. But I must also tell the house that some members did not stand. I also recall speaking to a meeting at the Carl Nesbitt school in my riding, and these were but two instances during recent times when I was invited to speak on the flag question. At that second meeting somebody indicated that it was disloyal to, shall we say, put aside the red ensign, and I had occasion to tell the group an incident which took place some years ago when a gentleman came into my law office seeking advice.
He was what we sometimes refer to as a new Canadian and he was asking me how to go about changing his name. His name was Sienkiewicz, I recalled that was the name of the author of "Quo Vadis", a book which I enjoyed reading very much. I asked him if he were related to the author and he told me his family considered they were. He told me of his parents who were still in his motherland and how he would like to see

them here in Canada enjoying the liberty which Canada gives to Canadians. I ask you, was this gentleman pushing aside his family in wanting to change his name? Not at all; I recall he took pictures of his family from his wallet and showed them to me. Notwithstanding his love and affection for those he left behind he was trying to give himself something that would be more suited to the country he was now enjoying. Therefore I say let us not try to play on words, indicating that because we want something which will be truly ours that we are pushing aside others whom we have always respected and will continue to respect.
Some people say that a referendum should be held on the flag issue. The hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), who preceded me, seemed to be surprised by the fact that the Canadian parliament is discussing a national flag. He seemed to think that this was something which has come about suddenly; but I can tell him that as a Liberal for many years, and more specifically during the last two election campaigns, my program and that of my party has always included a distinctive Canadian flag. In fact I believe that all parties in this house have included a distinctive flag in their election platforms.
I have heard some hon. members especially those on the Conservative side, say that we do not seem to know what a distinctive Canadian flag would really mean. Nevertheless as I have said, it is part of the platform of all parties and it should not be any surprise that parliament is now being asked to decide the question; it should not be surprising that we who begged votes are now being asked to do what we promised to do. It is in the fulfilment of promises that in a democracy such as ours we are able to give the people those things for which democracy stands. Our people know, through the democratic evolvement of our parliaments, that they will obtain a full degree of maturity.
Before closing I should like to say a word or two about an official flag which, according to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition, would be the red ensign. I have heard many speeches in this house and elsewhere which would lead one to believe that we do have an official Canadian flag at this time, but I believe the case was very well put by the Prime Minister, on the opening day of this debate, when he indicated exactly where the law stood, and that permission was given in 1944 or 1945 permitting the use of the red ensign until parliament took action. That is what we are now doing in 1964.

Canadian Flag
If it were so, that the order in council really meant granting a distinctive flag for Canada, how could the Right Hon. Mackenzie King, the man who was the author of that order in council, proceed the following year to demand that a committee be established to study the flag which Canada might give itself?
I have had occasion to travel throughout Ontario recently and was asked to speak to the children at the Carl Nesbitt school in my riding. I had been invited to speak on the flag question and I first congratulated the students for their interest in this great national problem. I said I should like to start by asking them this question: Have we an official flag in Canada? A little girl in the front row got up, as did a young lad in about the tenth row. I said, "Yes, young lady", and she said, "No, we do not have an official flag in Canada". I said to the young man, "What is your opinion?" He said, "Mr. Godin, we do have an official flag." I said, "You say we have. Which flag is it?" He said, "The red ensign". Then I said, "We can now start the discussion. I should like to indicate my views to you, and my views are those of the young girl." I told them that I must prove my views just as I must prove them to the house tonight. I said to them, "The best proof I can give you is that as I drove up to the school I looked up at the flagpole and saw the union jack flying there, which we all know is the flag of another nation."


Mr. Graffley:: It is in the second resolution.


Gordon Minto Churchill: What are you going to do about the second resolution?


Osias.-J. Godin: It is out of order to discuss the second resolution now, but I might make this remark. The second resolution does not pertain to the flag of Canada, which is what we are now discussing. We are now considering the resolution which, if passed upon favourably, will grant Canada a distinctive national flag. I have no quarrel with granting respect to the attachment that some people may have for the monarch of Canada and the relationship that has existed between our two countries.
When I told these school children what flag was flying over their school it was in the presence of the members of the school board, the principal of the school and 17 or 18 school teachers. I said to them, "Young children, surely if we had an official distinctive national flag the school board would not fly the flag of another nation over this school".

