1964-06-30

THE ROYAL ASSENT

Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the house that I have received the following communication:



GOVERNMENT HOUSE

[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, June 30, 1964
Sir:
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Ronald Martland, puisne judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, acting as Deputy of His Excellency the Governor General, will proceed to the Senate chamber today, June 30, at 5.45 p.m. for the purpose of giving the royal assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be, sir.
Your obedient servant,
A. G. Cherrier
Assistant Secretary to the Governor General HOUSE OF COMMONS

Mr. Speaker:: I should like to make an announcement which will, I know, be of interest to all hon. members.
The house will recall that the sixth report of the special committee on procedure and organization tabled on May 20 outlined a complete reorganization of the staff and services of the House of Commons, as recommended by the Speaker and approved by the commissioners of internal economy. The reorganization provides for the establishment of a three man staff board under the chairmanship of a director of administration. In addition to the new post of director of administration, provision has been made for three other new positions; a director of legislative services, a secretary for parliamentary associations and a second deputy sergeant-at-arms, the latter to be employed on a sessional basis.
I am pleased to inform the house that appointments have now been made to all three new full time positions. The sessional deputy sergeant-at-arms will be selected in the near future.
The position of director of administration will be filled by Mr. Jean-Marc Hamel, who
has been secretary of the civil service commission and, more recently, co-ordinator of language training in the civil service. Mr. Hamel, a native of Quebec city, holds the degrees of bachelor of commerce and master of commerce in business administration from Laval University, Quebec, as well as that of master of public administration from the Maxwell school at Syracuse university, New York. He has had extensive experience in personnel selection, position classification, and public administration generally. As director of administration he will relieve the Clerk of many of his routine signing and approval duties and will be responsible for the work of the various administrative service branches. Personnel and financial control will be among his major responsibilities. Initially Mr. Hamel will be on a one year loan from the commission.
For the position of director of legislative services Mr. Alex Small, the present chief of journals, was unanimously selected as the result of a competition. Mr. Small has had 12 years' experience on the House of Commons staff in three of its branches, committees, index and journals. During world war II Mr. Small served as a navigator in the R.C.A.F. with the rank of flight lieutenant on release. He was mentioned in dispatches and spent a year in a prisoner of war camp in Germany. Prior to joining the House of Commons staff Mr. Small had extensive administrative experience in the Department of National Health and Welfare.
In his new post Mr. Small will direct the work of the committees branch, English and French debates, English and French journals and the English and French index and reference branches. He will also serve as third clerk assistant and have some duties at the table.
The staff board, which will comprise the director of administration, the Sergeant-at-Arms and director of building services, and the director of legislative services, with the chief of personnel, Mr. Len Hill, as its secretary, will commence at once to deal with various outstanding personnel and administrative problems. These include personal grievances as to salary levels, unsatisfactory working conditions, vacation leave, hours of

Appointment of Staff Board work, doubtful hiring practices and so on. Meanwhile a complete classification study of all positions on the House of Commons staff is already under way and should result in salary adjustments wherever warranted.
Provision is also being made for the establishment, for the first time, of a formal grievance procedure so that legitimate employee grievances will be dealt with in a prompt and orderly fashion. Grievances not settled by the immediate supervisor or the director concerned will be considered by the staff board and, if necessary, the Clerk of the house. It is hoped to eliminate the unsatisfactory practice of having employees take their grievances direct to the Speaker or to individual members of parliament.
The position of secretary for parliamentary associations will be filled by Mr. Ian Imrie, presently assistant chief of national historic sites in the Department of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Mr. Imrie is an honour graduate in arts of Trinity College, University of Toronto, and has had postgraduate training in Europe. He will devote his attention to co-ordinating the staff services for delegations to the various interparliamentary groups, for example the commonwealth parliamentary association, the Canada-U.S. interparliamentary group, the NATO parliamentary association, the interparliamentary union and special parliamentary visits and exchanges that may be arranged from time to time.
I might just add that while the reorganization also contemplates the appointment of an executive assistant to the Speaker, no action is necessary for the time being. Mr. George Carty, a senior civil servant loaned to me to act as secretary to the special committee on procedure and organization, has been carrying out extra duties on my behalf with the title of special assistant to the Speaker.
I should like to record our indebtedness to the organization division of the civil service commission for their assistance to me in working out this reorganization and, in particular, to Mr. H. L. Laframboise, who at my urgent request carried out a complete study of our organization structure. At my suggestion, and in full co-operation with the parliamentary librarian, Mr. Laframboise is now conducting a study of the library in the hope of improving its service to parliament.
At this time I should also like to express my appreciation of the full support and cooperation of the Clerk of the house in making these important changes. Mr. Raymond, the Sergeant-at-Arms and other senior officers

of the house share my desire to bring our organization structure into line with the altered and vastly increased demands of the present day.


Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake St. John):: Mr. Speaker, following the statement you made a while ago and since the Secretary of State is absent, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether Mr. Alex Small, who has just been promoted to the position of director of legislative services is bilingual in the sense given to that word nowadays. Considering that his new position also includes French and English translation, is he sufficiently bilingual to look after the requests submitted by the various departments?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: I will have to look into that, Mr. Speaker. I am not familiar with the linguistic attainments of this gentleman.


Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Montmorency):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Secretary of State is here now, I will put it to him or to the Prime Minister.
Could he inquire at the same time as to whether there were other bilingual candidates for the position whose creation was announced today?


Hon. Maurice Lamonlagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, I will get the necessary information and give the hon. member a reply this week.


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should inform hon. members that the last two questions should be asked in a private capacity. The Secretary of State, in effect, is the spokesman but has not the prime responsibility for answering. If hon. members would care to ask those questions in writing I am sure they will get a full and complete answer.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STUDY OF EFFECT ON CANADA OF SEPARATION OF QUEBEC

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I was asked yesterday by the hon. member for Danforth whether I would make a statement in regard to a reply which

I gave toward the end of last Friday's sitting to an oral question from him, which reply has caused some misunderstanding. The question repeated one made by the hon. member himself on May 20 asking for a study of the social, cultural and economic effects on the rest of Canada of separation by Quebec and, to quote him as he is reported at page 3401 of Hansard:
-so the fullest measure of information would be available to discuss this important subject.
I said at that time that I would give consideration to the proposal but that-and I quote from my reply-
-I would like to add that we are convinced any such study would be entirely academic, because no such separation is going to take place.
The hon. member at that time agreed, but he still thought-and I again quote from his remarks in Hansard-

that there are people in Canada who really think Canada can get along separately, and that it might be useful if this type of information were available.
Those were his words. My answer last Friday was given in the framework of that earlier reply-that a study along those lines would be academic but that the information might be useful. At that time, on May 20, no one took any exception to this exchange. Last Friday strong exception was taken to it. I said on Friday that that kind of investigation -they were my words-is being made; but I also indicated quite clearly that it is confined to the economic aspects rather than the broader range suggested by the hon. member for Danforth. I further indicated quite plainly, Mr. Speaker, that it would be a study not of separation but of the economic interrelations within Canada. It would be a study of the indivisibility of our economy, the indivisibility which would be created by the interrelation of the various parts. It will show, I hope and believe, how the parts of Canada need each other.
To say that we should not study the facts on which our unity is based as well as certain pressures on that unity is, I believe, to show unnecessary fear and lack of faith. To say that in making such a study we are contemplating the division of our country is like saying that we must be warmongers if we study the necessity for defence forces. Ours, Mr. Speaker, is an unusual economy. The vastness of its area and the diversity of its resources mean that regional differences are especially important, and therefore economic interrelations are of special significance.
Federal-Provincial Relations
Matters of this kind have already been examined. They were examined in a famous study, "The economic background of dominion-provincial relations" prepared for the Rowell-Sirois commission by one of Canada's most distinguished economists, Dr. W. A. Mackintosh. I do not think anyone would now dispute the value of this study, but it was made a generation ago. Much has changed since, but there has been no equivalent study made.
I believe it is time that the same economic examination is made again in the light, of new conditions. It will be a study of our economic unity within confederation; but because that unity is built not on uniformity but on diversity we have continually to think of ways and means of maintaining and strengthening it. Our national economic policies have to be based on the facts as they exist today and on an understanding of our problems as they have changed.
The study will be of special value in showing the factors which should influence federal-provincial relationships in the economic and financial fields. In this respect it should be of service, and I believe will be of service, to the federal representatives on the tax structure committee which was planned at the Quebec conference and which, it is hoped, will soon begin its work.
Mr. Speaker, to fail to strengthen the forces of unity in our economy would be a dereliction of duty. The one thing which could bring about such disaster as disunity would be for a federal government to bury its head in the sand, to be afraid of the facts and to refuse to study problems; and we will not be guilty of that.
Since some questions have been asked outside the house, I should perhaps conclude with a word about the procedure that is being followed in this matter. It is a perfectly normal procedure. As hon. members know, studies of this kind are not launched suddenly out of the air. They have to be planned. I have therefore asked a few government officials, economic experts, to advise me on what would be involved in a study of the economic interrelations within our country and how such a study could best be made.
Considered answers to these questions involve quite a bit of preliminary work. When that preliminary work has been done, I will then be in a position to make a recommendation to cabinet as to what formal steps may be required to carry through this study in the light of conditions we now face in this country

Federal-Provincial Relations in the economic and financial fields of federal-provincial relations. When the cabinet has made its decision on this matter as a result of the report I hope to be able to make to it, that decision will be conveyed to the house.


Hon. Michael Starr (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, we have just heard from the Prime Minister; as has happened in the past, a clarifying statement has had to be made as the result of a careless statement made by the government in connection with a policy announcement. I want to say at once that the right hon. Leader of the Opposition is ill with a heavy cold today. I am sure if he had been here he would have commented on the statement that has been made by the Prime Minister with far more emphasis than I can.
However, if we go back over the events that led to this statement of clarification today it will be seen, I am sure, that all of us who were present obtained an entirely different impression; as a matter of fact, even the members of the press did also, as will be seen from newspaper reports. On May 20 the hon. member for Danforth posed a lengthy question, reported on page 3401 of Hansard. Amongst other things he said:
-would the government consider ordering a study of the economic, cultural and social effects upon the rest of Canada of separation by Quebec-
Now, it is quite clear what that question meant. The Prime Minister said in his reply, amongst other things, that any such study would be entirely academic because no such separation is going to take place. This was a good statement by the Prime Minister. However, last Friday the hon. member for Danforth, pursuing the same point, asked again whether the Prime Minister had given any consideration to his previous request of May 20. The Prime Minister replied in these words, as reported at page 4780 of Hansard:
Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been considering the matter. It is not a subject which lends itself to easy investigation and dogmatic conclusions, but officials of the government are making that kind of investigation now.
Anyone reading the original question would come to the conclusion, Mr. Speaker, that this committee of civil servants was making a study of the economic, cultural and social effects upon the rest of Canada of separation by Quebec. It was quite evident that there was a misunderstanding by everybody because the Prime Minister, some four hours later, felt impelled to make a statement of clarification as to what he actually meant by his reference to such a study. Anyone listening to the Prime Minister at that time would

have come to the conclusion that this government was studying the effects of separation by Quebec from the rest of Canada. This was indeed a strange attitude to be taken by any government, since they should have been studying measures to bring about unity in Canada rather than separation.
Yesterday the hon. member for Danforth referred to what he called an irresponsible statement by the Leader of the Opposition which was issued to the press late Friday afternoon. I say, in view of this whole situation, the irresponsible statements that have been made prior to today have been made by the Prime Minister of this country and the government he represents.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I rise on a question of personal privilege. Perhaps I may be permitted to quote the rest of the statement I made on Friday which the hon. gentleman inadvertently left out.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Lester Bowles Pearson: It appears at page 4780 of Hansard, and is as follows:
What is being undertaken is an economic investigation of the interrelation between Quebec and the rest of the country, which is surely a very proper subject for an economic investigation.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, the members of this party are fully in support of the type of study which the Prime Minister has outlined. To suggest that any such study is an endorsation of the idea of separatism seems to me politically irresponsible-


Mr. Lambert:: Not in the original terms.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: -and can only pander to those parts of Canada which are seeking to exploit the differences that may exist between English speaking and French speaking Canada. The members of this house cannot bury their heads in the sand like ostriches. The fact is that talk of separatism is prevalent. I do not think there are many members in this house and I doubt that there are many people in Canada who are in favour of separatism. The fact is, however, that the idea is promulgated. Economic and constitutional arguments are being advanced as to the advisability of the province of Quebec becoming an associate state or even a state separate from the rest of Canada. Cognizance of this fact was taken by the Quebec legislature, which has set up a committee to study the whole question.
I have before me the terms of reference of that committee. They are fairly lengthy and

I will not read them, but in summary the committee was asked to study to what extent the province of Quebec could acquire greater constitutional authority without destroying its own economic viability. This study is to look into whether Quebec is putting more into confederation than it is getting out of it, and whether it would be to its advantage to seek a separate status from the rest of Canada.
I do not take this to mean that the legislature of Quebec is anxious to promote separatism. I take this to mean that they are seeking to gather the data upon which they can answer the arguments that are being advanced in some parts of Canada. When that study is completed it will certainly be used in the province of Quebec and elsewhere to argue for certain transfers of constitutional, monetary and fiscal authority from the federal government to the provinces.
It seems to me that in the light of that fact, Mr. Speaker, the government of Canada and the members of this house need to be armed with all the information they can get. We are not going to answer the arguments of the separatists by putting our heads in the sand or by thinking that if we keep quiet the problem will go away. Nor are we going to be able to answer by waving the flag and beating our breasts about confederation.


Mr. Graffley:: What flag?


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: In the long run light will do more than heat in dealing with this problem, and the parliament of Canada and the government of Canada need to be armed with all the arguments, all the data and all the economic facts so they can present them to the people of Canada. As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, when the government finally decides on the basis for this study I hope the commission will be a fairly strong one, that on it the government will put some able economists who will study not only the problem of separatism but will study also the extent to which the parliament of Canada can continue to strip the federal government of its constitutional powers without destroying the economic viability of Canada as a whole.
Under various pressures concessions have been made. Certain powers have been taken from the federal government and given to the provincial government. I am not going to argue now which of these were wise and which were unwise, but the one thing we do know is that if Canada is to continue as a viable economy there are powers which the
Federal-Provincial Relations government of Canada must retain in order that this country may operate economically and efficiently.
We will only get that kind of information if there is the fullest possible study, not only of the relations of English speaking Canada and French speaking Canada, but of the federal government's economic relations to all the provinces. We are in great danger in Canada of becoming regionalized to the point where the type of economic planning which has become part and parcel of the program of almost every industrial country in the world will be meaningless if we continue to go down a road that, while it might maintain a semblance of unity, would actually lead to the economic disintegration of this country.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker we support the idea of such a study. We hope the government will not leave this to busy government officials who have many other things to do, but that a commission of outstanding economists and constitutional experts will be given this task in order that we may have something similar to the Rowell-Sirois commission that will give Canada a blueprint which we can follow for the next quarter of a century.


Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, some people say that we should wait and consider the results of all the studies made, before undertaking some ourselves. I think that it is normal and appropriate for this parliament to start a personal investigation on all possible economic implications of a provincial secession, whether on the part of Quebec or another province, because we know that there are some other provinces which really need all their economic means, and are ready to go as far as separation to obtain or regain them.
Yet, I hope that this investigation will not be made in the spirit suggested by the hon. Minister of Finance, when, yesterday, he declared himself certain-as if he had given some instructions on the manner in which this investigation was to be made when it gets under way-that no investigation into the Canadian situation could end in favour of Quebec separatism.
And he added, as reported in Le Devoir:
It could In no way favour a secession.
-when speaking of the inquiry.
Obviously, this remains to be proved. There is every reason to believe that the results of the inquiry might point that way, but I think

Federal-Provincial Relations it would be most unwise to anticipate the results of that investigation.
Various reliable persons throughout the country advanced very valid arguments, saying that there certainly were some economic advantages for the province of Quebec in being part of the confederation. Would there be adequate compensations? Quite possibly. The investigation will prove it. We should not anticipate the results.
I would like to say one last word. There was some mention of Canadian unity, and I am all for it. But if unity means loss of its personality for any one province, whether it be Quebec or another, but most particularly Quebec, and that unity also signifies the loss of the French Canadian character, we would not approve it. We agree that there should be a close and active co-operation between the two racial groups in Canada and between the various provinces.
If, however, unity means the loss of those personalities, we shall no longer agree. I am convinced beforehand the survey will show that Quebec would not remain within confederation if those considerations were disregarded.
I feel, however, that parliamentarians take a sufficiently general view of our national problems to understand this situation and to agree with the Prime Minister when he states that Quebec is not a province like the others and that it should not be treated like the other provinces.


Mr. Real Caouetie (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I share the opinion expressed by the Prime Minister a while ago, when he said that if the government refused to consider the problems which arise from time to time, it would be proof of inefficiency and an indication that it does not have the required courage to face its obligations.
I feel that a thorough study of the problems which arise in the economic, social and cultural fields should be made from time to time, periodically, to see exactly what is going on and what has taken place in all the provinces of Canada, and that such a study has been imperative for a long time; but between that and saying, for instance, that the purpose of such a study is to prove that our economy cannot be divided there is quite a difference, because while government experts endeavour in all Canadian provinces to settle or study economic, social and cultural problems, in some other provinces, namely in the province of Quebec, experts and economists are now making studies to see how far Quebec could be self-sufficient.
What is the use of making a secret of it? Everybody knows that such work has been going on in Quebec for many months; but this does not mean that Quebec will separate. This merely means-and this is a warning to the federal government-that it is time to have a sound national policy, to face facts and realize that the provinces must have more freedom, otherwise the time will come when we will live in a period of economic chaos which will please nobody in the country and no province.
Mr. Speaker, the province of Quebec can be different from the others, but all it asks of the federal government-just as the other provinces do at the federal-provincial conferences-is what it is entitled to and nothing else. It is not requested that another province be emptied to fill the province of Quebec. Such is not the case, but the province of Quebec should be allowed, like the others, to develop in a natural way, to accomplish its emancipation according to its aspirations, its life, its culture and its physical possibilities.
That is why the Ralliement Creditiste informed the federal government, several months ago, that we claim for Quebec: 1. The control of credit, which will solve the monetary question in our province, and also in the other provinces.
2. Decentralization to the point of letting the provinces deal with their immigration problem. That is that what we are asking for the province of Quebec.
I just heard an hon. member say that makes him laugh. Mark my words, he will not be laughing so much in his riding at the next election.
Mr. Speaker, the third point is the control of our imports and exports and the return of taxation rights to the provinces.
The government should seriously consider those points and, at federal-provincial conferences, act upon the economic, social and cultural study the experts are now making and which, I hope, will result in a better understanding between the provinces that will enable us to celebrate not, as will be the case tomorrow July 1, a confederation that is going down the river, but a revitalized, living renovated confederation, a confederation in which each province would be allowed to develop according to its aspirations and possibilities.


Mr. Scolt:: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Dan-forth rising on a point of order, of privilege or what?


Reid Scott: Mr. Speaker, I was going to say a word, with your consent.


Mr. Speaker:: It is customary on motions just to have the leaders of the different parties speak. Perhaps the hon. member will have an opportunity later.



TRANSPORT


Hon. G. J. Mcllraiih (Acting Minister of Transport):: I should like to make a brief statement concerning the St. Lawrence seaway tolls review.
The governments of Canada and the United States have exchanged notes approving a supplemental agreement to the 1959 agreement between the St. Lawrence seaway authority and the Saint Lawrence Seaway Development Corporation with respect to the St. Lawrence seaway tariff of tolls. The supplemental agreement provides that:
(a)	The date for the entities to report to their respective governments as to the sufficiency of seaway tolls will be deferred from July 1, 1964 to July 1, 1966, and the developmental period of the seaway will thereby be extended by two years and will be deemed to terminate at the end of the 1966 navigation season. Accordingly, no change in tolls will be proposed at the present time.
(b)	The joint review will be continued and at the conclusion of this two year extension tolls proposals will be related as realistically as possible to the financial requirements of the seaway entities.


Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: I think the house will be glad to hear the announcement made by the minister in the name of the Minister of Transport. This is a realistic move. The St. Lawrence seaway, one of the greatest undertakings ever built in Canada and one which means so much to the economic life of this country besides being the answer to a dream of the whole population, should not be judged by what has happened in so short a period. This is a good move because it extends the period of time during which various experts will have the opportunity to assess the situation as far as the shipping making use of this great waterway is concerned. Also it will give an opportunity to various shipping interests to continue to move a tremendous amount of goods and Canadian products through this great international seaway. Certainly it is to 20220-310
30. 1964	4875
Royal Commission Report on Health Services the advantage of all concerned that such a study be carried on for another two years.



HEALTH AND WELFARE


Lester Bowles Pearson: I should like to table in English and French a copy of a letter I have sent to the premiers of the provinces with regard to a recommendation of the royal commission on health services to the effect that there should be a federal-provincial conference within six months on the implementation of its recommendations.
In this letter I asked the premiers of the provinces to give me their views about the proper form and timing of this consultation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

On the orders of the day:


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that the Prime Minister has just tabled copies of his letters to the provincial premiers to ascertain their views with respect to a conference on health services, it seems to me it would be extremely useful to the provinces if they knew the federal government's stand with regard to the recommendations of the Hall commission. I wonder whether the Prime Minister would be prepared to make a statement saying that the federal government accepts in principle the proposals of the Hall commission regarding the establishment of a universal health insurance program administered by the provinces and financed in part by the federal government.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to announce the policy in due course. It is far too important a matter, I think, to announce the policy on the orders of the day. I would also remind my hon. friend that there will be a meeting of the provincial ministers of health and the federal Minister of National Health and Welfare in a few weeks, when we will have an opportunity of exchanging views on this royal commission report.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister be making such a statement in the house fairly soon, in addition to any statement he may make to the provincial representatives?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it is a very important report, as my hon. friend knows. It

British North America Act is a voluminous document, and it contains a great many recommendations. It is going to take a little time to give all the recommendations the consideration they deserve. As soon as these recommendations are considered we will make an announcement in the house as to our policy.



BRITISH NORTH AMERICA ACT


Mr. Auguste Choquelle (Loibiniere) moved: for leave to introduce Bill No. C-106, to amend the British North America Act, 1867 (royal assent, reservation and disallowance).


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


Auguste Choquette: Mr. Speaker, as I expected to be asked to do that, I prepared myself accordingly.


Mr. Gregoire:: Do not make it too long.


Auguste Choquette: I thank the hon. members for asking me to explain.
We all agree that there are many archaisms, not only in parliamentary procedure but also in the constitution. I feel that the best means to ward off what everyone dreads, separatism, is to strengthen our Canadian purpose which, unfortunately is not prevalent enough in Canada.
To strengthen this purpose, this ideal, our constitution must be modernized. The purpose of this bill is to remove from the text of the constitution theoretical rights which have not been exercised for many decades such as the federal parliament right of disallowance on provincial statutes.
I believe, Mr. Speaker, that this is consistent with the resolutions passed at the 1926 and 1930 imperial conferences. I urge the hon. members to consult Mr. Maurice Ollivier's book on "Colonial and Imperial Conferences".
Mr. Speaker, if the resolution is passed it will allow the supreme court to become the only agency able to exercise a jurisdiction in a federal-provincial conflict. In the province of Quebec, I am sorry to say, the supreme court is held in suspicion concerning federal-provincial matters.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Order.
Motion agreed to and bill read the first time.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Michael Starr: I should like to address a question to the Minister of National Defence. In view of reports that negotiations are now under way with the United States regarding the use of Canadian air space in case of emergency, would the minister advise the house whether any changes have been made in this connection?
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): To my knowledge there are no negotiations going on at the present time with respect to the use of Canadian air space by the United States, and there have been no recent changes.


Michael Starr: Are any arrangements being made to have such negotiations in the near future?


Mr. Hellyer:: Not that I know of. There have been arrangements in existence for some time, as the hon. member no doubt knows, and these have worked quite satisfactorily.



ARMING OF INTERCEPTOR PLANES IN CANADA WITH NUCLEAR WEAPONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Are Royal Canadian Air Force interceptor squadrons in Canada now armed with both nuclear and conventional weapons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Not yet, Mr. Speaker.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Is it the intention to provide nuclear weapons for these interceptor squadrons?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes it is, Mr. Speaker.



NEGOTIATIONS TO WITHDRAW FROM NUCLEAR STRIKE ROLE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs a question. Now that Canada has undertaken a nuclear role in both Europe and Canada, is the Secretary of State for External Affairs in

Inquiries of the Ministry
charge of the negotiations now going on for Quebec-position of vegetable and tobacco Canada to withdraw from that nuclear role?	growers


Hon. Paul Martin (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs naturally shares with his colleagues all matters arising out of government policy.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could I have an answer to the question? Is the minister in charge of those negotiations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I can give a more adequate reply.



AGRICULTURE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: I have a question for the Minister of Agriculture. In view of the critical situation with regard to fodder for cattle in the area north of the Saskatchewan and Qu'Appelle rivers in the province of Saskatchewan and in view of the depressing effect on prices if there should be a run on cattle markets, I should like to ask if the new minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan has made contact with the federal Department of Agriculture about a joint program to meet this critical situation.


Hon. Harry W. Hays (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan has not yet been in touch with the federal government, but if and when he does, the federal government will be most anxious to co-operate with him in every way.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In view of the tremendous importance to the whole country of maintaining the livestock industry in a healthy condition, would not the minister consider taking the initiative on the part of the federal government, as was done in June of 1961?


Harry William Hays: I am sure we will do all that is expected of us if and when the minister of agriculture of Saskatchewan cares to contact the federal government. I might say that at this time the livestock industry, for the most part, is in a healthy condition, healthier than any other livestock industry in the Americas. But we are very concerned about this particular problem.
On the orders of the day:


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Is he aware that the spokesman for 650 farmers specialized in the growing of vegetables and apples, in the Quebec heavy soil lands, stated that 50 per cent of these farmers are facing bankruptcy following the dust storms which caused damages evaluated at about $2 million? Moreover, could the minister tell the house whether he intends to give assistance to those farmers in Chateauguay county, near Montreal, which incurred losses likely to drive them to bankruptcy?


Mr. Pigeon:: Including the tobacco growers in Joliette.


Harry William Hays: In so far as this is concerned, Mr. Speaker, we are conscious of the problem these farmers are having. There is no legislation set up at the moment to take care of these situations in so far as the federal government is concerned. Our position is that when the provinces approach us, we consider the problem along with them and it is a sharing program. I might say that in this regard we are hoping the province of Quebec will take advantage of the crop insurance program which we now have on the order paper, which we think will take care of these situations in the future.


Mr. Clement Vincent (Nicolet-Yamaska):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Agriculture. Can he tell us whether the Quebec authorities submitted a request to the federal government, under the disaster legislation, in order to help these farmers?


Harry William Hays: No, Mr. Speaker; so far they have not approached the federal government in this connection.



REQUEST FOR INCREASED


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the hon. member for Nicolet-Yamaska asked me about the price of milk in Quebec and I suggested that

Inquiries of the Ministry I would get the d.b.s. figures for milk for 1963-64. We do not have the figures for Mayor June, but the April figures indicate that the average price of all sales of milk was $3.20 per hundred-this is for April, 1964-and in 1963 it was $3.09.



INCLUSION OF MAPLE SUGAR PRODUCERS UNDER CROP INSURANCE

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Henri Laiulippe (Compion-Frontenac):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture?
Could the minister tell us whether he intends to apply to maple sugar producers the benefits provided by crop insurance?


Harry William Hays: Mr. Speaker, if the provinces
participate in crop insurance the sugar beet growers in those areas come under the program as well.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Guy Marcoux: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question of vital importance to the Minister of Public Works. Could he tell us who gave instructions to fly, on parliament hill, on the occasion of the 1st of July celebrations, three times more red ensigns than last year?


Hon. J. P. Deschateleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that every year a special committee is responsible for the organization of the 1st of July celebrations on parliament hill. Last fall that committee suggested that in the future, on the occasion of certain celebrations or on the visit of distinguished guests coming here, there be more flags than in the past. It is for that reason that we can see now 66 flags instead of 22 on parliament hill. In view of the fact that a copy of the hon. member's question was handed to me only when I came into the house, I cannot give him the exact day when the committee made that suggestion,, nor tell him whether those additional flags were purchased recently or came out of the stocks of the Department of Public Works. But I shall give an answer to those two supplementary questions within a few days.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the minister a supplementary question. Could he tell us who aie the members of that committee?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I think there is the chief of the protocol division, Department of External Affairs, a high official of the Department of Public Works, a representative from the C.B.C., a representative from the R.C.M.P., an official from the Department of Citizenship and Immigration who is in charge of the afternoon celebration, and a representative from the Department of National Defence, in charge of the evening festivities.


David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the minister. Could he tell us whether the ccmmittee does not include also a member of the Canadian Legion from Winnipeg?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, I shall give all that information to the house when I make a statement within a few days.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a supplementary question to the Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister tell us whether, in the event of the new Canadian distinctive flag with three maple leaves being adopted today, the government has taken the necessary steps to replace all the red ensigns floating on parliament hill by this new flag?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This question is obviously out of order.


Mr. Maurice Cote (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Could he tell the house whether or not this is a good enough occasion to fly our future national flag? We could show a sample of our future flag tomorrow.


Mr. Gerard Chapdelaine (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Public Works. Can he tell us how many French Canadians are members of the committee concerned?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: I do not have this information, but I shall answer that question within a few days.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Public Works

whether he will inquire which is the proper ensign, the one flying over the house or the one flying on the lawn. One has red leaves and the other green leaves. That is just a point of information.


Mr. George Muir (Lisgar):: Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether the Minister of Public Works would convey to the members of this committee the appreciation of the house for flying all those beautiful Canadian red ensigns.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.



POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to refer to a question asked in the house yesterday by the hon. member for Megantic concerning the renewal of a mail contract for delivery of parcel post at Thetford Mines, Quebec. I refer particularly to the hon. member's statement that the present contractor died on June 19. Actually the party who died was Mr. Napoleon Huard, the father of the present contractor. Mr. Napoleon Huard, the father now deceased, had held the contract for several years, but on November 4 of last year he submitted a request to transfer this contract to his son. This was completed under the provisions of the Post Office Act and authorization for the transfer of this contract was issued on December 23, 1963, the transfer becoming effective in February.
A contract renewal would have been authorized without tender as the rates were reasonable. I submit, Mr. Speaker, in view of the statement of facts I have just made, that the hon. member should withdraw without question the remark which appears at page 4813 of Hansard, where he is reported as saying:
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 he is doing now.
I have given the hon. member the facts and I think his remarks should be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Withdraw.


Mr. Speaker:: The Clerk will draw these remarks of the Postmaster General to the attention of the hon. member in due course.
Inquiries of the Ministry


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: May I also say in this connection, Mr. Speaker, that information has since been received that another tenderer is interested in tendering at a lower rate, so we propose to call for tenders in this matter. We will be calling for tenders within a matter of days.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. W. B. Nesbitt (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the withdrawal of United Nations military forces in the Congo today and the resignation of the Congolese government, with the attendant unstable political situation, can the government give us some assurance as to the safety of Canadians remaining in the Congo, particularly some 40 civilian personnel who are attached to the United Nations?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, it is regrettable, of course, that the United Nations has had to withdraw from the Congo at this time before the establishment of internal stability, but this is due to circumstances related to the reluctance of certain member states of the United Nations to bear their proper responsibility in the financing of peace keeping operations. Every step is being taken in collaboration with missions in the Congo to look after the safety of Canadians. I regret to say, however, that information has come that some of them may be missing.


Wallace Bickford (Wally) Nesbitt: A supplementary question. Has the government consulted with the United States regarding the safety of civilians in the Congo?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


REPORTED ISSUE OF ULTIMATUM BY TURKEY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs if he can advise this house whether Turkey has issued a new ultimatum in regard to Cyprus, and whether he can give us any clarification in this regard.


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, as the house knows I saw the prime minister of Turkey last Wednesday and the prime minister of Greece

Inquiries of the Ministry last Thursday. These two heads of government have since conferred with the secretary general of the United Nations and with the government of the United Kingdom. I would hope that as a result of discussions through the United Nations, no such step would be taken.


DISCUSSIONS RESPECTING CANADIAN SOVEREIGNTY OVER ARCTIC ISLANDS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Have there been any discussions recently between representatives of the government of Canada and representatives of the government of the United States with regard to Canada's sovereign rights over the islands north of the mainland in the Arctic?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, I would want to make sure that I fully understand the question asked by the hon. gentleman. Perhaps I would be allowed to answer the question later.
UATO___TABLING OF AGREEMENT REGARDING


ATOMIC INFORMATION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Joseph James Martin: May I, with the consent of the house, revert to motions, Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of tabling a document signed by the members of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization today, being an agreement among the parties to the North Atlantic treaty for co-operation regarding the exchange of atomic information.


SHIPPING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. On May 22 last the Prime Minister stated that the government would be making certain recommendations to the international joint commission regarding water levels on the great lakes. Yesterday the international conference convened by
[Mr. Martin (Essex East).
Premier Robarts urged a new and stronger role for the I.J.C. in this regard. Can the Prime Minister state whether the government has forwarded recommendations to the commission and, if so, what they embodied?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, if I may answer this question, some time ago the Secretary of State for External Affairs wrote to the governments of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec because, so far as the watershed is concerned, it is their waters which feed the lakes. A reply has already been received from the province of Ontario agreeing to turn over an increasing amount of authority to I.J.C., but as yet no reply has been received from the province of Quebec.
I think the conference yesterday dealt not with remedial matters but only with a statement of the problem as it existed. It was attended by some 60 delegates in all, and I believe the publicity and the statement of facts in respect to the problem is a very fine thing for us. I think we are moving in a direction where an increasing amount of responsibility will be assumed by I.J.C., supported of course by technical people, principally from my own department. In the very difficult situation in which competitive demands are being made upon a relatively small amount of water at the present time for power, for the floating of ships in Montreal harbour, and for a great variety of uses, I want to pay a compliment to the specialists who are in charge of this work and who are visiting the minimum amount of damage upon each interested section of the economy.


Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: supplementary question. Could the minister inform the house who is representing the government at the conference held at Montreal today, on the water level problem, and can he say whether that representative is offering the good offices of the government in co-ordinating research efforts on this problem?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary secretary is present in Montreal today and is accompanied by one or two officers of the water resources branch of my department. Complete co-operation will, of course, be proffered. I think he is suggesting that an increasing measure of responsibility be assumed by I.J.C., with our technical men making their contribution.


CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Prime Minister.
Could he tell the house whether the government intends to set up a special committee to revise the Canadian constitution and adapt it to conditions prevailing in 1964?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the government has been studying for some years now the repatriation of the constitution, and that matter is on the agenda for the next federal-provincial meeting.


Gérard Chapdelaine: should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Justice, Mr. Speaker. Does he himself intend to call such a conference in the near future?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Justice):: I think the Prime Minister answered that question when he spoke just now of the next federal-provincial conference.


WORLD FAIR
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I would like to ask him whether as a minister responsible for the world fair he intends to congratulate publicly the mayor of Montreal and his council, as well as all his employees, for having carried out that fantastic project of creating two magnificent islands which will be used as the site of the world fair to be held in Montreal in 1967?


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: I am very happy to say, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be participating this evening in this memorable ceremony. I should like to join with the hon. member in congratulating Mayor Drapeau and all those re-
Inquiries of the Ministry sponsible. May I also say that preparations for Expo 67 are proceeding well. I know this carries the support of all members of this house, since the exhibition was started under the previous government and is being continued under the present government.


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce in connection with the formal handing over of the St. Helen's and Notre Dame islands to be held this evening whether some security arrangements have been taken to avoid deplorable accidents as those witnessed Friday last on St. John the Baptist feast-day? [Text]


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since this is a celebration which is being put on by the mayor of Montreal to turn over the site of the exposition to the corporation, all arrangements are in the hands of the mayor. I am sure he is doing his very best to see that we are all very comfortable and safe.


LABOUR RELATIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister.
Without interfering in the private business of companies, could the government not make representations or recommendations to the Imperial Oil Company, which is now laying off several Canadian sailors, who earn $300 a month, to hire sailors from South Africa or the West Indies, when that company, in my opinion, is not that poor yet and derives benefits from Canadian natural resources?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I think the only thing I could do would be to bring the hon. member's words to the attention of the company.



ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. V. Pugh (Okanagan Boundary):: have a question for the Minister of Justice.

Inquiries of the Ministry When will a county court judge be appointed in and for the county of Yale, British Columbia, to fill the vacancy created by the retirement of Judge M. M. Colquhoun? Actually this judge should have been appointed some time ago, because the law lists are all cluttered up and it is almost impossible to make a chambers application. The question therefore is urgent.


Guy Favreau: This matter is presently under active consideration. I must add that I have received no notice from the provincial authorities complaining of any such situation.



INQUIRY OF THE MINISTRY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State, who answers for the C.B.C. In view of the successful and non-controversial production by the C.B.C. of a program on the Leader of the Opposition, and the less than successful production regarding the Prime Minister, is the C.B.C. now planning a further program featuring the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This question surely is not in order.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: I have a question for the Minister of Labour. Will the minister investigate reports that claimants for unemployment insurance are being denied benefits unless they have applied for and received their social security cards?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I have already investigated the situation. I find it is simply a continuation of a system that has long prevailed, under which applicants must have a number. They formerly had to have an unemployment insurance number. Now they must have a social insurance number. Only in cases where the applicant refuses to secure a number after being informed would any disqualification apply. The applicant will be given every opportunity to apply and determine his number before any disqualification would take place.


Mr. S. J. Enns (Porlage-Neepawa):: May I
ask a supplementary question. Will the Minister of Labour say whether the voluntary registration for social security numbers is proceeding to his satisfaction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am happy to advise the hon. gentleman that the registration has been successful beyond all expectations. More than five million Canadians have registered to date.



TELEVISION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I should
like to direct a question to the Secretary of State arising out of the explanation he gave yesterday for the rejection by the C.B.C. of the Pearson film. I wonder if the hon. gentleman would ask the president of the C.B.C. if he would reconsider the offer I put to the minister to give to the C.B.C., in view of the fact it is apparent that a considerable element of C.B.C. shareholders are tending to believe the C.B.C., by its negative decision, may fear to expose its own standards and technical judgment to the public.


Maurice Lamontagne: I have no objection to asking the C.B.C. management to reconsider its decision. However, I understand that the decision taken was submitted to the board of directors while they were meeting here last week and, under such conditions, I would doubt very much if the decision would be changed.


Douglas Mason Fisher: May I ask a supplementary question. I just asked the minister to check and see if the board of directors' decision was not, in fact, about the showing of the film by the C.B.C., not the sale.


Maurice Lamontagne: I understand that the decision of the C.B.C. management was submitted to the board of directors.


Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the C.B.C.'s decision, could the Secretary of State recommend to that crown corporation to hand that film over to the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation so that it may be disposed of at the highest possible price in order that Canadian citizens may recover a part of the money spent on it?



FISHERIES


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. T. S. Barneit (Comox-Alberni):: I have a question for the Minister of Fisheries. Has the minister's department been advised by British Columbia hydro and power authorities of plans to establish a commercial as well as sports fishery in the huge inland lake to be created by the impounding of the waters behind the Peace river dam. If so, have they asked for the co-operation of the federal Department of Fisheries and the federal government in connection with this proposal.


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minisler of Fisheries):: Mr. Speaker, to my knowledge no such request has been received by my department but if we do receive a request of this nature I can assure the British Columbia authorities of our co-operation.



URANIUM


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. A. Webb (Hasiings-Fronlenac):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. In view of the fact that the Mokta company of Paris, France, is now negotiating in the Bancroft area for the purchase of the mineral rights to properties with uranium deposits, can the minister advise the house if the government is aware of this and also if they are assisting this French company in these negotiations?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for giving me this information. I was unaware of it. I will now follow up.



WATERTON LAKES PART


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources. Can the minister now give an indication of the policy that will be followed in regard to losses suffered due to the flood damage in Waterton lakes national park?
Canadian Flag


Arthur Laing: Not yet, Mr. Speaker. It had been my intention to visit the area last Monday, but unfortunately I was unable to do so. I have postponed my visit.
I might say we have had three applications from lessees in respect of losses they have suffered. I am immediately confronted with the thought that if the government of Canada were to guarantee all uninsured losses against acts of God we would soon be in a difficult position. I think my hon. friend will agree with that. However, we have done our best to put the facilities of these lessees in an earning position again as quickly as possible. My hon. friend will be glad to know that attendance at the park exceeds that of last year. In the seven days ended June 28 we had some 14,000 visitors in 5,300 cars. That is very good indeed.