That surprised the principal and most of the people there, I am sure. Therefore with regard to the question of one flag being official I think that the remarks of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), based on facts, based on the history of the flag situation portray the true picture.
Today in 1964 we are doing precisely what people in 1944 thought we should work toward. I trust that members of this house, accepting their responsibility to represent the people who elected them, will decide this question on the basis of the evidence presented to the house and that Canada will be favoured with a distinctive national flag through which and by which, I am sure, all groups will be able to progress because I believe that in a few years from now all Canadians, no matter what their beliefs are today, will honour the flag chosen by parliament in 1964.


Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, could I direct a question to the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) who has just sat down?
I know that he will vote for the flag with three maple leaves but I would like to ask him if he will vote also for the union jack?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Moose Jaw-Lake Centre.


Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion today, July 2, is a very appropriate time to resume the debate on the resolution which would take away our Canadian red ensign and all the history and tradition associated with it. I say that July 2 is a very appropriate day for this flag debate because, of course, it follows immediately after Canada's 97th birthday and the celebrations connected with this long period of very proud history.
From the ruddy glow of health on the faces of many members of the house I judge that they had the same experience I had on July 1, the experience of participating as a spectator in the formal celebrations of Dominion day. It was a well rehearsed Dominion day observance and I congratulate those responsible for the planning and rehearsing. In the years I have been here Dominion day has always had great significance for me in connection with my parliamentary duties and obligations.
This Dominion day of 1964 had particular significance. I am sure this was impressed on all of us in each part of the day's program. There was the changing of the guard, the artillery salute of 21 guns in honour of
Canadian Flag
Dominion day, the carillon recital, the presentation of folk songs and dances by groups representing each of the 10 provinces, martial music by the central band of the Royal Canadian Air Force and then the ceremonies by the armed forces with the royal salute to His Excellency the Governor General.
The ceremony by the armed forces was staged on the front lawn of parliament hill before at least 10,000 people, with 66 Canadian red ensigns, to which some members of the house object, fluttering in the breeze. I am sure this was a sight which must have thrilled all of the 10,000, including the Prime Minister himself. Naturally it was not possible for me to obtain the impression of all those present but I did speak to as many as I could after the celebration and the general reaction was:	Let us keep the flag we
have now.
I mention the Dominion day crowd because the amendment to the resolution before us proposes that we have a plebiscite on the flag issue. If a poll could have been taken of the 10,000 watching the Dominion day ceremony, I am sure the Prime Minister would have been told in no uncertain terms that this most certainly is not the time to try to impose his three maple leaves design on Canadians as a new national flag.
I wish, Mr. Speaker, that we could have held this flag debate out on the lawn in the presence of those 10,000 people as part of the Dominion day observance. If this were possible, I am sure we could have shown clearly to them the logic of the situation as it actually exists in this house, and shown them why we take the stand we do against the three maple leaf design, and why we are calling for a plebiscite to let the Canadian people decide the issue.
I wish all Canadians could be present to hear this debate, then they would not have to read the newspapers or hear over the radio and television the comments of the writers who so often present their personal views as though they were actual fact. I take strong exception, Mr. Speaker, to the biased opinion of one of these commentators who used an entire C.B.C.-T.V. audience to work out some personal spite on opposition members who are presenting the views of their constituents against the three maple leaf design. I will not mention the name of this writer, commentator, editor or whatever he wishes to call himself because I know he dearly loves publicity. However, I will mention that "Bark" is part of his name and that is what he did during most of his comments. The whole theme of his

Canadian Flag
comments was a defence of the Prime Minister's ultimatum that we must forget our responsibilities in parliament and allow the Canadian red ensign to be removed without further argument.
This "barking" commentator, of course, is a friend of the government. You have here a double-barreled ultimatum to the opposition. On the one hand, the Prime Minister says, pass my flag design now or there will be no summer recess, and on the other hand this commentator friend says, the opposition members who are presenting their constituents' views are, and these are his words, pettifogging politicians, trouble makers and irresponsible members who are holding parliament up to public contempt. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that my indignation at the biased and unfair remarks of the television commentator have taken me from my reference to Dominion day.
Each item on the July 1 program had a history and a tradition behind it, as symbolized by the 66 Canadian red ensigns waving so proudly. It is this Dominion day tradition behind the red ensign that we are emphasizing in this debate. This tradition can be expressed in no better words than those appearing in the last issue of the United Church Observer. I quote:
A hoop rolls on only if given a regular tap. Just so the stories of a nation travel down the years if occasionally touched upon. July first is a good time to brush off the dust and bring to light the story of the naming of Canada and also the story of the word "Dominion".
This is the quotation from the United Church Observer to which I should like to call the attention of the house. There is also a great tradition behind Dominion day. Last Wednesday in this house the Prime Minister stated, as reported in Hansard for June 24, at page 4651:
This attachment to tradition is an important element in a country that wishes progress.
In this flag debate the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Cashin) said, as reported in Hansard for June 30, at page 4912, that we must retain those things of our past for which we have so much genuine affection and loyalty. Where is all this history and tradition in the proposed three maple leaf design? The member for Leeds (Mr. Mathe-son), as reported on page 4884 of Hansard for June 30, asked, what is better than this long established sprig of sugar maple to portray us to ourselves and to the world? Then, he commented on what he called, the flag about to be born, about to flutter on our

plains and on our mountains. I come from the plains, the plains of Saskatchewan, where there are no sugar maple trees, no tradition regarding such a tree or the maple leaves on it.
In this connection, if I may, I should like to quote briefly from an article written by Patrick Nicholson on February 23, 1960 when he was concerned about this flag question. I quote:
Many would build the flag around the maple leaf, the adoption of which would make us appear as a colony of the state of Vermont, or perhaps of Rhode Island or Wisconsin, which have already adopted the maple leaf as their symbol.
Apparently some areas in our country have a greater maple leaf tradition than we have on the prairies, and the proposed three maple leaf design might have more appeal there. I was surprised, Mr. Speaker, to hear the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) say that we are here in parliament to make decisions regardless of what our constituents want. I do not subscribe to this view. I want to put on the record some of the views of my constituents, views that I personally support, but even if I did not I would feel obliged, as the representative of these people, to express them in parliament. I ask members opposite to do the same. I am sure many of them have received letters supporting the Canadian red ensign. I have three full files of letters from constituents on the flag issue. I have not the time in this debate to read them all, but I want to place representative comments on the record. I shall just take pertinent comments from several of these letters. This one is from Stony Beach in my area:
Everyone we contacted and that really Included the five school districts and outside districts as well were 100 per cent in favour of the red ensign. Even the staunchest Liberal supporters were in favour of the red ensign. We have approximately 90 families in Stony Beach area and contacted them at school field days, 4H achievement days, sales and meetings.
You will see, Mr. Speaker, this was a fairly good canvass of that area. Here is a letter from a farmer now living in Moose Jaw:
We have a distinctive flag in the red ensign. Let them add a large maple leaf if they wish but let's not toss it aside. Most of the people of Moose Jaw feel this way and we hope you can help us express our wishes.
This letter is from Regina and concludes as follows:
Therefore I ask that you consider voting against the proposed maple leaf ensign, and exert influence