PARLIAMENT BUILDINGS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Jean-Paul Deschatelets: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Winch) asked me a question yesterday concerning the exterior work being done at present on the peace tower.
I should like to say that the scaffolding which, in his opinion, mars the appearance of parliament will be removed this afternoon and the contractor will no longer have to use it.
The work will be completed in approximately six weeks. I have asked the contractor to expedite matters and to employ additional men if possible to work overtime.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Wednesday, June 17, consideration of the motion by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
[Stage Direction]
Canadian Flag
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. John R. Matheson (Leeds):: Mr. Speaker, tomorrow we celebrate another national birthday, our 97th, without a flag. "Canada does not have an official national flag-"


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Mr. Maiheson:: Mr. Speaker, I hear interjections from the official opposition. Those are not my words, so perhaps I should read them very carefully:
Canada does not have an official national flag, but flies several which are regulated by custom, parliamentary act and orders In council. The union flag or jack, as it is commonly called, and the Canadian red ensign are the two most frequently flown by private persons and by public as well as governmental bodies. The Canadian red ensign is frequently flown both at home and abroad when a distinctly Canadian flag is considered desirable. Much heat is engendered by discussions over what flag should be adopted: indeed, their design has become something of a recurrent national pastime. So far successive federal governments have considered it prudent to refrain from taking a definite line one way or another.
These are a few of the words carefully chosen by Dr. Conrad M. J. F. Swan, Rouge Dragon, College of Arms, London, the first Canadian to be appointed by a sovereign to the college. They are taken from his published paper entitled "The Canadian Arms of Dominion and Sovereignty" which was presented at the fifth international congress of geneological and heraldic science held in Stockholm, Sweden, in 1960. This study is painstaking in its review of relevant authorities. Dr. Swan was speaking to a world body of experts.
Of all commonwealth countries, Canada has been the most careless respecting her colours. Without any underlying reason we stumbled into the use of the sea flag to designate our nation, the sea flag of the British merchant marine recognized as such all over the world. This is a presumption that should not be permitted to continue, a practice that has added little to Canada's dignity in foreign eyes.
The Recorder and Times of Brockville published on its editorial page recently this remark by a British visitor:
Why are some of your people determined to hang onto a flag which never really belonged to you?
The sad fact, Mr. Speaker, is that Canada has remained too ignorant or too stubborn to conform to established British flag usage as a colony while at the same time she has 
been unwilling to assume the badge of a nation. This state of affairs is unworthy of a country about to enter its second century.
Let us hope that out of this flag chaos, for chaos it is, there may come order and beauty. It is time we had a flag to represent our own, our native land; and what is better than this long established sprig of sugar maple to portray us to ourselves and to the world? If this resolution carries we will have a banner that sends the clean and clear message "Canada" in such winsome form as to merit, I believe, the gratitude of our children and the rectorship of judgment.
Sir Charles G. D. Roberts loved Britain but pledged his allegiance to his own country. In his poem "Canada" he wrote:
How long the ignoble sloth, how long
The trust in greatness not thine own?
Surely the lion's brood is strong
To front the world alone!
How long the indolence, ere thou dare
Achieve thy destiny, seize thy fame,
Ere our proud eyes behold thee bear
A nation's franchise, nation's name?
The purpose of a new flag is to bear our name, the name Canada, and a Canada extending from sea to sea. And what about this flag about to be born, about to flutter on our plains and on our mountains, as well as on the far places of the earth? "I am not the flag; not at all. I am but its shadow. I am whatever you make me, nothing more. I am your belief in yourself, your dream of what a people may become. I am the day's work of the weakest man, and the largest dream of the most daring. I am no more than you believe me to be and I am all that you believe I can be. I am whatever you make me, nothing more."
This new flag will be what our brave brothers of the Royal 22nd and the Royal Canadian Dragoons make it to be in Cyprus, the banner of the peacemaker in a dangerous and frightened world. This is a flag of which our young men shall see visions and our old men shall dream dreams. It is our reminder that notwithstanding the love we hold for the lands of our origins our allegiance must be to the land of our children. We are today witnessing a Canada come of age. Permit me, Mr. Speaker, to close in the words of Milton:'
Methinks I see in my mind a noble and puissant nation rousing herself like a strong man after sleep, and shaking her invincible locks.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: 
An hon. Member:: And what happened?

Canadian Flag


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I will read the words of Mr. Abbott, who was then a member of the government.


Mr. Knowles:: In 1942?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: In 1942.


Stanley Howard Knowles: He was just a private member then.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I am corrected; he was just a member sitting on a government side. He said:
It seems to me no useful purpose Is going to be served by an interminable debate in this house or outside it as to the desirability or otherwise of this plebiscite. We are going to have it, and in spite of what some people may say it is a thoroughly democratic procedure. I spoke a moment ago about responsibility and I suggest that the people of the country as a whole now have an opportunity to assume their responsibility, to turn out and vote and show each other and the rest of the world, if you will, that democracy can be made to work even in wartime.
I use those words and repeat them today to illustrate the point that to give the people a chance to express themselves on that issue was a demonstration to Canadians and to the world that even in time of war Canada could face up to an issue in a democratic way. The people certainly did. The majority voted yes. The minority, with deep feelings, voted no. They had their chance to express their feelings in a universal ballot. When conscription was brought about there was aquiescence and in most cases loyal support for the decision. What could have been a terribly divisive force capable of dividing Canada for generations was subdued because the government even in wartime took time out to let the people speak.
Hon. members might let their minds go back to the deep feelings which were expressed against conscription in 1942, not only in Quebec but all across this country. Had that parliament, with all the constitutional authority it possessed, imposed conscription on the people of Canada without holding a plebiscite, then today, more than 20 years later, this country would still be divided on that issue.
You cannot expect a large group of people in a democratic state to be forced into an action they do not like. But give that minority a chance to express itself in a democratic way and the result might well be different. When it was clear in 1942 to all those in every part of Canada who opposed conscription that the majority did not share their view, even those who had opposed it acquiesced. And, to their honour, when conscription was ultimately introduced many of them loyally sup-
ported the government and served this country at home and abroad in the uniform of His Majesty.
I have called attention to this precedent because we are faced now with another emotional issue. This time it is a different group which feels itself to be a minority. I should like to suggest to all those who want to ram this proposed flag down our throats immediately that they should consider the feelings of those groups in Canada which want to remember this country as being founded by French and English alike in a common purpose and sharing a common destiny. They want their symbols to show that common background. Their feelings on this subject of a flag are equally deep.
This is not a subject for great wisdom; it is not a subject for great lawyers and constitutional experts; it is not a subject for flag experts and those who deal with these things. It is a matter upon which the views of every individual, no matter how small he may be physically and mentally, are just as important as those of all the experts gathered together. This is an emotional issue. Large groups in Canada feel their deepest feelings have been assaulted; that the feelings which they and their fathers grew up with have been steamrollered, and I could use other expressions which only those close to the earth would understand. These are their feelings. They may be wrong, but I suggest they feel just as deeply as the people felt in 1942 on conscription. They want to express their opinions.
Read the words of the members who were opposed to conscription in that debate. Many of them supported a plebiscite. Some said "Yes, if the majority approves it, we will abide by it." Today I plead with the house and particularly with those on the government benches. Because you have 128 members over there and we have 95 or 96 over here, you do not have to trample us into the dust on this question. I would like to see it recognized in 1964 that there is a minority in Canada which feels deeply on this matter of the flag, and I suggest that if this flag is pushed through now without their say-so, this minority will grow and grow; it cannot help but grow. If this flag is forced on those who do not want it there will be an irreconcilable minority for decades to come, just as there would have been with regard to conscription in 1942 if parliament had forced through the house a measure to impose conscription on people across Canada who felt as deeply as they did against it,

without giving them an opportunity to express their views. However, when they were given an opportunity to do so and when they saw, after a long period of discussion, that the majority did want conscription, to their honour they not only acquiesced but, in their thousands, loyally supported that decision.
It is the same situation today, only in reverse. The groups I have mentioned are loyal Canadians. They have called for a referendum so their views may be measured. They have said that if the referendum or plebiscite goes against them they will be loyal to the flag which the majority of Canadians choose. What more could you ask from them? The situation was just as it is today, when everyone of us is loyal to those flags which fly on parliament hill today because legally it is the only distinctive flag we have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Many thousands of men- not all of them-who fought in the last war believed they were proving to the world that it was their flag; and now we are told it is not. I simply suggest that the majority of the Canadian Legion have surely earned, by their sweat, their loneliness and their service, the right to have their views considered on this matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: When they were stuck in those platoons on the fighting fronts of the world in 1942, 1943 and 1944 and waited for reinforcements, they saw their government delay and have a discussion over a plebiscite and a vote and then take a long time to put in conscription. Some of us are old enough to remember the bitter words that were said on those battlefields. But looking back at that situation today in retrospect we realize that if that plebiscite had not been given in 1942 there would have been a country divided against itself even today. Perhaps many a Canadian boy is not back here today because the government was slow; but looked at in retrospect, that move eased the pressure and subdued the deep feelings that were there, because they had a democratic chance to speak their piece by marking in the word "yes" or "no".
That is what this amendment asks for today. Surely considering the political realities, as they were considered in wartime, if you can take time out to bring in conscription in the middle of a war, and when there are deep feelings on this issue today-and these feelings will increase on a matter such as this-
Canadian Flag
and we want to maintain unity, we should give consideration to holding a plebiscite on this question of the flag. I suggest that when you already have the promise of these organizations that if the vote goes against them they will accept the new flag and loyally serve under it wherever duty calls, with that pledge you should honour the wish of the Canadian Legion at this time.
I am not going to delve into the intricate problems of the wording of the plebiscite. In my own mind I have gone through this many times. I want to keep the force of the suggestion I am making, which I think is a common sense type of logic, so clear that the people can make up their minds whether a plebiscite should or should not be used on this occasion. I think if the people looked at this situation with all the political realities as they are-and the whole country both east and west wants this country more united- here is one way that I suggest would help. Whether there is going to be, if this plebiscite idea is accepted, a committee of intellectuals, a committee of this house, or even a committee representing the provincial governments, regardless of what type of group you get together to plan the bare terms of this plebiscite I think a plebiscite could be worked out whereby the great majority of these people who now feel they are a minority would feel they had a chance to express themselves.
My final point to the house is this. If this democratic procedure, in the face of the political realities in Canada today, is not followed, then this flag debate may well become the turning point in Canada's history. The issue, as I see it, is whether to reinforce division or reinforce unity. When you have the pledge of these loyal organizations that they will support a referendum or plebiscite and will honour any decision that is taken by the majority, surely that is the way of unity. If you force a flag on the country without a vote you will leave a non-reconciled group on an issue on which it is vital to Canada that there be maximum unity.
I would appeal to those who have felt for many years in Canada that they are a continuing minority. I refer to those who come from the province of Quebec. Surely if you wish us who do not live in the province of Quebec to be always considerate of your position as a minority on issues that affect you deeply, such as your language, your culture and your religion-and believe me, in this country long before confederation and

Canadian Flag
since many of us have honoured those commitments-now that we have those with other loyalties in the maritimes, in the eastern townships, along the Ottawa river on the Quebec side, through many parts of Ontario-


An hon. Member:: What about the prairies?


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: -yes, and through the parts settled by new Canadians on the prairies, and in that old province of British Columbia, you will give this opportunity to those who feel deeply about and adhere to the flag. Give this to those who look not on the union jack as their flag at the moment but on the red ensign; who are proud of the fact that it has religious significance to them, with the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick on it; who are conscious of the fact that many of them left their lands in Europe to get the protection of the principles of law and justice which that flag has spread all over the world. Whether you live in Burma, India, Pakistan, New Zealand or Australia the principles of law and justice under that flag carry on regardless of what new type of government they have. These people should have the right to ask from the government a chance to use their democratic right to express their opinion; and this is all they do ask.
I have heard people say "They had a chance in the last election. They will get a chance in the next election". This argument does not hold, because such a great body of our country, when you are voting Liberal against Conservative, against N.D.P., against Social Credit and against Creditiste, consider that other issues are far more important and they will not vote precisely on the flag issue. This is why many people who are Liberal today do not want a change in the flag. If an election was fought on the issue-and many other issues would have to go along with that- they would vote for the Liberal party because they are more Liberal than they are interested in the flag. The result is that you will leave on the flag issue this unsatisfied minority which will be there for 10, 15 or 20 years- for as long as they live.
Now, you could use another choice. You could slap in this flag and then by propaganda try to convince the people of this country, even though it has no background-I think someone once said that if you cross a horse and a mule you get a jackass-no posterity and certainly no promise for the future.


Mr. Winkler:: Don't bray so loud over there.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I should like to think that if you were going to win support for this new

flag you should face the political realities. Those who support the red ensign today know that much of their battle was lost because they were betrayed by the ministers of education in the provincial governments. Hardly a province in Canada today which has complete constitutional power over its schools has regulation to the effect that the legal flag of this country, the red ensign, must be flown. We have hundreds of thousands of school children who think that the union jack is Canada's flag. It is not; it is the flag of a sister member of the commonwealth. It is a proud flag but it is not ours. Hundreds of thousands of school children have no knowledge of our flag because they never see the flag of their country when they walk to school in the morning and come out of it at night. If the government does bring in a new flag, what good is it to us? After a while the C.B.C. loses interest. After a while the news media lose interest. It is a five day or maybe a nine day wonder. Until our school children see that flag every day and are told what men have endured for that flag, it is a meaningless thing.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the government cannot sell this new flag until they have the support of the provincial governments. And what do we find in this regard? British Columbia is going to fly four flags, and the other provinces will reveal their intentions in due course. I am simply suggesting that when the government have learned so much from the mistakes they made last year in trying to do everything in 60 days, with 300 days to regret it, why do they not adopt on such an emotional issue what I think is a reasonably logical and common sense approach, and if they are thinking of the long range unity of this country and of all people being behind this new flag in the course of a few years they could give to the present minority the same rights as another minority got in 1942. It is not on many issues that referendums and plebiscites should be used to take over the responsibility of the House of Commons; but I certainly believe that history has supported the plebiscite of 1942 and I should hope that history would support a plebiscite on the flag issue in 1965.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment moved by the leader of the official opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) that a plebiscite be held on this very important issue. Before proceeding I must in fairness say that in doing so I am expressing my personal opinion;

but in expressing that opinion 1 am expressing the opinion of many of my constituents and, I am quite confident, of a large segment of the Canadian people. However, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am very glad to belong to a party that protects the rights of the minorities which exist within it.
To indicate the views of many of my constituents on this question I wish to table a petition which was circulated by the young Progressive Conservatives association of Rossland and Trail in Kootenay West, which contains the signatures of something over 900 citizens of our district and which represents the views of members or supporters of all parties which exist in that constituency, the four major parties. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have not the fifth party in Kootenay West. The petition reads as follows:
We, the undersigned, believe Canada's heritage and future can be best symbolized only by the red ensign, bearing witness to her origins and the fundamental cultures from which will stem her future greatness. No twig of leaves alone can achieve this.
I wish to hand to the page boys this petition, which is 70 feet long and is signed by the good burghers of Kootenay West.


Mr. Vincent Drouin (Argenleuil-Deux-Montagnes):: Mr. Speaker, I object to the printing of this petition in Hansard. We heard that the petition included 18,000 names. You can imagine what would happen if it were printed in Hansard. We would have a 3 foot thick volume. Consequently, as far as I am concerned, I object to the publication of this petition in Hansard.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member misunderstands my intentions. I am not asking for the names to be printed, I am asking for the petition to be tabled.


Vincent Drouin: In that case, Mr. Speaker, I have no objection.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Then I am very glad we are in agreement on that question anyway, Mr. Speaker.
Now, Mr. Speaker, if you and the hon. members of the house will pardon a personal reference, I feel that my Norman, my English and my North American Indian ancestry provide me with a background that prompts me to respect all points of view and be able to deal with this question objectively, fairly and without undue emotion.
Canadian Flag
It is quite obvious that the flood of mail which members of the house are receiving on the flag issue indicates that many people's feelings are aroused to a far greater extent than they have been on some economic or social issues. That appears illogical on the surface but it is the fact. Something over 1,000 of my constituents have indicated to me their preference for the red ensign, and I think some six or eight have indicated their support for the proposed flag of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). I contrast that with receiving on a very important issue 10 postcards. It just means simply that people are human and that many take for granted that the other issues will be dealt with by parliament and proceeded with according to their wishes. But people do get concerned over an issue such as this, which indicates that support for symbols can stir people to action who otherwise are not in the habit of writing to members of parliament or expressing themselves in vigorous language. While on the surface this may appear to be illogical, in my opinion it is a healthy sign which demonstrates that multitudes of Canadians still consider ideals before dollars or material values. There is a good aspect to this, and I do not think we should underestimate it.
Now, fortunately, we live in a democracy where people can freely express their opinions and make a choice. Some people prefer abstract art to some of the great masters, others prefer Ezra Pound to the reading of Shakespeare; others prefer Elvis Presley to Beethoven. It is their right in a democracy to choose. In the same spirit of freedom; therefore, some will choose the Prime Minister's flag in preference to the red ensign.
Another interesting thing, Mr. Speaker, is that all parties are divided. We recognize that. It is obvious from the frequent remarks and interjections made by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) and some of his confreres from Quebec that the Progressive Conservative party is divided. There is nothing wrong with that on an issue of this type. The Liberal party is also divided on this issue. I have a very good indication of that. I see the hon. lady member for a Winnipeg constituency looking with some concern, but I shall have to inform her to that effect. Mr. H. M. Copp, of Vancouver, past president of the Vancouver-Burrard Liberal association, wrote a letter in which he said:
Many Liberals, including myself, will never fly the proposed new flag unless the decision to replace the red ensign is made by all Canadians

Canadian Flag
Suppose the Postmaster General issued a stamp showing the Postmaster General shooting down a stork in full flight. We would wonder whether he was going to adopt the bill that has been proposed by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond (Mr. Prittie). It would keep us all on the alert. There are endless possibilities to the announcement of government policy by the issuing of stamps. We think that policy should be announced in the house and that members of the house and the people of Canada should not be kept in a highly nervous state from day to day trying to read the meaning of government policy from the stamps that are issued from time to time. We think that was a blunder.
Fifth, Mr. Speaker, in my opinion it was a blunder for the Prime Minister to address the opening ceremonies of the annual convention of the Royal Canadian Legion at Winnipeg on this issue. While some have lauded him for his courage, and you can look at it from both points of view, it appears to me that in view of the announced policy of the Legion and the very strongly held and expressed views on the part of the great majority of the membership of the Legion, his speaking on this issue at their annual convention was a venture similar in nature to the leader of the New Democratic party addressing a nominating convention of the Progressive Conservative party on the virtues of socialism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A good idea.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: I think that was a big mistake. It caused unnecessary misunderstanding and unnecessary heat to be generated over this important question. At this point I want to take the strongest exception to a cartoon that was published in the Citizen some two or three weeks ago with respect to the Royal Canadian Legion and which I thought portrayed veterans in a very undignified way. I think it was entirely uncalled for. None of us minds seeing a bit of wit and humour in a cartoon, and some sharp thrusts, but I think it is going a bit too far to depict aging veterans of this country sitting around a table drinking beer and content to remain as bloated windbags. I think this was a most unfortunate cartoon. It has been strongly resented by members of the Legion and their dependants and by many other Canadians. In my opinion it was in very poor taste indeed.
It is wonderful how news travels, Mr. Speaker, and I am wondering whether the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Martin) has tipped off some of his friends in

the United States with regard to what he expects is going to happen. The new flag proposed by the Prime Minister is being flown over buildings in New York and Washington, not public buildings but over department stores and other buildings owned by corporations and companies.


Mr. Habel:: Already?


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Yes. We have pictures of them. They have been told: It's all right, boys; go ahead. This is the free enterprise system. A sales pitch is already being made in the United States for the sale of the new Canadian flag. This is not being done because of any love for Canada. I am quite confident that behind this action are the usual mercenary instincts which prompt such persons to take advantage of any developing social situation, whether it be by increasing the price of land because of the building of new houses, or something else. They take advantage of the opportunity for their own profit. In any event, we know that the news has reached the United States.
I want to repeat that this is an important question. I respect any person's sincere view upon it, whatever his view is, but I agree with the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) that the issue is so important it can only be resolved to the satisfaction of the present and future generations by a plebiscite in which the Canadian people will have the opportunity to choose between the Prime Minister's proposed flag, the red ensign or some modification of the same, or some other flag.
I think this is necessary, and that the majority will accept the decision with good will. The Royal Canadian Legion has expressed its opinions strongly in that respect. So have a number of other well known organizations, and I have received a good many letters to that effect.
We should not get too alarmed because people become, as I said before, very concerned about this issue and a little bit worked up. I glory in the fact that Canadians are not altogether concerned with dollar issues. They are concerned with all of these issues related to ideals, related to history, and related to symbols which mean a great deal to all of us in western civilization, whatever those symbols may be.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I am of the opinion that in view of the nature of the issue, the emotional nature of the issue and the close involvement of the people on this

account, and in view of the succession of blunders made by the Prime Minister in the handling of this issue, and in order to obtain a decision satisfactory to the majority of Canadians, it is necessary to support the amendment for the holding of a plebiscite throughout the country so that once and for all we can determine the wishes of the people with respect to a national flag.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I should like to make a comment about the petition which the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge) has presented to the house. I should like to refer the hon. member to standing order No. 70, on page 49 of the "Standing Orders of the House of Commons". Subsection 1 says this:
A petition to the house may be presented by a member at any time during the sitting of the house by filing the same with the Clerk of the house.
My understanding is that the interpretation of that particular standing order is that it is to be filed with the Clerk of the house in the Clerk's office. I should also refer to section 2 of the same standing order which says:
Any member desiring to present a petition in his place in the house must do so during routine proceedings and before introduction of bills.
I am sure the hon. member will recognize the meaning of that particular section and of the action which he has taken in tabling the petition after that period during the day. I might suggest to the hon. member that the better procedure would be for him to present the petition to the Clerk of the house in the Clerk's office.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank you for your explanation. As one who always tries to keep the rules I trust I will not be named for this violation of the rules, and at the first opportunity I shall take the petition and present it to the Clerk in his office.


Mr. Grant Deachman (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, we are all stiff from straining our history muscles in preparation for this debate. It is rather like term essay time in college. Seldom have the librarians been hurled into the battle so early and in such force. I know they welcome the pause which the delays in the debate have given them to clear away the debris of flag books, photocopies, old orders in council and crumpled library slips. They have been struck by a hurricane of heraldry.
Our flag history in the west is somewhat different from that of the rest of Canada, because we are different. The Hudson's Bay
Canadian Flag
Company was trading on the prairies before the American revolution, and long before United Empire Loyalists were heard of. They had their charter from Charles II in 1570, just three years after the birth of Champlain, the 400th anniversary of whose birth incidentally is celebrated in our centennial year. They also had permission to fly the red ensign with the letters H.B.C. in the fly as their company flag. This flag flew over trading posts and forts when John A. Macdonald was a child. It flies over our Hudson's Bay stores in the west today and will continue to fly over them after Canada has adopted the maple leaf flag. Thus, the government of Canada was not the first to fly the red ensign in British North America.
The Canadian red ensign is not a unique and distinctive flag within Canada. We have another and an older one in the west. I wish to extend to all members of this house who may feel an unbearable nostalgia for the red ensign, and particularly to my good friend the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who, unfortunately, is not here this afternoon, an invitation to visit the beautiful city of Vancouver and shop under the old H.B.C. red ensign, six days a week and to nine o'clock on Friday evenings.
Nor is the red ensign distinctive outside Canada. In a window in Toronto airport you may see today a display of world flags among which are seven British ensigns, blue and red, including our own. If you carried the red ensign across Texas, do you really believe that anyone would say, "Hello, Canada"?


Some hon. Members:: They sure would.


Grant Deachman: Like a woman wondering what to wear, Canada has never been able to make her mind up about a flag. John Bouri-not, a clerk of the House of Commons, who sat in the very same chair which Mr. Raymond occupies with such distinction today, wrote a book in 1895 called: "How Canada is Governed". In it he said this about our flags:
The union jack is flown from all fortresses and garrisons of Canada. The Dominion of Canada has also authority to display on all public occasions a national flag, viz., the red or blue ensign. The red ensign is displayed at the opening and closing of parliament, and on national occasions.
The custom of flying the red ensign in Canada appears to have originated before confederation. Sir Edmund Head, later to be governor of the Canadas, wrote to Lord Grey in 1851 saying: "Their flag should be a modification of our own with a difference of some kind." Thus, the idea of an ensign or modified

Canadian Flag
union jack stems, not from Canadian minds, but from the colonial office.
Sir John A. Macdonald apparently encouraged this idea by flying the red ensign on parliament hill. As a Scot, he was probably no union jack lover. James VI had made the first union jack when he slapped England's cross of St. George on top of the cross of St. Andrew and told the fiercely protesting Scots to like it or lump it. Scottish loyalty to the flag today expresses more their increasing equity and proprietorship in England than their brotherly love of Englishmen.
An illustration in Canadian Illustrated News of February 26, 1870, shows the red ensign on the parliament buildings without any identifying crest or badge on the fly. I think I am historically correct in saying that the first red ensign flown on the House of Commons was the undefaced marine ensign, flown by Sir John A. Macdonald in the very first years of confederation. It appears to have flown there regularly until 1904 when a curious incident occurred. On St. Patrick's day, Mr. Henri Bourassa, the member for Labelle and the Rene Levesque of his day, rose in the house and said:
"I noticed on the day of the opening of parliament as well as today, which is St. Patrick's day, that the Canadian flag which used to be put up on the tower of parliament buildings has been replaced by a union jack. I would like to know why the old flag that has been used in Canada ever since confederation should be laid aside".
I can think of no one less likely to champion the flag of Sir John A. Macdonald than Henri Bourassa, unless it were Louis Riel himself. Yet there he was calling upon Sir Wilfrid Laurier to explain what he had done with Sir John's flag.
Sir Wilfrid rose, and if he is remembered for his courtly manners and gracious speech he wasn't wasting any of them on his rival that day. He said:
I am sorry to say that I cannot satisfy today the rather fastidious curiosity of my hon. friend but I will make inquiry and try to give him an explanation upon another day.
Mr. Bourassa replied: "Perhaps the British empire league has something to do with it".
Then the Hon. James Sutherland, minister of public works, spilled the beans. He said:
I may explain to the hon. gentleman that the flag hitherto flown on the parliament buildings has been what is known as the Canadian merchant marine flag. It is not the national flag in any other sense. The national flag, as we understand it for this purpose, is the union jack. Many complaints have reached the department on previous occasions that the flag floating over the parliament buildings was not the authorized flag for that

purpose, and when we were buying a new flag the one which was bought, in accordance with the custom of Canada and all portions of the empire throughout the world, was the one authorized for the purpose.
Quite a different story than the one given by Bourinot in 1895. Then Mr. Bourassa said:
I know that the red ensign is the merchant marine flag but I know it has always been used in this country as being the special colonial flag to which we have added the escutcheon of confederation. It has always been used on the building.
There the matter was dropped. Not a tear from a Tory as Sir Wilfrid pulled down the red ensign and stuffed it into the flag locker- only the plaintive protest of Henri Bourassa. Sir John A. Macdonald had introduced the red ensign to Canada simply by running it up the pole like the jolly roger, when he swarmed aboard the ship of state; and Laurier had struck it from the mast the same way.
Years later in May, 1931, Mr. Cameron McIntosh, then the member for North Battle-ford referred to the incident. He said:
Before 1904 we had the red ensign with the coat of arms of Canada in the fly, which flag was our flag from the days of Sir John A. Macdonald down to 1904. The flag was flown across this country from ocean to ocean; it was the national flag from Atlantic to Pacific. However, it was hauled down in 1904. Why? The circumstances surrounding the taking down of that flag have never been made known to the Canadian people but it was taken down and from 1904 to the present day the union jack has been flown in its place. In 1912 the union jack was made the official flag of Canada by the secretary of state for the colonies and from 1912 to 1931 as from 1904 to 1912 the union jack has been flown in Canada as our Canadian flag-something distinctly it can never be. The red ensign, differenced by the Canadian coat of arms, is flying outside of Canada, but it is not the official flag in Canada, it was hauled down and has never been put up.
The Conservatives were in power in 1931. They could have restored Sir John's red ensign to its place on top of the peace tower. The tower was there, but they chose not to. They left it for Mackenzie King to do that in 1945.
King, at heart a red ensign man, was always under suspicion of performing some jiggery-pokery with the flag. As long ago as May 31, 1929, Mr. Thomas Donnelly asked this hair-raising question:
I would like to ask the Prime Minister if a committee has been appointed, as stated, consisting of six or seven Roman Catholic priests to provide a new flag for Canada.
While I am debunking some history, I want to return to the prairies at the time of confederation. I have said that the flag which flew in the early west was the red ensign of the Hudson's Bay Company.

When Riel took Fort Garry in 1869 the Metis pulled down the company flag and ran up the flag of the provisional government, which bore the fleur-de-lis for their French origin, and shamrocks in honour of William O'Donaghue, Fenian and friend of Riel.
In the spring of 1870, Riel pulled this flag down and ran up the union jack as an indication of his provisional government's willingness to co-operate with Ottawa. When O'Donaghue tried to pull down the union jack, Riel called Andre Nault, the man who commanded the firing squad which shot Scott, and ordered him to shoot anyone who tried to pull down the union jack. The whole story is told in Davidson's life of Louis Riel.
Thus, Riel became a sort of Canadian Barbara Frietchie:
Shoot if you must this old gray head,
But spare your country's flag, she said.
Western flags do not end with the Metis flag, and the Hudson's Bay Company flag. We have a British Columbia flag which we acquired quite as casually as Canada acquired the red ensign from Sir John A. Macdonald. One day, about two years ago, Mr. Bennett came home from a visit to England and announced that he had found the flag of British Columbia in the catacombs of the college of heralds, where it had lain unseen by man for many years, like the body of Tutankhamen.
It consisted of a union jack, a series of wavy blue bands to represent the Pacific ocean and shooting up over the whole thing the rays of a big yellow setting sun. Harold Weir, a Vancouver Sun columnist, put on sun glasses against any possible injury and went out to see it. He described it as a "startling salmagundy of form and colour". I looked up "salmagundy" and found it was a meat salad of many ingredients. I see many B.C. flags around these days, and I will say this for them; they are certainly bright and cheerful.
Today this flag, along with the red ensign and union jack, are flown on poles all the same height-on the grounds of the legislature in Victoria. In a statement to Canadian Press, Mr. Bennett said:
If parliament approves the proposed maple leaf flag it will be flown in front of the legislature but only in addition to the three flags being raised -the ensign, the union jack and the B.C. flag.
Although I am hesitant to break the news to him, for fear what it may do to his mind, I must tell the hon. member for Joliette-L'As-somption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon) that in British Columbia we will have not two flags -not three flags-but four flags.
Canadian Flag
We do not need another flag in the west. We have plenty of them now and we are loyal to them all in our own fashion. Visiting American Rotarians are already confused by the several flags blazing behind the head table. They do not know which way to turn when the anthem is played. How can we explain another one to them?
If Canada were the west alone, I do not believe we would choose a new flag now. Some would agitate for one. Most would be content to keep our old banners. If the choice were ours we would not choose a maple leaf. The sugar maple is not a part of the west. The buffalo, the wheat sheaf and-on the totems of our coastal Indians-the thunder-bird; these are the symbols of the west. Yes, even the old red ensign of the Hudson's Bay Company. How distant and how unreal the battle seems. We are 3,000 miles from the bicultural front. The aspirations of Quebec are interpreted to us by the Anglo-Saxons of Ontario, and sometimes I think they lose a little in translation. We hear the voice of Quebec on the second or third echo.
How easy it would be for western members in this debate to vote for a plebiscite. We could drop our parliamentary responsibilities with the easy abandon of Gypsy Rose Lee dropping her beads. We could leave it to the men in the wheat fields, the girls in the offices and the boys on the fish boats to vote for the flag-or to vote against it. Then, when barnyard patriots had won the day, we could come back and shout at our French Canadian brothers in the house: We have a mandate from our people and we are here to impose it on you.
Come, let us reason together. Is this what we in honesty believe we should do to Canada? Are we to go to the two million Europeans and Asians who live in the west and ask them for a mandate to shove a flag which flew at the masthead of Wolfe's ship down the throats of five and a half million of their fellow Canadians who live 3,000 miles away? Said Lord Durham, of the Canadas in 1839: "I found two nations warring ... the children lisped the hatred they would feel as men". Will it be any different if we fail in this debate to find the meaning of Canada?
In his address on the flag, the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) singled out the ridings of Victoria and Vancouver. I have singled out the city of Prince Albert, perhaps a more typical western city, to illustrate my case. These are the people who live there: 11,331 British, 3,560 French,

Canadian Flag
226 Austrians, 67 Czechs and Slovaks, 16 Finns, 1,764 Germans, 280 Hungarians, 46 Italians, 94 Jews, 551 Dutch, 1,063 Poles, 210 Russians, 1,891 Scandinavians 2,260 Ukrainians, 174 Chinese, 225 native Indians, and 410 from other countries. There are 24,168 people in Prince Albert. The minority are of British origin. I would sooner toss a skunk into a Sunday school picnic rather than set the good people of Prince Albert against each other on the subject of a distinctive Canadian flag versus a flag of British design and origin.


Mr. Skoreyko:: What absolute nonsense.


Grant Deachman: Kennedy said:
With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love-
That is what we were asked to do when we were elected-to lead the land we love. We are sent here to participate in the political leadership of Canada. For my part, I willingly accept that responsibility for the people of Vancouver Quadra.
I believe a plebiscite would be a beast let loose on the land to tear at the guts of national unity.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is a very profound statement.


Grant Deachman: I believe Canada needs not only a distinctive flag but a distinctive Canadian spirit. Wolfe and Montcalm were not Canadians; they were two lonely imperial soldiers fighting a battle thousands of miles from home. They had no personal links with Canada, no interest in her destiny, no Canadian spirit. The forgotten man whom Canadians should remember was Abraham Martin, a 17th century Scot who died exactly 400 years ago. He married a French girl, came to Quebec, and eventually acquired the lands on which the battle was fought a century later, the plains of Abraham. No Canadian traces his name to Wolfe and Montcalm, but hundreds, perhaps thousands, do to the Scottish-French couple who were among the first Canadians. We built a statue to the victor and vanquished and forgot the Canadian couple, Martin, who triumphed by doing what comes naturally.
I ask those who wrote to me to say Quebec should shove off, to read Vincent Massey's speech in Charlottetown on Monday, June 1, 1964, in which he said:
If the maintenance of our east and west links is questioned as a national policy, the doubters are men who fail to understand the land in which they live...We have two founding races, French and

English in origin, their languages and cultures having a special and permanent place in the national scene. That is an historical fact, not a political judgment.
I ask all those who sent me pictures of the red ensign, patriotic poems and prayers, to remember the words of Arthur Meighen which he spoke on the occasion of the planting of maples in the cemetery at Vimy Ridge in 1921:
Above them are being planted the maples of Canada in the thought that her sons will rest the better in the shade of the trees they knew so well in life.
Do you believe, if they could speak, they would reject a maple leaf flag for Canada? Finally, I ask that under our new flag each of us, west and east, strives to make this nation such an example of unity at home and integrity abroad that people will recognize our flag, wherever in the world it is flown, and say with pleasure "Hello, Canada".


William Skoreyko: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; it is obvious that the hon. member was reading from a document. I wonder if he would care to identify that document.


Grant Deachman: I will be very glad to identify it, Mr. Speaker. The document was copious notes which I had prepared-


Mr. Smallwood:: Notes. You read every word of it.


An hon. Member:: Are you jealous?


Grant Deachman: -from various books
available in the library of parliament to every member of the house. I will be glad to identify to my hon. friend the sources of my information and make available my notes, if they are of value to him. I am sure he is really asking because he feels they would be of some value to him.


Mr. Charles Lamb (Victoria, Oni.):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened with considerable interest and attention to what has been said by the hon. members who have participated in this debate. What I am about to say reflects the feelings of the Royal Canadian Legion, the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire and a great number of other Canadians who have felt keenly enough about this issue to take the time to write letters-


Mr. Dupuis:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. It has just been pointed out, on the Conservative side, that speeches should not be read in the house. Now, the hon. member who has just risen is beginning to read a text

he has before him. I would like to call his attention on the point of order which was raised by his colleague, a few moments ago.


Mr. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order I wish to say that perhaps the minister is not aware of this, but in this House of Commons, ever since confederation I presume-at least, ever since I have been here-there has been such a thing as courtesy-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: -and it has been general for Speakers to ignore the fact that new members may be reading from copious notes in their early speeches in this house. I resent the advantage that the minister has taken of this situation to raise this sort of point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Yvon Dupuis: On that point of order, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to point out to my hon. friend that we always allowed hon. members to read their texts. Objections have always been raised by members of his party. That is why I remind him that they always lacked courtesy, but we never did on this side of the house.


John Angus MacLean: If I may continue, Mr. Speaker; I do not think the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Deachman) objected to having a little fun poked at him, and if the minister in question was not so thin skinned he would not have raised this question as a point of order.


Yvon Dupuis: You should listen carefully and you would learn that you are still in error.


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker, the previous member was not interrupted when he was making his speech. It is true that he was asked afterwards whether or not he had read from a manuscript, but he was not interrupted; and I think this member ought not to be interrupted. May I say to the minister that probably if he were to read some of his speeches inside and outside the house, he would not get his foot in his mouth so often.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.
Canadian Flag


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The point of order that has just been raised by the minister is now developing into a discussion. This point of order has been raised on a number of occasions previously. It was raised while I was in the chair, and at that time I referred hon. members to citation 144 of Beauchesne. By virtue of what is said therein, I am sure there is no difficulty about the hon. member continuing to make reference to his notes.
The hon. member for Victoria (Ont.).