where possible to have an amendment proposed designating the red ensign as our flag.
This letter is from my own city of Moose Jaw, and reads in part as follows:
I do believe the flag issue has caused a disquieting feeling among a number of people, for they express an opinion that there are more pressing things by way of problems in Canada that parliament should be dealing with, and the flag issue should be set aside for the time being and these more pressing problems dealt with.
There we have an expression of opinion about the problems of this country.
This letter is from Lumsden, Saskatchewan, and reads in part as follows:
Seeing that this country was won for the British Empire under the union jack, and seeing also that Canadians fought under the red ensign (which of course incorporates the union jack) in two world wars, and further as I myself am a veteran of both world wars I could not accept or respect any flag for Canada which did not incorporate the union jack in its design.
Here is a letter from Semans, in my area, and this has a direct bearing on the question of the plebiscite.
As for the people around here, whether they are for the red ensign or not, the vast majority feel that a new flag should not be imposed on us without a national referendum. They feel that if the majority of the Canadian people want a new flag then a new flag it should be, but if the majority want the red ensign then the red ensign should be maintained.
Just a line from Craven:
Our old flag, the red ensign, will always be my flag, and the majority of the people in this area have the same opinion including a lot of the Prime Minister's own supporters.
Another from Watrous:
Most of the people I have spoken with are in favour of the red ensign and those who are lukewarm on the subject at least feel there should be a vote on the matter.
The next one expresses an opinion of many people in Canada. It refers to the situation in Moose Jaw where it says there are six to one in favour of the red ensign, and adds:
The other one is the Liberals who are so disgusted with the manoeuvring of their party in Ottawa that the flag issue is the only red herring they have left, so they favour the new flag.
I have dozens of these letters and I will take no more time to put them on record. But I did go through the list and I have here a summary. There are 30 of the important towns and districts in my area represented in this file, and they all express the same comment as I have given so far.
Now if I could just turn to the city of Moose Jaw. As I said before, they have had a survey there which I think would be along
Canadian Flag
the lines of what would happen in a plebiscite, and here is the last comment on it in the Times-Herald of June 15, 1964. The heading is: "Flag Decision Settled in City".
Members of parliament today began the battle of the flags in Ottawa, but Times-Herald readers have already decided the controversial issue.
Final results of the Times-Herald flag poll show overwhelming approval for the red ensign... this makes a more than 80 per cent majority on the side of the old flag.
They held a street survey, stopping people and asking them what flag they preferred, and the pictures of the people they asked are shown on another page under the heading "Six to One for the Red Ensign".
So far I have dealt mainly with individual letters I have received. Of course, I also received a large number of letters from organizations, principally from branches of the Canadian Legion in my area. Concern in Moose Jaw is so strong that they have had a petition circulated and I understand the Prime Minister received this signed petition recently asking for the retention of the Canadian red ensign. Then I have letters from various lodges of I.O.D.E. and the ladies Orange benevolent association. There are a number of these; they are all on the same theme, the retention of the Canadian red ensign. There is one from the Royal Canadian Legion Semans branch beginning:
We strongly deplore the arbitrary action of your minority government in dictating to the people that they shall have a new flag. This contravenes the democratic rights of every Canadian. We respectfully urge that the government call a national plebliscite and restore to the people their democratic privilege of deciding whether they want the red ensign or a new flag.
That was sent to the Prime Minister. It adds that copies were being sent to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), to myself, and to the leaders of the other parties in this house. This is accompanied by a petition signed, I would think, by a representative of every family in Semans. They all ask for the retention of the red ensign.
The army, navy and air force veterans in Moose Jaw through their secretary-manager also sent in a statement as follows:
We, 756 members of the army, navy and air force veterans in Canada, Moose Jaw unit No. 252, do petition you for the endorsation of the red ensign as the national flag.
The comrades who answered the roll call for the last time would not have it changed to any other flag and we, the living, shall maintain and uphold their sacred pledge.
This flag represents the Christian way of life, the aristocracy of achievement of the four freedoms.
4982	HOUSE OF
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion
Then I have received a letter from the sons of England benefit society along the same lines. Also, I have one here from the Royal Canadian Legion in Saskatoon. May I say that I understand the newly elected member for Saskatoon arrived in Ottawa tonight and will probably be in the house tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Ernest Pascoe: This letter from Saskatoon says:
In view of the fact that at present there is no sitting member for the Saskatoon constituency the members of our branch request that you give your consideration to the following resolution:
Resolved that we urge delay in the proposed legislation for the adoption of the new flag and propose retention of the red ensign as Canada's flag until more assurance is obtained that this legislation has the consent of the nation.
That was written before the by-election.
As I say, the newly elected member for Saskatoon will, I imagine, be in the house tomorrow and she will probably take part in this debate. I just wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the house now, and I hope to be able to amplify my remarks later.
Mr. Speaker, may I call it 10.30?



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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


Mr.  M. W. Marlin@Timmins: In the seven minutes at my disposal it will be difficult for me to deal in any detail with the subject I wish to raise; I shall only be able to cover it in what might be called skeleton form.
I am raising this matter tonight because of two things. The first is the recent announcement by Texas Gulf that the intention is, until such time as the product of the big copper strike in Timmins gets really rolling, to export the ore to be processed outside this country. My second reason for raising this matter now is a remark overheard by a Timmins businessman who was attending a meeting in New York when this matter was discussed. An executive of Texas Gulf mentioned they would like to ship the ore to North Carolina but they did not know what the people of Timmins would think