Charles Wesley Lamb: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The letters to which I have referred were expressing disappointment with the choice of a Canadian flag, and the hope that the outcome of this debate would be the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag. The Prime Minister and his government have made their position very clear. They have chosen what they call a truly distinctive Canadian flag. Now the Canadian Legion and the people across Canada are making their stand known to members of parliament in every party, and in the final analysis it will be the vote of the individual member and senator, whether he be Liberal, Conservative, N.D.P. or Social Credit, that will decide what has become a crucial issue.
The Legion's fervent desire for the retention of the red ensign as the national flag of this land is, I believe, shared by the majority of their fellow Canadians. Surely the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) realizes the bitter feeling and disunity which this proposed flag will create in all parts of the country, instead of the harmony and unity that all patriotic Canadians earnestly desire. But there are always those who are not content to let well enough alone. For the past few years scores of people have been working diligently to design what is in their opinion the perfect symbol of our national existence. Like all other hon. members I have received dozens of suggested designs. But Canada has a distinctive national flag which takes its status from an order in council dated September 5, 1945, its use authorized "wherever it is desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag." That is the law so long as the order in council remains in force, and it is a blunder to divide the people of Canada at this time when it is clear that the change will encounter bitter resentment from a large part of our population.
Approximately 100,000 Canadians died on the battle fields during world wars I and II and in Korea, and many thousands of war casualties lie in military and public hospitals

Canadian Flag
throughout Canada still suffering from these conflicts. All these Canadians proudly served under the Canadian red ensign during time of war, and still wish to serve in time of peace under the same flag. Resistance to the idea of a new flag is based on the feeling that much of the sentiment in favour of a new design is a desire to weaken all signs of connection with the British empire, and all its traditions of freedom and peace.
The red ensign means something to Canadians that can never be wiped out. It is a symbol, and a nation's flag is full of meaning. We are told that the red ensign has no meaning for those ethnic groups who have emigrated to this country and become Canadians. I cannot accept that argument. Canadians comprise almost every race in the world today. These people came here from other lands by choice, knowing that the union jack and the red ensign were part of our history. In fact they were probably influenced by that very fact, because they are symbols of liberty, freedom and equality. Every Canadian, whether he be of English or French origin or an immigrant from Europe, owes much to British institutions and to British justice.
At this point, Mr. Speaker, I should like to quote from an article in the Lindsay Post for Friday, June 5, 1964. There is a picture of the Fenian raid medal which was issued back in 1870 and was presented to a gentleman in my home town of Lindsay. This article says:
"This undignified uproar regarding a Canadian flag is obnoxious, at least it is to me", said R. W. Pitts of 80 Cambridge street north. He added, "The ensign goes a long way back in Canadian history. I have in my possession a medal I am very proud of because it bears the name of my father, Sergeant R. E. Pitts, who was in the army in the days of the Fenian raid. It is dated 1870, and is made of silver with a fine likeness of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, who was known as 'Queen Victoria the good' ".
On the reverse side of the medal appears the red ensign. It is quite discernible although it is showing the minor ravage of old age. At the bottom appears the coat of arms and on the edge is the name of Sergeant R. E. Pitts, 56th B.N.
The historic emblem of the days of the Fenian raid is supported by a ribbon of red, white and blue.
Sergeant Pitts, who was of Irish extraction, was born in Cornwall and participated in the Fenian raid which reached its climax at Niagara Falls. Canadian soldiers were strewn along the long stretch of the St. Lawrence river.
B- W. Pitts, of Lindsay, Sergeant Pitt's son, is the proud possessor of his father's medal.
For the benefit of hon. members who have not seen this medal I should like to hold up this paper, which shows a picture of both sides of the medal. This medal goes back to

1866 in the days of the Fenian raid, which reached its climax at Niagara Falls with fighting along the banks of the St. Lawrence river; and the red ensign was flown in those days. The reason I mention this, Mr. Speaker, is because I want to show why we should still uphold the red ensign.
Our real attachment to British institutions and their symbols is not chiefly one of sentiment, but an admiration of British justice and fair play, for freedom to live our own lives and worship according to the dictates of our own conscience without hindrance from any man. This genuine patriotism we can ask and expect any Canadian, of whatever race or language, to share with us as a common inheritance. It has been said, and rightly so, that a country which does not honour its past has no future.
The advocates of a new national anthem seem to have accepted "O Canada" as such, and have had some success in inducing others to accept it. But "O Canada" is no more Canada's national anthem than the "Maple Leaf Forever" which is a good deal older and to my mind not noticeably inferior. Canada's national anthem is "God Save the Queen". It has by usage been accepted by all the subjects of the British crown to express their devotion, and is honoured by the majority of Canadians. "O Canada" is more of a lament than an anthem, but for the last few years it has been used by the people at public gatherings as Canada's national anthem. Not one person in 20 can recite the words, and I believe there is both a French and English version. Brass bands can do very nice things with it; but it is not an anthem, and until someone can come up with something more suitable, let us keep "God Save the Queen".
In my home county of Victoria, Mr. Speaker, there are 25 reeves and deputy reeves. Victoria county takes in a large portion of one of the finest agricultural areas of Canada. At their meeting on Monday last the county council passed a resolution calling for the red ensign to be flown above county buildings and wherever a flag should be flown in any part of the county of Victoria, which covers a large area. I was very pleased to hear this. In closing I want to say I am very much in favour of the red ensign, and I will do all I can in my power to see that this great flag is retained as the national flag of Canada.


Mr. Leo Cadieux (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, in the Montreal Star of June 16,

I read a dispatch from Paris where a correspondent indicated that Europeans did not know whether they should laugh or cry at the spectacle of a country such as Canada now being stirred by a debate on a flag.
At first, those people were amazed to learn that Canada did not have a flag. In certain quarters, it was understood that the Prime Minister's action, in his proposal for the choice of an emblem, was finally leading to the total emancipation of our country.
I am sure that such a reaction, which was noted in foreign countries, is also that of the great majority of the Canadian people.
Let us not complicate the matter ourselves. The people, great simplificators that they are, have understood for a long time. They know from instinct that if we do not have as yet a distinctive national emblem, the fault is imputable to their representatives. They have long judged the sterility of empty quibbling. They have confounded all sophisms. They wish and long for unity, and they always suspect that some instigators of dissension are craftily attempting to compromise that unity.
The people refuse to admit that, after 40 years of debates, the matter has made no progress in the minds of their representatives and that, even today, at this late hour, consideration is given to the possibility of unloading on them the responsibility of the choice to be made.
Those people, Mr. Speaker, who have every reason to be sceptical, have been waiting a long time for a definite commitment on the part of one of the national parties with regard to a flag of their own. Our people had lost their faith, so that, even faced with a categorical Liberal promise, they were still in doubt.
Today, the commitment has been kept, and the government is accomplishing what it promised to do, by submitting the design of a distinctive flag to the approval of the house.
I do not doubt for a single moment that the majority of hon. members will accept this design. I shall even go farther and say that the people are no more in doubt, and that they anticipated this assent in many areas by adopting the suggested flag of their own accord, the theme of which had immediately been recognized as a symbol which had been their own for a long time. They look upon it as distinctive, and the people now feel freer, prouder, more united; their country has suddenly become a more concrete fact, so that the various problems it has to face somehow seem less difficult to solve.
Canadian Flag
Each supporter of the new flag finds a brother everywhere between those blue stripes evoking the encircling oceans. He also knows that a giant stride forward has been made towards fulfilment. A flag which is truly his own will give the displaced person of yesterday, who is still pushed around today, a concrete sense of belonging, of living in his own context. It identifies his historic destiny, determines his ideal, gives a meaning to his life, while restoring a past which had been lost in the fog of history deprived of purpose.
With that flag, Mr. Speaker, a Canadian knows what he is. The emblem will crystallize his aspirations, toward unity first of all and toward his distinctive and initial career afterwards. The flag will do that, because it will make a number of other things possible.
That is why we must be careful that scandal does not come from us, in this house. The scandal would be to let this debate slowly turn into a circus. I am confident that will not happen. We all want to give our country the fundamental emblems essential to any sovereign country.
The choice of a distinctive flag is an act of sovereignty and maturity. It must be a compromise acceptable to all men of good faith. The flag must not divide but unite.
For decades unity has been the main theme of our speeches. This is the minute of truth. There is no escape through evasion or secret agreements. We must take a clear stand, say yes or no, and we members of parliament, must assume the responsibility for the choice to be made.
As for me, I would not want to be too finicky. The argument which justified the cabinet's choice seems reasonable to me. The proposed flag is distinctive. It reflects our political and military tradition. It pleases the eye and fulfils the standards of heraldry. Therefore, I shall be proud to pass it on to my descendants.
I shall be proud of having had the privilege to play a part in taking my country out of the no man's land of an anonymous, impersonal and spiritless humanity. And I shall have found at the same time, in my heart and reason, grounds to believe again that Canada is a viable country that can achieve a distinctive and fully satisfying destiny on this American continent.


Mr. Nicholas Mandziuk (Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, I find myself in some difficulty in following such logical and eloquent addresses as those delivered by hon. members who

Canadian Flag
have preceded me. The speech delivered by the hon. member tor Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) was logical and any person, even with legal training, would be proud of it. It impressed us. I think the addresses of all members on all sides of this house have impressed those who have been here. I am going to take neither the legal angle nor the constitutional angle in this debate. I go along with those who have referred to this as an emotional issue and feelings are running high. There are two sides in this house, and I think there are two sides in the country.
There are those who would accept anything, a maple leaf, a rabbit or anything, just to get rid of that cursed union jack we have been carrying on our flag. There are others, Mr. Speaker, who are just as anxious to retain that union jack, whether in one quarter of our flag or one eighth of our flag, just as long as it is there. I believe that both groups are sincere; both groups have arguments and this is the only forum in which those arguments can be presented. My only regret is that the government is trying to hurry this measure through the house. I was not surprised when some of those Afro-Asian nations, without a history, without a culture, without any background, which found themselves free, rushed to create symbols by which they would be recognized by their neighbours. Theirs was a case of necessity. Many of them probably took less than the nine day period of gestation that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) took to create his flag out of the thousands and thousands of designs that had been submitted to the government since a committee considered the matter in 1944 and 1945.
Macdonald, Cartier and the other fathers of confederation created what they thought was a nation, and why Canada on its 97th birthday should be fighting over the symbol of nationhood is hard for many people to understand. It must be hard for our allies in NATO to understand why we are fighting over our national symbol. It no doubt will be hard for the member nations of the United Nations to understand, because since we entered the field of international politics we have given them the impression that we had a flag.
I am one of those who feel that we have had and still have a flag, and I intend to quote authorities to show that I am not the only one who feels that way. There are thousands, in fact millions, who feel as I do. I am not going to be so bold as to say that a majority of the Canadian people are behind the red ensign, but I have just as much right
[Mr. Mandziuk.l
to express my view as those who want a distinctive flag with three leaves or one leaf, or what have you. I have just as much right to express my view as they do. I am going to quote other authorities who think as I do.
Since I entered the House of Commons in 1957 I have expressed my support for the red ensign and have given reasons. Others, too, have reasons. My first quotation is taken from the Winnipeg Tribune, a prominent daily newspaper in Winnipeg. On December 9, 1963 the Tribune had an editorial headed, "Leave Our Flag Alone" in which they had this to say:
We already have one. The red ensign under which Canada has lived in peace and war lor three score and ten years is as distinctly Canadian as a flag could be.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am only quoting authorities and the hon. member can do likewise when his turn comes.
The impatience of the Prime Minister to ram this new flag down the throats of Canadians received this reaction from Bruce West. Writing in the Globe and Mail of June 16, 1964 under the headline "Unhealthy Affair" he had this to say:
X 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 also wish to refer to an open letter to the Prime Minister from six prominent Canadian citizens of Winnipeg. Most of them are of ethnic origin, one of them being Salome Holderson, a former member of the legislature of Manitoba and a prominent pedagogue. Among other things these six prominent citizens had this to say to the Prime Minister:
No other country flies the red ensign and It has become known all over the world for half a century as Canada's distinctive flag.
That is another witness I bring forward to support my contention. Let us go further. A distinguished Canadian writer, Dr. Eugene Forsey, had this to say in a letter to the Ottawa Journal of June 13 last:
Everything human, every vestige of our history, everything distinctly Canadian, except a piece of vegetation, has been carefully excluded.
In the same letter he also says:
This government proposes a flag which contains not the slightest reference to any culture whatever, even agriculture.
One is led to ask: Why the hurry? We can surmise that the proponents or champions of the new flag either have no case, cannot make

out a case and therefore would like to bridle discussion and put it through as fast as they can or else they are so sure of their grounds that they are certain the Canadian people will accept the new flag. Time alone will show. I am trying to be reasonable and look at both sides.
The Amherst Daily News of December 29, 1961 contains a report of an interview with the Prime Minister of Canada who was at that time leader of the opposition. He was asked certain questions. I quote:
Question: You say the Liberals are working on a design?
Answer: Oh, there are hundreds of designs, but it would be the responsibility of the government to make up its mind which design it would submit to parliament.
Question: How would you poll the people on this?
Answer: We would poll the people when we have a general election, and if they did not like the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for that of any other country, they will let us know in no uncertain terms.
That was a pledge made by the leader of the Liberal party who was then hoping to attain victory in an election. He has attained victory. Where is the pledge to poll the Canadian people? Has he forgotten it? In the 1962 and 1963 election campaigns both he and all Liberal candidates made the same pledge when the question came up, that they would give Canada a distinctive Canadian flag.


An hon. Member:: Diefenbaker too.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Certainly we did, but not the type of flag you are suggesting. But at no time, Mr. Speaker, have I heard it said, or read in any newspaper that the Prime Minister and the Liberal candidates told the Canadian people that when he produced this new distinctive Canadian flag the union jack would be completely eliminated. I should like to know where and when any such promise was made. They did not dare say to the Canadian people that they would eliminate the union jack. That is the reason they kept silent. They just talked about a distinctive Canadian flag. The Canadian people understood they had a distinctive Canadian flag, the red ensign, which had a quasi-legal status, and they interpreted the Liberal promises to mean that if the Liberals ever came into power they would give this distinctive Canadian flag, the red ensign, full and complete legal status in Canada. That is the way the Canadian people interpreted their promises.


Gilles Grégoire: No.
20220-311J
Canadian Flag


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I believe that the red ensign has been slandered and libelled in accordance with the same philosophy that Hitler had, that if you keep repeating a lie often enough there will be some people in the country who will eventually accept it as the truth. That is the case about the red ensign. There are two arguments I have heard against it, and I may repeat them. The first is that it is a foreign flag, a British marine flag. The second is that it is not distinctive enough and is not worthy of adoption because it could be mistaken as the flag of some other country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I am glad hon. gentlemen applaud. I want the truth from those who know, those who are the experts here, old politicians and young politicians. I want them to tell me, under what circumstances has the red ensign ever been mistaken as other than the flag of Canada on the field of battle-


Gilles Grégoire: Ask Pigeon.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: -in international politics, at the United Nations, at NATO, or anywhere here in Canada?


Yvon Dupuis: Pigeon will answer you.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: I do not mind interruptions but I do not like interrupting other people myself. I hope hon. members will give me a chance to speak.


Gilles Grégoire: You asked the question.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Can somebody show me where there was an instance in history during the past 50 years when Canadians whether on the battlefields of France, Africa or Asia were mistaken as some other force than Canadians? Canadians covered themselves with glory under this flag during the last two world wars.
We do not know the views of the majority of Canadians. Let us poll them; let us find out whether there is a majority in favour of a new flag. But I can assure the house that there are a lot of Canadians who feel the red ensign is their flag, the flag which Canadians have dyed an even deeper red in the bloodshed of battle.
The Winnipeg Tribune in an editorial on December 9, 1963 said:
It has flown over decades of national joys and sorrows, triumphs and disappointments. It has become Canada's flag and a glowing part of Canada's heritage.
Is that a true statement? By opposing the amendment proposed by the Leader of the

Canadian Flag
Opposition, the government and those supporting it are denying the Canadian people the right to be asked their views, as was promised by the leader of the Liberal party during an interview at Amherst in 1961, an interview which I have already quoted. If election promises are made to be broken, then the highways and byways of Canada are strewn with political promises broken by the Liberal party. This is just one more of them.
Like a bolt from the blue, like an atom bomb, this flag has been placed before the people of Canada. It took nine days to draft it. It was a hurried job and now the people are confronted with it. What is their reaction?


Gilles Grégoire: I will tell you it is a nice reaction.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Hon. members of this
house have received protests from many people, both by letter, telegram and phone call. Whenever we meet with members of the public they express their views vigorously. At the Winnipeg convention the Royal Canadian Legion in no uncertain terms gave the Prime Minister an indication of its attitude towards anything but the red ensign. It is unfortunate that their behaviour was not too polite but, Mr. Speaker, that was the only means they had of showing their displeasure with the high-handed attitude of the government.


Gilles Grégoire: The Legion in my area is for a new flag.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Legionnaires had only this method of showing what they wanted. The majority of them want the red ensign. They fought under that flag and it is for them, more than for anyone else in the country, that we owe the freedoms we enjoy today. Is their voice to be ignored? Are they to be derided, laughed and sneered at? That is the impression I am getting from some hon. gentlemen in this house. How can the government of Canada ignore the stand taken by these people?
I have here a petition from the Royal Canadian Legion in Russell in my own constituency, signed by 500 people. This is from Legion branch No. 159 in Russell, sent in by Mr. Loney, and the Canadians who sign it ask that the red ensign be retained. I know the Prime Minister tries to hide behind an alibi that it is the ethnic groups, who have asked for a distinctive Canadian flag. An hon. gentleman on the other side offered the opinion that it was these people who are just dying to

get a new flag but, Mr. Speaker, if you had time to read the names on this petition you would find it includes the names of all nationalities living in Canada. I shall just read two or three of them. First, there is Thomas Jackson, and that is definitely an Anglo-Saxon name; but next to him is Lome Todoruk, and that is a Ukrainian name. Then there is a A. J. Mushumanski. This gentleman is of Polish origin and I know him personally. He signed this petition in favour of the red ensign. Then we have R. S. Clement, which is definitely an Anglo-Saxon name, and then Marshall Johnson. Then we have S. M. Siwak, which is a Ukrainian name.
I know the boys who signed this; and so I ask, why try to produce a smokescreen saying it is the ethnic groups who want a new flag. I would like to know what groups, what organizations and what parts of Canada are pushing the government into this step. I may add that I intend to file this petition with the Clerk, according to the procedure which the Chair outlined to the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge).
I also received a resolution from the Royal Canadian Legion branch No. 66, from Crandall, sent in by Mr. Barnes, and another from Legion branch No. 229, Basswood, sent in by Mr. Graham, and a resolution from branch No. 40 Rossburn, sent in by Ed. Harris and Elmer Brown; and a resolution sent by wire from Legion branch No. 8, Virden, sent in by Mr. Nugent, asked that a plebiscite be held on this question.
Is this government the almighty Caesar? Caesar said "Veni, vidi, vici". I say to the government you "venied" and you "vidied" but it will be a long time before you "vici", before you conquer the opinions of the Canadian people. These men of the Canadian Legion are the men who fought for Canada, who figured Canada was worth fighting for.
I want to tell you this. Mr. Speaker. There is a section of the Royal Canadian Legion called the Ukrainian Royal Canadian Legion section. It has eight branches in Canada, with one branch in Winnipeg over 1,000 strong. It held a separate convention at the same time as the Royal Canadian Legion in Winnipeg, and it passed a unanimous resolution in support of the red ensign. They are what you call ethnic people, Ukrainian people, and most of them were volunteers for Canada.
What about the hundreds of other branches of the Legion? I know perfectly well that the supporters of the Liberal party, the hon. members sitting on the government side, have been receiving these protests. I just wonder

how they are answering them. I just wonder how they are going to face these men, what they will tell them when they have deprived them of the opportunity of deciding what Canada should have as its flag. This is evidence I am presenting to the house. I am not relying on my personal feelings.
Everyone is familiar with I.O.D.E., a women's organization which has 29,000 members across Canada. They met at Fredericton a couple of weeks ago and they sent a telegram to the Prime Minister. I wonder what the right hon. gentleman had to say in reply. This is how it read:
We deplore that in this democratic country our government would deprive individual citizens of the right to vote on an issue as vital as the Canadian flag.
Is the government so almighty, is the government so secure, that it intends to ignore this telegram? I go further. I think the Prime Minister or his staff would agree that they have also received a protest from an organization known as the Grand Orange lodge of British America. I am not an Orangeman; I do not agree with some of their views. But this is an organization you cannot sneeze at; you cannot ignore them when they have a membership in 250,000 homes across Canada. What did they ask? In the petition they sent to the Prime Minister they say they support the Canadian Legion on this issue in toto. In other words, they support the Legion's stand on this issue completely. They also say, in their petition:
Be it further resolved that we hereby petition the government to cease further legislation on the flag question until and except the people of Canada by referendum indicate their wishes accordingly.
Some hon. gentlemen look only through the narrow windows of their own constituencies. Because in their own constituencies there is a majority which wants this particular flag, or some other flag, they think the majority of the Canadian people want it. I cannot say that. Nor can any member of this house say with authority or proof that the majority of the Canadian people want either one flag or another.
I have here from the Tribune an article called Viewpoint written by a prominent barrister Mr. Roy St. George Stubbs. He is not a Conservative. I honestly believe he is a supporter of the party which now forms the government. I do not know. I know he is not a Tory, so I cannot be accused of putting forward the opinions of Tories. He is talking about a book written in 1908, and dealing
Canadian Flag
with the Ewart prophesy. I have not time to go into detail, but the article says:
Time has not justified Ewart's prophesy. Were he alive today what would he say about the current proposal to throw 100 years of tradition into the dustbin of history? Can a doubtful gain in national solidarity balance the certain loss in national sentiment?
These are opinions. What about the letters we have all received? I have received them and I know other members have received them in large numbers. The Prime Minister has claimed, it is reported in the press, that he has received thousands and that most of them are in favour of the new design. But I have information that the Leader of the Opposition has received thousands of letters, too, and that most of those are against the new flag. I am glad we are to have a little time to spend on this debate. I hope the Prime Minister will take time to analyse these letters and let us know from what sections of the country they come. Do they all come from one area? I should also like to know from what sections of the country came the letters written to the Leader of the Opposition. We are entitled to know these things and express our opinions.
Bruce West, writing in the Globe and Mail of June 15, called this "an unhealthy affair". Is he correct? He feels, like many Canadians, that impatient efforts to discard the red ensign may be the symbol of an unhealthy state of affairs in Canada and that the day this ensign is discarded some very important threads will be removed from the fabric of this country. He, like so many of us, is afraid that other things which make up what we are will also be discarded. What will be the next to be discarded? Who can say that in five or six years there will not be a movement in Canada to discard this new symbol, too, and put something else in its place. As has been stated even by members on the other side with regard to the red ensign, we have become accustomed to it. Flags do not create unity, said one writer in the Globe and Mail, it is unity which creates flags. Let us have unity first. Let us show we have a nation.
In closing I say this: If anything, the flag resolution before us creates disunity. It has led to argument all over the country. I was in my constituency about a week ago and I would hate to repeat some of the things which were said about the Prime Minister because he had proposed this new flag. I hate to read some of the letters which refer to the Prime Minister and in which the writers attempt

Canadian Flag
to say in not very polite terms what they think of him for proposing this new design. This is an important issue, but we are not to have a plebiscite. If members on the other side think they have a mandate, I should like to know from whom. If supporters of the government had told the Canadian people that the Canadian flag they intended to propose was going to eliminate the union jack then, I would say, they had a mandate. But who ever made that statement? Did the Prime Minister make it? Did any member of the Liberal cabinet make it? Did any of the others who are supporting this resolution, probably not through conviction-this resolution designed to get rid of the symbol we call the red ensign?
If this legislation is important, why rush it through? Why must the Prime Minister say we will not get a summer recess before we finish this debate? Everything else must stop but he intends to continue this debate. Does he wish to wear us out? If this is important legislation we should be given time to debate it. I should like to hear members opposite tell us who is backing them on this issue? Don't give us history about Sir John Macdonald. Don't read us something out of books 150 years old. Tell us what organizations are supporting you. I will listen carefully to the speeches hon. members opposite have to make on this subject and I know the Canadian people will be listening, too. I am giving the house evidence. I have referred to petitions. If all those organizations are added together they amount to more than a million people.


An hon. Member:: How?


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Well, there are a quarter
of a million Legion members. There are a quarter of a million Orangemen. Then there are the members of I.O.D.E. and the ethnic groups.
We want to know why there should be this rush. If the government has a good case for introducing this new symbol they need not be afraid of stepping out and telling the house and the country why. They need not be afraid of protracted debate. Are you taking it for granted just because the government think they can muster up a majority in the house, and knowing that the Canadian people, once an enactment passes the house-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member desist for a moment.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by Major C. R. Lamoureux, Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable the Deputy Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable house in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, Mr. Speaker with the house went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:
Mr. Speaker informed the house that the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the royal assent to the following bills:
An act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1965.
An act to incorporate Evangeline Savings and Mortgage Company.
An act respecting the Montreal Board of Trade.
An act respecting the commission established to administer the Roosevelt Campbello International Park.
An act to incorporate Seicho-No-Ie.
An act respecting The Dominion of Canada General Insurance Company.
An act respecting The Casualty Company of Canada.
An act to amend the Export Credits Insurance Act.

Mr. 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 Kootenay West (Mr. Herridge), Post Office Department, Trail, B.C., request for investigation into overtime mail delivery.
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 of the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Mr. Speaker, there is some difficulty in resuming an interrupted speech, with eight or nine minutes more to go, in getting back into high gear and into the same mood. I could have completed my remarks in that time because I had only one other point to bring to the attention of the house, namely that the government must be uncertain whether the new flag with the three maple leaves represents truly just what we are, because there is another resolution on the order paper for the adoption of a second flag, namely the union jack. I am not against the union jack. I am in favour of it because the union jack is the flag of the United Kingdom and, I might add, not a flag established under any statute. It has become the flag of the United Kingdom by usage or custom and it is dear to that nation of the commonwealth. Whether the government is trying to borrow it or steal it I am unable to understand.
Let me point out that the union jack is the flag of the land of origin of a lot of people in this nation, while the red ensign is the flag that we are accustomed to. It has flown amongst us, it is a part of our heritage and it has on it the Canadian coat of arms. If parliament were to go so far as to adopt two flags I can well envisage that either one or the other might be flown in different parts of Canada. Just imagine the impression that would make on foreigners visiting this country if they saw one flag flown in one part of Canada and another flag flown in another part of Canada. Would they not come to the conclusion that we are a divided nation, that we are not one Canada but two Canadas or two nations? If that is what the government has in mind they might as well spell it out.
At the beginning of my speech I said that my views on this matter are known to all. I come from the old school, Mr. Speaker. I can still sing: There'll always be an England as long as Scotland stands. I can still sing: In days of yore from Britain's shore, and so on and so forth. But I am prepared to go along with the times, and if there are changes that we must make on the flag that is dear to many Canadians I for one would be prepared to make those changes, add something to the red ensign to give some indication of our second founding race and thus satisfy all in that way. But let us retain our heritage. Let us retain the symbols of the past.
Canadian Flag
Everyone, Mr. Speaker, whether a lawyer by profession or an ordinary individual, at one time or another has been in court and anyone who is a plaintiff or appellant must make out a case. In this instance the government is the appellant. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is the main spokesman for those who appeal for a new distinctive flag. They must make out a case. Pointing to history or heraldic symbols is not going to satisfy Canadians. As I said before the dinner recess, the government must show that they have a mandate. They must show who are behind the new flag. They must show the reasons for it.
We are the respondents, Mr. Speaker, and as one of the respondents or defendants I have called witnesses. My witnesses have been the Legion, the I.O.D.E., the Orangemen, the ethnic groups and many others. I challenge the government to produce its witnesses. I challenge the government to submit this resolution to a special committee of the house and give people who have various ideas for or against the red ensign or the new flag the opportunity to make out a case. I feel that so far no member of the government, no supporter of the new design, has made out a case for the new flag.
I know that some eastern newspapers have been very critical of my stand with regard to the flag. But I want to say to all concerned that I, and those others of my race, were invited to come to this country. We came of our own free will. We came here not to ruin that which was built by the founding races but to continue the building of that great structure, one great Canada. We came here to put our shoulders together with the shoulders of the French and the British, and shoulder to shoulder to march forward to a unity of one Canada, not two Canadas, three Canadas or anything else.
We are just as proud of our heritage and love our language just as much as English or French Canadians love theirs, but at the same time we are prepared to give that which is necessary to make up one great Canadian nation such as was envisaged by the fathers of confederation.
I as a Ukrainian am proud of the fact that this year the Ukrainians in Canada and the United States, as you may have seen on television last week, unveiled another monument to Taras Shevchenko the freedom fighter of the Ukrainian race. We are proud of this man who gave so much in the cause of freedom. We are proud to celebrate the 150th anniversary of his birth. He fought for the freedom of all people, for the freedom of all

Business of the House Ukrainians. We are hurt that 40 million of our people are still behind the iron curtain but I, and those like me, are giving what we can here in Canada. We are passing this on to our children and we know that our children's children will do likewise.
I appeal for unity, but at the same time there is no use appealing for unity and not doing anything about it. We are happy to live in this nation. Let us make it great. If anyone has created a disturbance, if anyone has given rise to the emotional struggle that is going on in Canada today, it is the right hon. Prime Minister. If he thinks this flag is necessary above all, then he will be the one who will suffer the consequences when the people of Canada have a chance to make their wishes known.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask unanimous consent to revert to motions to make a statement on the business of the house.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, it may be helpful if I review future business for the house as it appears to be after the meetings of the house leaders of the various parties yesterday and today. Those meetings did not accomplish everything that it was hoped they might do, but they were friendly and constructive meetings. I believe some progress was made, and I hope that progress is a happy augury for future progress. But as there was no agreement at this stage, at least on the order of business for July, I think it would be wise if I put the program of the government to the house in this way, especially as this might correct some inaccurate reports which have been circulating as to what the government might propose.
I would first, Mr. Speaker, like to remind the house that a detailed statement on business was laid before this chamber on June 3, nearly a month ago, and since that time we have been following the priorities given to parliament at that time. The first four items on that priority list of June 3 have now been dealt with: (1) the approval of the Columbia treaty; (2) the national housing legislation; (3) the farm credit extension bill and (4) the constitutional amendment to provide for supplementary benefits in our pension legislation.
Since that statement of June 3 we have introduced into the house a resolution which


the house is now considering, the flag resolution. We interrupted that resolution, as on June 3 we told the house we might have to do, in order to secure agreement on the constitutional amendment which I have mentioned, and to ask for interim supply. These two items have now been completed.
The government has been urged to postpone the flag resolution, as it is obstructing other legislation and as it is, as we all admit, a measure which is controversial and arouses deep and genuine emotions. So far as obstructing other legislation is concerned, I think it is quite clear that there never will be a time when this flag issue, which is an issue of vital national importance, will not be controversial and will not interfere with other legislative proposals to which some hon. members would, for various reasons, wish to give priority over it. So, whenever this resolution would be introduced in the house there would be that difficulty.
Therefore the government feels that the flag issue should be proceeded with. It is our hope that, with three days debate having already taken place, the house might be in a position to make at least a decision on the amendment to the resolution by the end of this week. However I am not urging here any limit of any kind to a discussion of a matter of such importance. On the other hand, we do not wish a prolonged debate on this issue to postpone decisions on certain other matters which are ready for decision and which decision, I think, should be taken as early in July as possible, and at least certainly during the month of July, and the meetings that have been held and the consideration given to this matter have been influenced by the sincere desire to reconcile these two considerations.
In an effort to do that, I propose for the government the following program for action by the house before we take a summer recess. On Thursday we shall interrupt the flag resolution debate to introduce a resolution on the youth allowances bill, and I understand there has been unanimous consent among the house leaders that there should be no debate on that resolution and that it should go through. I appreciate that attitude. The bill would then be given first reading and circulated. Then on Thursday and Friday we would continue with the flag resolutions.
Then we propose that the national defence bill, which has already been given a great deal of attention, should be considered next Monday, July 6, and if the house comes to a decision on that bill we would proceed to

the consideration of the youth allowances bill and continue with that legislation until it is completed. Perhaps I can express the hope that that would not take too long, because we are all in agreement on the principle ot that bill.
Then we would go from the youth allowances bill to the fiscal arrangements bill which is very important, indeed as important to the provinces as it is to us. It is a matter of some urgency that we give consideration to it. That bill will be followed by the bill for the 12 mile jurisdictional zone, which I would hope would not take too long as it has already been discussed in the house and in committee. The house would then, after the 12 mile zone bill, be asked to consider the student loans bill. I understand there is agreement that the resolution covering that measure would be passed without discussion too, so that the bill could be circulated. Then .provision will be made during the first half of July for further interim supply since we asked for, and received, only one month's supply at our last request. Then I think at least two Fridays during the month of July should be devoted to estimates.
If this legislative program can be completed by July 22 or 23-I do not know whether it can be or not, but if it could be, and I would hope that perhaps it could be- we would have the rest of the month, that is seven or eight days more, to deal with the flag resolutions. 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 would be continued until a decision is reached on them.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Lester Bowles Pearson: We would not, however, ask the house before a summer recess to consider the resolution on the national anthem or the royal anthem.
It will be seen, Mr. Speaker, from the timetable I have suggested to the house, one which will no doubt be given further consideration by the house leaders, that it is not possible to predict with any certainty the date of a summer adjournment. I was asked to submit a target date. The target date I should like to submit is the end of July. If we meet that target date it would be our desire and, I think, the desire of all members of the house, for parliament to recess until the middle of September.


Gordon Minto Churchill: We have had an announcement by the Prime Minister with regard to the busi-
Business of the House ness of the house. I noticed that he indicated that the house has accomplished quite a lot during the month of June, as he listed the various items which he had spoken about on June 3 and which have already been passed. I noted that five items of legislation, most of which we have been asking the government to put forward, will be considered by the house next week and we think this is a sensible thing to do, because we believe the measures dealing with youth allowances and student loans in particular should have been brought up earlier than this.
As a party we are prepared to assist the government in passing these legislative items next week, and if the bills are carefully drawn and if, after subjecting them to careful scrutiny, they are found to be in order, I do not see any particular reason why there should be any great delay in passing those measures. If they are for the good of the country we will pass them. If there are items in any of these measures with which we are not in agreement we shall state our disagreement, as is our duty and obligation as an opposition.
I noted the Prime Minister said there would be two Fridays in July devoted to the consideration of the main estimates. I record a very strong objection to that limitation of time spent on main estimates. The main estimates constitute the spending program of the government and this spending program should be very carefully examined by the House of Commons. In sessions in the past it was normal for main estimates to be considered on Thursdays and Fridays of each week. That has not been the case this session and the main estimates are going to be piled up until the close of the session some time in the fall. I think that is not a good arrangement. I certainly would like to enter a very strong objection to the failure to deal with main estimates. This spending program of the government requires the same type of examination as the tax program of the government set out in the budget.
The Prime Minister went on to say that after the completion of the legislative items he mentioned we would consider interim supply, and if that were passed by July 22 or 23 we would have seven or eight days left for the flag debate. He then came to the crux of the matter. He said that the session would continue-he was referring to the flag resolutions-"until a decision is reached on them". That is very definite. That tells us exactly the position we are in. To speak of a target date of July 31 can be quite

Business of the House meaningless unless the opposition bows to the will of the government because, in effect, the Prime Minister is saying: You will get a summer recess only when you have reached a decision with regard to the flag.
So we know now exactly what our position is. It is quite clear that no summer recess was envisaged by the Prime Minister unless the opposition abdicated its position in this house. We are rather pleased that the situation has now been so clearly stated and that we know exactly what was in the Prime Minister's mind when the motion was put forward the other day to extend the hours of sitting. The situation is simply this, Mr. Speaker: As the official opposition we are prepared to co-operate to the fullest extent on this matter of legislation which has been brought to our attention and pass it without unusual delay, subject as I said to careful scrutiny. Having done that, then to have a club held over our heads-and this is what it amounts to-by the statement "no end to this particular session until a decision on the flag is reached", is a somewhat unusual position for a government to take. But now we know clearly the government's stand, and there will be no misunderstanding in this house as to the intention of the government because it has been clearly set before us: no summer recess unless the opposition bows to the government with regard to the flag.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we welcome the action of the Prime Minister in making this statement to the house as to the intention of the government with respect to business for the next few weeks. I think it is also fair to say that, now we have had a couple of meetings of the house leaders, it is well to have the results of our negotiations up to this point out in the open.
I want to say that we appreciate the position the government has taken in altering to some extent its stand of last week by agreeing to interrupt the debate on the flag to deal with these five or six important items. We think this is the position the government should have taken all along. At any rate, we commend the government for now having taken this position and we feel, as do members of other parties in the house, that perhaps we could best show our appreciation by expediting the passing of these five or six items when they come before us. The Prime Minister is perfectly correct in stating that the spokesmen for all parties agreed that there need be no debate what-


soever at the resolution stage of the youth allowance measure or on the resolution stage of the student loans legislation. I think there is also a disposition on the part of the house leaders to look at the other measures when we have the actual bills before us to ascertain whether there are steps we could take to shorten debate on these measures at various stages. I do think it does not hurt to take a moment or two to emphasize that we have made progress in the meetings which we had yesterday and today.
Before leaving this phase of my brief remarks may I say I have something in common with my hon. friend from Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill). I too have a protest which I want to lodge. It is not the same protest but it is one which I lodge even more vigorously than the one he has stated. I protest on behalf of the members of this party at the fact that the Canada pension plan is not included in the items to be dealt with before we return to the flag debate. It was always our understanding that the Canada pension plan debate could not be concluded in what might be called the first part of the session, but we understood that serious efforts would be made to get it past second reading and referred to the special committee which is to study the measure.
I want to say that I regard this further delay with respect to the Canada pension plan as ominous. All the members of the house are aware of the delays which have already taken place with respect to this matter since this parliament began. Each time the Canada pension plan has been proposed we have been assured that we were going through with it, but always there is a delay. I can now see that when we are meeting this fall trying to wind up the business before Christmas or whenever this session ends we will have some more of these bargaining sessions. Matters like redistribution, the Canada pension plan, the railway legislation and other matters will be before us and we will go through the same business that we have been through scores of times. We will have to agree that something has to be dropped. Again, my fear is that it will be the Canada pension plan which will be put aside; and if this goes on many more times there is no stating what might happen. I am delighted to see the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) shaking his head from right to left; I hope it was in response to what I have just said. I would remind him that the same kind of assurance has been given before, but at any rate for the moment, like the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre, I register

my protest that the Canada pension plan is not included among the items to be dealt with before we return to the debate on the flag.
Now, with respect to these five items on which we have reached agreement at the meetings of the house leaders, I should like to say that I think the suggested date of July 23 is a little too far off. I think we can do these five items several days ahead of July 23. Let us just look at them. There is the national defence bill which we almost finished last night. Surely another few hours will dispose of it. With regard to the youth allowance measure which extends family allowances to 16 and 17 year olds, we all agree with it and surely that should not take very long. The federal-provincial fiscal relations and arrangements legislation might take a little time; we will not know how long until we see the bill, but even so it should not take very long. The student loans legislation ought to go through as quick as a flash. The 12 mile fishing zone legislation is still before the committee on marine and fisheries, but if the committee reaches agreement on the terms of the bill it should not take very long in the house. So with respect to those five items- I have named them all but interim supply- I do not think it would be unreasonable to suggest they could be done in a week, leaving a few days if we need them for interim supply.
We all know the facts of life, and we all know when we get to interim supply that the length of time spent will depend on the strategy of the various parties in the house; it will depend on what might have happened in the meantime. All sorts of things can take place. But I am taking these few moments deliberately to emphasize the extent to which we reached agreement at the meetings of the house leaders. We have agreed that these five items of legislation are important, that we are satisfied with them subject to seeing the details of some of the legislation, and that we can get them through quickly.
The point I wish to make in setting this phase of our work off against the debate on the flag is this. I urge that we leave until we have got through the first five pieces of legislation any argument, discussion, dogfight or what-have-you over time to be spent discussing the flag. I think it would be good for parliament to have the accomplishment of passing five or six pieces of legislation in a week or so, and when that is done to continue to hold our meetings of house leaders when perhaps we can resolve what may be an impasse when the time comes. But let that anticipated impasse not interfere with our doing 20220-312J
Business of the House
an effective piece of work now. I am not denying the fact that the impasse will be there when we reach it. The government is saying that it wants the flag resolution put through before there is a recess. The official opposition regards that as a club. We feel that there should be a recess, not because we want a holiday but because we think it would be good for parliament if we saw a little less of each other for a couple of weeks and came back here fresh. We think that we would do better service in this way to the people of Canada. But I suggest that this whole question of trying to resolve this impasse over the flag should not be one which is allowed to impede our work on student loans or on youth allowances or on these other pieces of legislation. Let us deal with them on their merits; let us do a good job; and maybe the practice of getting some pieces of legislation through in short order will have a contagious effect and we will go on doing it.
I have been delighted, Mr. Speaker, despite any differences which we have had, with the progress achieved at our meetings yesterday and today. I think it has been unfortunate that there have been reports about these meetings which were not entirely accurate. Therefore it was a good idea for the Prime Minister to make the statement he did tonight, and if we can emphasize the measure of agreement which we achieve and face up to the fact that the people of Canada want us to get some work done, I think we can move along. Therefore my plea is that we get along with these five pieces of legislation which are agreed upon and then see if we cannot go on and keep up the good work.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be very brief. I should like to suggest that in making his statement I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) minimized the results of the meetings which were held between the house leaders. I do not think that was intentional, but I do believe that we made a little greater progress than was indicated in the statement he made. I felt that there were very worth-while results and I think we are encouraged to keep working at the job of trying to expedite the business of the house. However, we do appreciate the statement the Prime Minister has made tonight to clarify the situation as far as the government is concerned.
Thinking back over these past weeks since the session started, I do not think we have anything to brag about as far as conducting the business of the nation is concerned. In

Business of the House spite of the fact that there has been a number of items passed I think we could have done a good deal more than we have done up to the present time. We also appreciate the fact that the government has moved to a certain degree as far as the controversial flag resolution is concerned and is providing an opportunity for the dispatch of a number of other items which are of vital interest to the country.
I am not going to enumerate them again because they have been enumerated several times tonight. As far as we are concerned, we feel it is a good thing that we give our attention specifically to these matters of business that are of vital concern and have some degree of urgency in them, so that those affected will be able to plan for future days. As I have said, we intend to give our complete support to the passage of these particular measures.
I just wish to say, however, that I am disappointed in the position the government is still taking-and the Prime Minister indicated this tonight-as far as the resolutions on the flag are concerned. We felt that with the passage of a number of other items, this was one that was not of such tremendous urgency that it would be used to decide whether or not there was going to be a recess of parliament for the summer. However, this has been made abundantly clear tonight, and the question that is in our minds is this: What is going to happen if and when an irresistible force meets an immovable object? Possibly we will have to wait until that time comes to see just what does happen. But I do think it is unfortunate that this adamant position is being maintained in the face of the present situation. I am not going to debate it now, because the debate on the flag is under way and we will have an opportunity then. As I have said, we want to get ahead with the business of the nation, and we will face these things as and when the situation arises.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, I have only a few words to say on behalf of our group about the statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). We are quite satisfied with the order of business he announced, particularly as regard the family allowances legislation and student allowances.
People had already asked us for information on those allowances, but we reserved our answers, hoping from week to week that the government might bring forward a bill

so that next year students would know where they stood. We are quite happy to learn that the discussion on that bill will begin this week.
We earnestly call for the support of all opposition parties so that this work can be completed within two days. In fact, most of us agree on those pieces of legislation.
It is said that most hon. members do not even wish to discuss those measures, but are ready to simply pass them.
However, there may still be some objections. I think they will result in an extension of debates, rather than an attack against the principle of those measures and this, in order to postpone that much longer resumption of the discussion on the flag issue.
We commend the government for having made concessions and we also praise the leaders who attended the meeting and who made use of all their talents and their goodwill to reach an agreement.
When all that urgent legislation has been passed, let us get on with the flag debate and settle the question once and for all.
We have been discussing this issue for 40 years and it is high time we are done with it. Let each member vote according to his own feelings so that the people of Canada may see that their parliament still has some sense of responsibility and that it no longer spends its time in futile discussions, as it did last week when members acted like 10-year olds.
Let us discuss each piece of legislation and then take the vote. Let us stop arguing for nothing and let us take the vote. Let us get on with our program so that we may finally examine the flag resolution.
Here I want to congratulate the Prime Minister for his steadfastness. To some people, this is the sword of Damocles or cloture, the French word for fence. But a fence along a road is a guide line, not a prison. What the Prime Minister gave this evening was an indication, a firm invitation.
I hope the official opposition will not hold up indefinitely the business of the house. It often resorts to systematic obstruction which I find unacceptable in parliamentary procedure and which should not exist. When everybody has expressed his views, let us vote once and for all. Those who favour the adoption of a distinctive flag will vote for it, and the question will be settled. If the distinctive flag is rejected by the majority of members, that will be just too bad. It does not matter, the majority will decide, because in democratic countries it is still up to the majority to decide.