about this. And Mr. Jules Timmins who is, I believe, one of the top men in the Hol-linger organization, made the statement that they did not have anything to worry about as far as the people of Timmins were concerned because the business people of Timmins were a bunch of jellyfish and you could walk all over them.
There are only two ways in which this ore can be shipped at the present time. One is by getting an export permit from the government of Ontario, and the second would be by getting a special freight rate over the Ontario Northland railway, which is owned by the people of Ontario, to ship this ore over the great distance contemplated. It might be said that this is a purely provincial matter, but it is not entirely so because the people of Canada as a whole have a great interest in this development. In the first place, the Timmins area has been designated as one of the designated areas of Canada that is in need of attention from the federal government. In fact, a conference was held as recently as June 17 last at which the officials of the Department of Industry explained the benefits that can be obtained under this program. I attended that conference, along with some 80 or 90 businessmen of that area.
To bring to the attention of the house the magnitude of this situation, I would like to point out that in 1926 when Noranda decided to build a smelter they had ore reserves of one million tons. Some 37 years later, in 1963, after being in production for that period of time, they had reserves of some 11 million tons. In Murdochville, Quebec, when they started in 1952 they had ore reserves of some 67 million tons in the three properties there. Today, 11 years after, they have ore reserves of some 55 million tons. With regard to the strike in Timmins, when the diamond drills reached 800 feet they estimated there were some 25 million tons of ore, at 1,400 feet the estimate was 55 million tons. I am now told that the drills are down to the 2,700 foot level and they have hit ore that is the richest deposit yet, and it is broadening out. I was told by a man who works in the field and has prospected for many years that a sensible estimate of this ore is some 300 million tons.
In the June 27 issue of the Financial Post the picture is traced as follows: 55 million tons averaging 4.85 ounces of silver, 1.33 per cent copper and 7.08 per cent zinc. This tonnage is contained in a body 1,800 feet long and 200 to 500 feet wide. One of the 26 holes drilled has probed to 1,400 feet and is still in

ore; and they are now at 2,700 feet and it gets richer as it goes along.
My point is that the jobs which the federal government should be interested in are involved in the smelting and processing of this ore rather than the actual mining of it. If we lose the smelter, all we will have is a great big hole in the ground and the jobs this great find should be providing will be provided in another country rather than our own. The second point is this. If the smelter is not built there will be no opportunity to establish secondary industry such as copper wire production, electronic fixtures and things of this nature. A whole industrial complex could be built around this project. Another thing which the federal government should interest itself in is that of exchange between the United States and Canada. This is a very important aspect of this operation. A smelter must be built for this operation, regardless of where it is built. The smelters of Sudbury and Rouyn-Noranda can possibly handle the copper production, but they cannot handle the zinc. A plant will have to be built for this purpose, and it should be built in this area. Timmins has everything that is required. There is the mighty Mattagami river; there is everything that is needed for industrial purposes. There is power at Abitibi canyon, the Little Long rapids, and everything that is needed for this industry. There is natural gas running through to southern Ontario and thousands and thousands of acres of land that could be bought at a very reasonable price, rather than going into southern Ontario or some other place where you might have tc plow up fruit orchards and things of that sort
Another important point, Mr. Speaker, is that the smelter should be a custom smelter. If Texas Gulf builds a smelter it could only be for their purpose and other operators will have to ship 100 miles or more, which will mean a difference of $5 or $6 a ton in trying to exploit their production. I would suggest that the government-I see that my time is running out, Mr. Speaker-look into this matter and should if necessary offer to build a smelter on their own. I think it would be a wonderful investment in Ontario for this government and would greatly assist the employment situation in the area.
Last, but far from least, action should be taken, and taken now, because once this ore starts to be shipped out the plans will have been made beforehand and it will be too late to turn the clock back.
Business of the House


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, I am not exactly sure of the question the hon. member was addressing to the government, but I would observe this, that while the government is eager, especially in the designated area of Timmins, to see the maximum of industrial growth, and at the greatest possible rate, the action the hon. member has recommended or is suggesting seems to lie principally in the hands of the government of Ontario, and it would be inappropriate for me to comment on action or inaction on the part of another government.
The hon. member has drawn to my attention that one of the advantages of Timmins is the availability of large quantities of natural gas in the area. This represents initiative taken by the previous Liberal administration and I hope that we will be successful in the present instance in providing further advantage to Timmins.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the
acting house leader if he has any announcement for us tonight.


John Watson MacNaught: Tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, during routine proceedings the Secretary of State for External Affairs will move that the estimates of the Department of External Affairs be withdrawn from the committee of supply and referred to the standing committee on external affairs. The main item of business tomorrow will be the debate on the flag resolution.
On Monday we will resume the committee stage of Bill C-90, to amend the National Defence Act. When the committee stage and third reading stage are concluded we will consider the second reading stage of the bill relating to youth allowances.


Gordon Minto Churchill: I wonder whether the acting house leader has considered that in other years it has been customary for two days of discussion of external affairs before the estimates are referred to committee. This year we have had only one day for that very important subject.


John Watson MacNaught: The sending of the estimates to the standing committee on external affairs is to enable us to get on with the study of the estimates as soon as we can.
Motion agreed and the house adjourned at 10.40 p.m.

Friday, July 3, 1964