I congratulate the government about the decision it has just taken and I can assure it of our full support both as regards this attitude and the adoption of the flag.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The house will now resume the business that was interrupted by reverting to motions.



CANADIAN FLAG


[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 Held of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And of the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. Richard Cashin (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, the suggestion has been made during the course of this debate outside of the house itself that the course of action being advocated in the matter of national symbols represents our doing something new and rejecting something that is old. I do not subscribe to this interpretation of this course of action. The government, it seems to me, is asking that this parliament proclaim as the national flag a distinctive Canadian symbol that has in one form or another existed in this country for 100 years or so and has in fact been part of our heritage. In the same subject matter of national symbols we are also being asked to give recognition to those symbols of the commonwealth and our monarchical ties. We are, as it were, being asked to decide formally and once and for all that we recognize in this particular way Canada's status as an independent nation, but an independent nation within the British commonwealth.
Canada has become such a nation over the years, not by revolution, not by sudden change or sudden means but by a gradual, an evolutionary process. At each stage of this evolutionary development voices of resistance have raised themselves because it was feared that Canada was breaking its ties with the mother country and moving in a direction inconsistent with that of a former British possession. In actual fact I submit that the opposite is the case. This evolutionary development of ours
Canadian Flag
toward nationhood was in fact, and is, done in a most British way. We might say that as a nation we have approached the problems of our nationhood more British than the British themselves. In all times and in all examples we have followed, as it were, due process of law. Great national debate preceded all these formal changes. I will not list them but I know they are familiar to all members. As these changes were wrought in Canada's march to nationhood, debate was the order of the day and the great forum for these debates was here in parliament, this parliament modelled after the mother of parliaments. The fathers of confederation, it seems to me, had as their goal a united and a strong nation on this North American continent, but a nation that would be governed according to those institutions, customs and traditions which were British, largely, in origin; a nation that would be monarchical rather than republican-but a nation, nevertheless, independent and united.
Were we not so cognizant of these British uses and traditions, perhaps we would have followed a different course on the road toward nationhood. Perhaps we would have attempted to settle our problems in what, to me, would have seemed to be a logical, clear cut way, but would have, in fact, represented our approach to these things in one fell swoop. In so doing, we would not be approaching them in the British way and in a way that would have been in keeping with our traditions; we would not be in keeping with our past.
We have moved into the future, not in bold steps that might have threatened our affection for the past, but instead we have moved slowly in a way characteristic, perhaps, of this nation; in compromise, in a pragmatic way. In doing so, in adopting compromise and pragmatism, we have paid a great tribute to the country to which so many of us owe so much. This pragmatism of which I speak is so much a part of our heritage; it is one of the gifts that England has given us. Not all or even a majority of the Canadian people today are of British origin, yet all Canada notes with pride the customs and traditions that are tied to this association. There is our system of government, parliamentary democracy, rather than republicanism. This is something which sets us apart from our neighbour to the south. It is something which is revered by all Canadians. It consists of something British and also something Canadian.

Canadian Flag
A few moments ago I referred to the existing Canadian personality as pragmatic, and compared it to being something British, because this is almost Britain's stock in trade in dealing with her own problems and world problems. Today we are asked to take one more step-true it is only a formal step-on the road to true and complete national sovereignty in form as well as in fact. I think that we should be asked to do this in a way most consistent with our Canadian heritage and tradition. We are now asked to declare a distinctive Canadian flag, not something new that is the design or the whim of some patriot. We are asked to declare as the flag of Canada a symbol which, as I suggested earlier, has been with us for 100 years or more. It is, you might say, in that sense a flag that is both old and new. We are being asked also for the first time to give recognition to certain commonwealth symbols which will be discussed, 1 presume at another time.
The suggestion has been made we should approach this problem of our national symbols in another way. The suggestion has been made that a plebiscite should be taken. If we are to follow that course of action we would be flying in the face of British parliamentary democracy. I am unaltered in my opposition to a government shirking its responsibilities and turning to republican innuendos in the form of government plebiscite. The mother of parliaments, in its wisdom throughout the years, has not seen fit to so degrade itself. However, I regret to say this parliament has not adopted at all times a similarly wise course.
However, as somebody has suggested, perhaps that was before Newfoundland entered confederation. While I am on that subject of Newfoundland and confederation for a moment, I was reminded before I got to my feet that almost 200 years ago, when Canada was in great peril, a little band of Newfoundlanders came up to Quebec and helped to turn back the Americans. Fifteen years ago Newfoundland was taken into Canada to help with her glorious future. We decided at that time we should insure that future, once and for all, so that we would not have to run back and forth.
After that slight diversion, I might say that deciding this matter of national symbols through debate in this House of Commons is the British way. It is consistent with our traditions. I am grateful, and I congratulate the government for not giving in to the temptation that we do something foreign to our traditions and adopt a republican course
[Mr. Cashin.l
of action. I should like to congratulate all members who have taken part in this debate, particularly the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson). I believe he showed a true understanding of tradition, at least in the context of the realities of our present age. I think he showed the example of the beauty and virtue of tradition which does not, of itself, become our mistress but gives us a guide line for future action. I wish more people could have been in the house at that time to hear a very worthy address.
The province, part of which I have had the privilege of representing for some year or so in this house, is new to the sovereign nation of Canada. Our ties with Britain have been similar, but perhaps somewhat closer than those of Canada. I feel sure that Newfoundlanders who, some 15 years ago after considerably heated debate decided to tie their destiny with that of Canada, realized they would be called upon to make contributions to the future of this country. It seems to me, as a Newfoundlander and, in a sense a new Canadian, it would be a more important thing for Canada to produce truly distinctive symbols of its own, yet at the same time, in the truly Canadian tradition, retain those things of our past for which we have so much genuine affection and loyalty. The course of action in this regard followed by this government, I think is one that will be hailed in years to come as being the course of action advocated by neither one side nor the other, but one truly consistent with our traditions and our heritage; a course of action that will, I think, serve well the purpose of national unity.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, there was a time when I thought there would not be very much discussion on the resolution before us at the moment. Now, however, I And that there has been much said and we probably can look forward to much more being said. In addition to that, a great deal of time of this house will be taken. The reason for this, I think, is apparent from the resolution itself which was brought before this house by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) . It refers to the fact that the government be authorized to take such steps as are necessary. The government should be authorized by whom? This is the question, not only in my mind, not only in the minds of many others in this house, but in the minds of many people across this country. I intend to deal with that later.
These are the questions being asked, Mr. Speaker. Why is this necessary? We in this

house, indeed the people of Canada, were led to believe or my impression was that we were led to believe this question would not be that the government be authorized, but that parliament would have a free vote. I realize, Mr. Speaker, that many people are not aware what is involved in a free vote. When they hear the words "free vote" they take them literally as meaning that the members of the House of Commons and the other place may vote in the way their consciences direct, particularly in the case of an issue of conscience, an emotional issue, as the flag resolution has been described so many times. It is an issue of the type on which one could very well expect to have a free vote.
There are many reasons why this should be so, and with the indulgence of the house I shall bring some of them forward later. Why should I, not having any intention previously of speaking, be standing here taking the time of the house to put forward my own views and those of my constituents? Why is this necessary? In an emotional issue of this kind, an issue of conscience, I feel that I must express my views and the views of my constituents whereas if there had been going to be a free vote my position might have been different. It follows, therefore, that at this time I am delegated to bring forward the views of different factions, different groups, different individuals in my constituency. This is necessary because the Prime Minister, after having first given the strong impression indirectly, if not directly, that there would be a free vote on this highly contentious and emotional issue, said latterly that the government would stand or fall on the issue. Some people may have different ideas about the interpretation of statements like that, but to me it simply means that this issue has now become a political one.


An hon. Member:: A political flag.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: This is the unavoidable result now, no matter what flag is adopted. Certainly if the flag outlined in the resolution is adopted it will be a political flag as well. If that should happen we will then have a flag that is not identified as a distinctive Canadian flag. It will be identified then as a political flag, and this may be good, bad or indifferent. Someone else will have to judge. Not only will it be identified as a political flag but it will also be identified with a certain person and a certain political party.
I deplore this attitude, Mr. Speaker. I had genuinely and sincerely hoped that parliament would have a free vote, and I think
Canadian Flag
there are many in this party who feel the same way. There may also be some in other parties. Certainly there would have been very little objection if a free vote had been allowed. There came a time, however, when the Prime Minister realized that this would not bring to culmination what he had in mind.
A lot has been said about certain types of training, and from many years of schooling and experience I have had the impression, and still have, that a democratic leader in the true sense is the servant of the wishes of the people in a democracy. This resolution is not one brought forward by a democratic leader or government. How can it be, Mr. Speaker, when we are told that this will be it? Many times in the last few weeks we have been told that this will be it, like it or not, even to the point of suspending consideration of other legislation. We were told this to all intents and purposes only 15 minutes ago in the house. All other legislation will be put aside after a certain point is reached.


An hon. Member:: The same old gang.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I hear comments about the same old bunch. We were told by the Prime Minister that after a certain point nothing else would be done in this session of parliament until the flag resolution was disposed of. As I said before, this is not my idea of a democratic leader or a democratic government. It sounds much more like a dictatorship. I had another word on the tip of my tongue. We should not have to be subjected to this procedure, Mr. Speaker. As has been mentioned before, there is a great deal of evidence that the proposed design is not as popular as some people think it is. I, like every other member of the house, can quote many prayers and petitions, and read letters, but there is something I would like to read before my time runs out. It is a summary of what the constituency of Lethbridge expects me to bring forth to this house, and it is this: Canadians generally are agreed or may agree to having a distinctive Canadian flag. They may agree upon this by themselves, maybe even through parliament alone, but as I expressed a few moments earlier we have been given to understand very clearly and distinctly that this will not be possible.
It has now become a political issue and, when it becomes a political issue, then the flag adopted will become a political flag and will be associated politically with certain people and with a certain political party. I definitely want to leave this thought with the house, that I cannot agree that any flag which

Canadian Flag
has this kind of association can be a distinctive Canadian flag regardless of the desire to have one.
The representations I have had from the constituency of Lethbridge point out to me that there is a great majority who strongly insist that the Canadian ensign be retained, or something very near to it. There are others who would go a little further but who would still retain much, if not all of the ensign.
This brings forth mention of a new design. I know how hopeless it is for me as a backbencher, as a member of the official opposition, to present the design of a flag, but later in my speech I would like to make a suggestion that has been prompted by all the representations I have received from those who have taken the trouble to make their wishes known to me.
There are some who would like the proposed flag, and there are more who would prefer a single maple leaf design. As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to summarize the representations I have received from my constituency, but I am delegated more or less to the House of Commons to present the wishes of my constituency, and this I am doing. I have pointed out that there is a great majority who strongly think we should have the ensign. I have pointed out another majority, slightly less, who would be willing to modify that flag but still retain certain parts of it. I have pointed out that there are those in my constituency who favour the flag described in the resolution, and I have pointed out that there are those who favour the design of a single maple leaf. This brings one to realize that the amendment to the resolution is very necessary. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, I support the amendment. When the Prime Minister and the government take the stand they do, then I see no other way by which the Canadian people can be satisfied on the design of a distinctive Canadian flag but through being given the opportunity to express their wishes.
My constituency may not coincide in its views with other constituencies, but it is a fairly average constituency. We talk about the wishes, the tendencies or the preferences of constituencies for a distinctive Canadian flag, but according to the cross-Canada newspaper poll, which I watched very closely, the Lethbridge Herald, a newspaper circulating in the general area from which I come, showed a greater percentage of voters in favour of the new design than did the newspaper circulating in Sherbrooke, Quebec.
[Mr. Gundlock.l
There must be a significance in this. It shows that the flag design is not as popular in certain parts of the country as a lot of people would like to have us believe. According to the newspaper poll Lethbridge, Alberta, had a greater percentage of people in favour of the proposed flag than Sherbrooke, Quebec.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I very seldom take up much time of the house, but there is something that has bothered me on this issue. I have thought it should not be allowed to pass unchallenged. I know that being a new and very inexperienced member I am treading on dangerous ground, but-


Gérard Chapdelaine: I rise on a point of order. I may be mistaken, but I think the hon. member mentioned my riding a moment ago. He said there were more people in his riding in favour of the new flag than there were in my riding, and I think that is not correct.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member kindly resume his seat. I can tell the hon. member that that is not a point of order. It is a matter of debate and the hon. member will have an opportunity to rectify the facts, if he thinks they are not correct, when he takes part in the debate.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Without referring directly to anything I mentioned a while ago I would have no objection whatsoever to repeating what I said. According to my knowledge of recent newspaper polls, they pointed out at a certain point that in my area percentagewise there were more people in favour of the flag design in this resolution before us than were reported as being in favour of it in Sherbrooke, Quebec. There is no insinuation there, whatsoever. I was only pointing out that probably some of us get carried away a little. I was surprised, as a matter of fact, though I do not put any credence in these polls. I mentioned them for whatever they are worth. President Truman has a very good description of polls, one which I do not think I can use here. He did not use it in his chamber and I am sure you would disallow it here, Mr. Speaker. That is all I said. There was certainly nothing personal about it.
But there is something to which I take exception, though it may not refer directly to either this resolution or the amendment. Certain members in particular of this house have made statements with which I cannot agree, and I would quote in this regard the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette). At page 4757 of Hansard he is reported as saying:

Let us put s stop to our discussion and settle the matter of the flag right now.
I see the hon. member for Villeneuve is not in his seat. I wish he were. In one way I am glad he is not, though, because I realize he is a much more able debater than I am on the floor of this house. Nevertheless, this is what he said:
Let us put a stop to our discussion and settle the matter of the flag right now.
Well, all hon. members, including the Prime Minister, know that this is not possible. He went on to say:
The cleavage between these two racial groups of Canada is getting even worse.
This is a member of parliament speaking -a responsible man uttering words such as these. The hon. member used those very words:
As I said yesterday, and I repeat it today, the cleavage between the two racial groups of Canada is getting even worse and I hold the Leader of the Opposition responsible for this situation.
As I said before, I take exception to this, and I challenge this statement. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, just where and how can one draw this line between two races in Canada? I have a colleague who usually sits here in front of me. This evening he is sitting just over there. Is he a man of a different race from mine? Is the hon. member I have just quoted, the hon. member for Villeneuve, a man from a different race? I say no, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Statements such as that have gone unchallenged in this house so many times that I feel it is necessary to bring this point up, though I realize it may not be connected directly with ths resolution or with the amendment. But just for a moment I should like to remind some of my hon. friends-and if I may put it in the words of the hon. member for Villeneuve, those of the other race-that there are a lot of people concerned with their welfare, probably much more concerned than some of those who speak so much and so loudly in this place.
I mean this honestly and sincerely, Mr. Speaker. When I say we are concerned about this question, I can support my contention. As a matter of fact I can bring up my campaign material from my last campaign, from my previous campaign and from my first campaign. Throughout we campaigned on government policy. Particularly, we campaigned in the west on the basis of
Canadian Flag
certain policies set out by the former minister of agriculture my hon. friend from Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). Do you think, Mr. Speaker, that is a purely selfish attitude for Canadians to take? Do you think that sort of thing is brought on by people of another race? I hope that when the hon. member is in his place he will bring my attention back to this at some future date. There is more I would like to say about this particular matter, Mr. Speaker, but I shall not do so at the moment.
There is another point along the same line. Ministers of the present government are often quoted in the press. I wish to refer to a statement made by a very respected minister-as a matter of fact, one for whom I personally have a great deal of respect-and I might say this remark is attributed to him in a press release. This newspaper article bears the heading "No answer for Quebec, Favreau says". I would like to read certain portions of it:
An honest man cannot give a precise answer to the question: What does Quebec want? justice minister Guy Favreau told a Liberal party rally here on Saturday.
Even if the man were a mind reader with the agility of a modern computer his answer would be long, tedious and inconclusive, Mr. Favreau said.
If I digress for a moment from the quotation, Mr. Speaker, as I was saying earlier, I do not think these things are all as bad as some people would like us to believe. If I may put it this way, we in the west do not consider ourselves a different race from those in Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: We in the west-perhaps I should say "I", but I will say "we"-do not consider Canada selfishly; we do not think we can get along without them. I wish I had more time, Mr. Speaker, to try to convince the people in the east, if we have to use these words-and I deplore using the words "east" and "west" except geographically; and I hope that very soon that will be the only basis for using these words-of our sincerity in this matter.
Perhaps I may now continue with the quotation from the newspaper. This is from the Toronto Globe and Mail of recent date, June 29. It says:
"Quebeckers have no overriding authority to unify their thoughts; some may want one thing, while others something else'', he said.
That is referring to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). I said earlier that I had a great deal of respect for the minister who is

Canadian Flag
credited with uttering these words; but believe me, Mr. Speaker, when we have hon. members in this house on their feet time and time again repeating remarks such as I quoted earlier, it must be hard for the people of Quebec to understand what they do want. I want to put this on the record: I think the people of Quebec are the same kind of Canadians that I think I am, and the same kind of Canadians that I think we in the west are. I say again that I deplore this statement, "Two racial groups".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I want to conclude these remarks, Mr. Speaker, by referring to another matter.


Gérard Chapdelaine: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker; could we hear about the flag issue?


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Mr. Speaker, I only raise this point because this expression was used by an hon. member when speaking on the flag issue, and I am quoting from Hansard.


An hon. Member:: No; it was on the estimates.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: If the hon. member will take the trouble to look it up, on page 4757 of Hansard he will see that the flag issue is referred to and this expression is used. The words used in Hansard are, "flag right now".
Before my time is concluded there are two other matters I want to bring to the attention of the house. At no time yet-and I hope there will come a time when we will hear more about this subject-have the wishes of a group of Canadians, who have never really been challenged as being real Canadians, been considered. I refer to the Indians, as we know them; treaty Indians, and some nontreaty Indians. I would like to pay tribute to them. I would also like to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, that probably my favourite constituent is a treaty Indian in the person of Senator James Gladstone of the other place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I know that I hardly have the right to refer to the hon. gentleman in that way, but I am not doing so lightly, because the senator does live in my constituency and I do sincerely consider him to be my favourite constituent. I do not think there is any doubt about the fact that there is certainly nothing about race or creed or anything else connected with the Indians, so far as their recognition of a flag is concerned. What have they done about the ties with the
	*
past? There is one group that, perhaps the same as others, thinks we might use the totem pole as a Canadian symbol. There are others who think we might use an Indian headdress. There are those who would like to see a plain feather. But just lately a view among the Indians has more or less culminated in the opinion that we should use the symbol of the peace pipe. This suggestion came originally from the Six Nations Indians, who are very close to Ottawa as a matter of fact, and who have a very proud heritage. They consider themselves, even today, as allies of the Queen, even to the point where they do not too strongly consider Canada as a nation.


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


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I wonder if I could just have one more minute, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Does the house give unanimous consent to the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Gundlock) completing his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: He was interrupted twice.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and hon. members. I will be very brief. I did want to bring to the attention of the house this one point about the Indians. The Six Nations Indians were probably the first league of nations in the whole world-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Objections have been expressed. We said "no" but the hon. member still has the floor. He could talk all night long.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I wanted to bring this matter to the attention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), Mr. Speaker.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, there is objection from this part of the house.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Like everything else, you do not want to listen to the truth.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: We object.


Deane Roscoe Gundlock: I would like to conclude and say, if I may-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must tell the hon. member for Lethbridge that the house does not give unanimous consent to his continuing.


Mr. Jean-Eudes Dube (Resligouche-Madawaska):: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride and pleasure that I come to add my modest contribution to that of the hon. members who spoke before me in this debate on the Canadian flag.
I am convinced that history will not forget the present debate and that we are now paving the way for our country's ultimate phase. We have reached the stage where we, in this house, as representatives of the Canadian people, are called upon to decide whether we have to live in the past, divide the nation as regards the present or head towards the future side by side. Several members emphasize the fact that many other bills should hold our attention and that the flag issue should be postponed.
I admit that the Canadian people are impatiently waiting for a great number of very important measures already appearing on the order paper. But we have only ourselves to blame if we do not make more progress in our work. Many of those pieces of legislation would have been passed by now if parliament were less interested in extending the debates and more anxious to achieve results.
If members of the house were to decide to postpone the selection of a flag, I suggest that it would not provide a solution to the problem, because failure of parliament to assume its responsibilities would be a failure to carry out the mandate conferred on it by the Canadian people.
The amendment under consideration this evening aims at relieving us from our obligations and relying on a plebiscite. It is not a very courageous solution. The mover of that resolution is apparently more interested in dividing than in legislating.
Mr. Speaker, our parliamentary system does not lend itself very well to a plebiscite. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) has already pointed out, in his first speech on the flag, that there were only two plebiscites in Canadian history, one in 1898 on prohibition and the second in 1942 on conscription. And, as everyone knows, those two plebiscites have been failures.
Canadian Flag
Our parliamentary system is based, first, on the election of members whose duty it is to assume their own responsibilities. We have been entrusted with a mandate; we must act.
If a plebiscite were to be held on the flag issue, why should we not hold one with regard to pensions? Why not another one regarding franchise at 18? Why not another plebiscite on redistribution?
The suggestion of a plebiscite, in my opinion, is simply a putting-off, a smokescreen on the part of a leader who would like to cover up the divisions which rend his party as well as the indecisiveness which crippled him regarding the adoption of a flag.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Nonsense.


Jean-Eudes Dubé: During the last two election campaigns, the party to which I am proud to belong promised to give Canada a distinctive flag within two years after taking office. We never pledged ourselves to hold a referendum on that question. Indeed, to my knowledge, no political party represented here stated during the election campaign that it would hold a referendum on the flag issue. In my opinion, that proposal is a last ditch effort, a desperate step to delay the adoption of a distinctive flag.
Yet, several hon. members claim that the red ensign which was given temporary approval in 1945, by virtue of an order in council, is a distinctive Canadian flag. I respect their opinion but I do not share it.
Everybody knows that the red ensign is the naval flag flown by all ships of the British merchant marine. It is the flag of various yachting clubs. It is the flag of many companies which have obtained their charters from the crown, such as perhaps the Hudson Bay Company. It also the flag of several colonies. In short, the red ensign is a respectable flag; it is also a respected flag. However, I do not think it a typical Canadian flag. It is a temporary flag which can be flown, as mentioned in the order in council of September 5, 1945:
-so long as parliament has not taken steps to adopt an official national flag.
Now, the time has come for parliament to adopt officially a typically distinctive flag.
If the history of the red ensign goes back officially to 1945 only, the three maple leaves on a single stem go back, as a heraldic symbol, to 1868. As a matter of fact, it is then that Queen Victoria gave as a symbol to Upper Canada-now Ontario-by royal decree, three gold maple leaves on a green field. That same 1868 decree gave as a

Canadian Flag
symbol to Lower Canada-which is Quebec today-three green maple leaves on a gold field.
Finally, on November 21, 1921, His Majesty George V, at the request of the Canadian Conservative government, promulgated red and white as the national colours of Canada and decreed as a Canadian emblem three maple leaves on a single stem.
Therefore, it seems a well established fact that the flag proposed in the resolution, that is three red maple leaves on a white field, is quite appropriate from the heraldic point of view and deeply faithful from the historic point of view. But if fondness for the past is a great virtue, a realistic approach to the present situation is also essential, and I would even say that for legislators and leaders, it is the future, much more than the past, which is important.
Mr. Speaker, I think I am right when I say that Canada is now going through one of the most distressing periods of its history.
I do not want to point out any further the extremist and vocal movements which stir the people in various places in the country. They already receive too much publicity.
But if those movements indicate a great unrest, they also reflect a national awakening.
It is our duty to direct those energies towards a positive goal, towards the unity of the nation. And a distinctive national flag as well as a constructive debate on this subject might inspire the Canadian people in a new national awakening and a total effort in order to achieve our potential and our aspirations.
Personally, I am convinced that the great majority of Canadians wish to preserve the Canadian nation and take part in the complete development of our economic and cultural assets.
Our country has a great future, and a really Canadian national flag may become the emblem of a new national pride and at the same time the starting point of a collective march towards our destiny.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Would the hon. member permit a question?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: Yes.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Does the hon. member know that in 1961 his leader promised the Canadian people they would be told as to whether or not they wanted a certain distinctive national flag?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: This is not the case at all. During two elections, the Liberal party promised the Canadian people a distinctive national flag. At no time was a referendum or a plebiscite promised or even mentioned.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: May I ask another question? The hon. member was talking about a mandate. What was the mandate he received from constituents, or does this apply to all other constituencies? What was the mandate he received from his constituents?


Jean-Eudes Dubé: The mandate was to carry out our program, and the flag is part of our program which we have to carry out within two years.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Did you tell them the program you were carrying out or the flag you were going to introduce?


Mr. J. N. Ormiston (Melville):: Mr. Speaker, like many other members on all sides of the house I have been impressed, and considerably so, by the moderation which has been evident on the part of hon. members expressing their opinions during this debate. This bodes very well for the debate. It may seem unusual, but I should like to preface my remarks by a quotation from the leader of the New Democratic party, I might say a friend. I believe he has something the same background as I have. As I say, it may seem unusual that I would preface my remarks by quoting the remarks of that hon. member, but we have something in common, Mr. Speaker. The hon. member for Burnaby-Coquitlam (Mr. Douglas) was raised in the industrial complex of the midlands of Scotland, while I was raised in the pastoral quietude of the borders. It stands to reason therefore that while we may have something in common, we may have our differences as well.
However, sir, if I may I should like to quote from the remarks of the hon. member which appear on page 4350 of Hansard:
The third thing I want to say something about, Mr. Speaker, is the actual design of the flag itself.
I have a good deal of sympathy for those who advocate selecting the red ensign, with some modifications, as the national flag of Canada. As one who was born in Scotland I have a deep attachment for British traditions and British institutions,
I would be very happy, personally, with a flag in which there was the union jack in one corner and the fleur-de-lis in another, thus paying tribute to the two great founding races that came together to make up the partnership of confederation.
This, Mr. Speaker, shows that those of us who had our background in the old land respond to these appeals to reason which

should typify all hon. members. I think in some respects the Prime Minister qualifies as one of those who have shown some restraint, because during the past month he has been appealing for moderation and a constructive approach to national unity. He says, of course, there are troublesome problems that must be solved and urges the peoples of the various cultures to show restraint. However, rather than restraint on the part of the government, there has been a certain amount of precipitate action to force an early decision on the flag issue, while matters of equal importance have been shelved for future consideration. Surely, sir, the Prime Minister could hardly intrude a more divisive issue into national debate at this time than the question of a new flag. Any attempt to erase ancient origins and traditions in the manner presently employed would inevitably touch off a situation that might split not only parliament but the nation as well.
A nation, even as young as Canada, can be proud of its Christian heritage, its honourable traditions which are presently embodied in our flag, and to fly a national emblem without those symbols of our historic background would be ignoring both the accomplishments of the past and the prospects for the future.
Flags may be as old as civilization, but they still retain much of their ancient power. Throughout history men have realized that they could express their feelings for their country and its people, their loyalty and sense of patriotic duty, by showing respect for their emblem, the national flag, and by understanding something of its meaning and its history. This helped them to be fellow citizens of a community instead of merely being people who happened to live together in one part of the earth. This is as true today as it ever was. We need not only respect our flags but protect them for posterity.
Over the years, designs on flags have not been picked at random or on the personal choice of one individual, but largely because of their meaning. Some have been deliberately selected in recent times, while others have been in use from time immemorial, their origins coming from ancient legends or being completely lost in the past. To interpret the meaning of a flag helps us to understand and appreciate something of the history and ideals of a country which flies it.
Obviously a flag of an innocuous pattern or an uninspiring design, such as is being presented for our consideration, fails to meet even the minimum standards which we should accept when judging it in comparison
Canadian Flag
with that which we have cherished in the past. It is for some of the reasons mentioned and, I may as well admit, for personal and sentimental reasons that I have on two occasions presented to the house a private member's bill for the adoption of the red ensign as Canada's national flag.
Naturally I have been impressed by the reasoning of other members who have spoken so eloquently on the government's proposed flag design and particularly by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), who I am sorry is not in the chamber tonight but who traced the use of the maple leaves as emblems and symbols as far back as 1862 and culminating, of course, in the extensive acceptance of the maple leaf insignia by our armed forces in world war II. However, in spite of the wide use of the maple leaf design the flag committee, which brought in its report in July of 1946, only saw fit to use the symbol as an integral part of the red ensign. This, of course, was in the days when we were spiritually uplifted, having made a great contribution to hostilities which were brought to a successful conclusion in 1945. Possibly in the report of the flag committee there was a projection of the public feeling which indicated a keener sense of the real values, exposed as our people had been to five years of war in which understanding, tolerance and sacrifice were present in greater measure than ever before as dominant features of human nature. I am not suggesting that those virtues are not present today, but in our present affluent and complacent society it does not seem that our vigour and determination are being properly applied if we accept this inadequate symbol as representing Canada's greatness today.
Should it happen that our present flag passes from the scene, there are those who will have deep and sincere misgivings as to what will be the next step in that path of retreat which will finally separate us from the commonwealth and the crown. If this is the view of only a small minority, then these apprehensions can only be dispelled by something more reassuring than the presentation of the present flag design. No action which will increase the divisions within the country at this time is justified, especially in view of the fact that those adversely affected have no way of making themselves heard except by representations through those who refuse to accept this form of dictation.
Like many other members I have had a great deal of correspondence regarding the flag issue over the past two years, possibly

Canadian Flag
because of the action I have taken in that regard. At the present tme my correspondence runs 90 per cent in favour of the red ensign. Strangely enough, many of those who have taken exception to the new flag proposal are not of my own political persuasion and find it difficult to have their own party members accept their opinions. Possibly this is one of the best reasons why we should support the reasoned appeal to rationalism which was proposed by the hon. member for Qu'Ap-pelle (Mr. Hamilton). Surely he proposed a reasonable idea which should be accepted. If the people of this country have an opportunity to voice their opinion, those who do not see eye to eye with the present proposal will gladly accept the will of the people of the rest of Canada. In conclusion may I say I am glad to support the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefen-baker).


Mr. Jean-Paul Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be able to take part for a few moments only, so as not to delay the proceedings, in the surely historical debate we are carrying on at present and to express my approval of resolution 44(A) introduced by this government.
Even though I must congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) on his courage, such an issue must rise above any political allegiance. That is why I hold nothing against anyone and I do not defend any cause other than the unification of my country. We, as Canadians, should have a common ideal, regardless of our origin.
A flag is but a piece of material attached to a pole, but the important point at the present time is that it serves as an emblem, as a symbol, as a rallying sign. Accumulating or multiplying symbols serves no useful purpose.
It is difficult for me to understand why some members object to the formal adoption of a real national distinctive flag. May I labour this point.
When, in 1945, a ministerial decree recognized a flag for Canada, it is only accidentally and casually that it was proposed, and this flag was to remain until a distinctive official flag was adopted. It means, Mr. Speaker, that this possibility had been considered even by those who adopted temporarily the red ensign. This flag was not a distinctive and permanent national flag, and there was some hint of the possibility, which, today, is a fact, of permanently adopting some day an official, dis-

tractive, intrinsically Canadian flag, which no contingency could ever suppress.
I understand that this question requires sacrifices on both sides, especially for those who served so valiantly under such flag, since it is a highly emotional and sensitive question. It should not be forgotten that great things stemmed from sacrifice and self-denial; they were the more enduring if they required selfsacrifice. Let us work altogether in a gesture of harmony for the good of the country.
The time has come for us to produce a really distinctive flag, comprising no emblem belonging to another country. We have become an adult nation and we have to prove our maturity.
The essential thing should be now that this flag which is submitted to us receive official and absolute approval by statute, so as to be accepted in every part of this country and throughout our territory, without being left to local whims and prejudices. The approval of parliament which the Canadian people has been expecting for so long will, I trust, sanction a distinctive national flag, an official design consecrated by law. To us, it will be the exclusive symbol of Canada from sea to sea, and everywhere throughout the world.
I should not like to rehash all arguments in favour of the three maple leaves, and against a referendum which would only lead to as much confusion as if the 3,000 designs had been submitted to the house.
In closing my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to state that I love my country, its people, of whatever origin and whatever political allegiance they may be. I have only one wish, and that is to see this country grow and prosper in harmony, in this diversity which can be held up as an example to the world, under a flag which would be truly and essentially Canadian for the benefit of Canada and all its citizens.


Mr.  R. Gordon L. Fairweaiher@Royal: Mr. Speaker, if this catalogue of one's traditions is necessary, then I am going to indulge in it for a minute. It happens that in 1783 my paternal ancestors came from Connecticut to the part of Canada I happen to have the privilege of representing. Perhaps this labels me; it does according to some lights, anyway. My maternal ancestors came to Cape Breton from Scotland in the early part of the 19th century, but surely these facts in themselves -really they do not matter-do not make me British. Neither do they make me American; neither do they make me Scottish. I always look upon myself as a Canadian, and

to quote the immortal words of another in this house, "I am for Canada".
Having said that, however, I happen to be one of these naive people who believe in the universality of man. I would be delighted, for instance, if the United Nations flag could be adopted as the flag of Canada, and it might not be too bad a message for the world. Such a day is not now, I am realistic enough to know, but it must come I suggest in man's march toward a world order.
I also try to be realistic. I recognize and deeply appreciate the French fact in Canada. I sympathize with the aspirations of this cofounding race in its wish to take its rightful place in an evolving Canada. As a matter of fact, to show you how confused the whole issue is in Canada, and how careful a member of parliament must be in trying to articulate his beliefs, the other day when I made a comment in this house and used the phrase derisively about little Englanders in the sense that we in Canada, and any part of Canada, must not be isolationists, several of my constituents severely criticized me as being against England. So, a member of parliament is in great difficulty and has to take great care.
I happen to support a distinctive Canadian flag, but having said that I think it is fair to say that distinctive means different things to different people. The hon. member for Restigouche-Madawaska (Mr. Dube), who has spoken and who represents a part of New Brunswick, felt that distinctive means the ignoring of our past, using the word in the sense that everything that went before in our land must be turned aside. But to me the word distinctive means something different from that. It means something unique, something special, something which stands by itself.
I happen to believe that a flag which embodies the union jack and the fleur-de-lis, or any other symbol acceptable to the French, or recognition of the French partnership in Canada's growth and development, would mean and be a distinctive Canadian flag. For weeks now, although this debate has only been going on for three days, I have been hearing derisive things said about those loyal Canadians whose entire background and tradition make it perfectly obvious they would wish to honour and revere the red ensign. These Canadians have been taught to do this in their schools. They have even been admonished to do so by those who in earlier days- and not so very long ago at that-sat in the seats now occupied by the Prime Minister
Canadian Flag
and his colleagues and, as a matter of fact, led and supported the party which the Prime Minister now leads and supports. My allusion here is of course to Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King.
It seems fairly obvious that there should not be a grade or a degree of patriotism or, as some use the word, of Canadianism in our land. No one has a monopoly on patriotism or upon feelings of loyalty to this country and its institutions.
I am not here today to swear allegiance or to put my love of country to any test. Everything right and good and true does not repose in the breast of the Prime Minister or in the breasts of those who support him. Everything wrong and out of date and disloyal does not rest in the being of my leader and those of my colleagues who have taken strong positions on what I call this manufactured issue.
I have a formula-it is not new but I want to present it-for trying to resolve this so-called flag issue, and I propose to strip it of all complications and complexities. At least it has been stripped in my mind and, if I am any good at all, I will be able to present it to the house in a fairly clear way. My formula would give each Canadian eligible to vote a share in the determination of the distinctive Canadian flag.
I support the proposal of my leader for a referendum or plebiscite. I suggest that the people should share in this momentous decision we are about to take. Our flag, as has been said before, must not be allowed to become a Pearson flag. Our flag must not be allowed to become a Liberal flag-with the large L of that much maligned word. Our flag must not become-as it may be, unless we take a very close checkrein on our emotions -a partisan flag. Rather, it seems to me to be obvious that a flag should be one the final choice of which is shared by the greatest possible number of Canadians. Some members who have spoken from the other side talk about a mandate. It is obvious to the country and it is certainly obvious to anyone in this house that there is no such thing as a clear and decisive mandate on this issue. This is, in the immortal words of the leader of the Social Credit party, a house of minorities, and I do not see how in any house of minorities on an issue which transcends partisan aspects and goes to the roots of people's traditions and beliefs, the government can properly claim that it holds a mandate for making this change in the manner in which they propose to make it. I suggest the people

Canadian Flag
should be allowed to decide and I think this simple, honest and practical act on the part of the Prime Minister would immediately dispel any suspicion, if there is any suspicion, of partisanship in the consideration of this issue. Let the people decide, and all division will wither away because a democratic process would have been followed. Let the people decide, and obviously we will have a flag which the majority have selected in the way I am about to indicate as being their preference.
The hon. member for Restigouche-Mada-waska (Mr. Dube) and no doubt others who have spoken, have referred to the two other plebiscites, the plebiscite on prohibition, which was a failure, and the plebiscite in 1942. I wonder where the blame should properly lie for the failure of those two plebiscites. The blame in 1942 seems to be reasonably obvious. History can tell us that. And if anybody is interested in the plebiscite on prohibition I suppose I could give a learned dissertation on it. But perhaps the following might be recommended to the people of Canada for a decision on the basis of a first, second, third, fourth and fifth choice, listed in whatever order the house would prefer. I happen to have listed them in the order I intend to give now:
1.	Whether a distinctive Canadian flag should be the red ensign as presently constituted;
2.	the three maple leaf design suggested in the resolution before us;
3.	the single maple leaf design recommended by the New Democratic party;
4.	the triangle design incorporating a single maple leaf, suggested I understand by the Saint Jean Baptiste society, or
5.	an adaptation of the red ensign so as to include a fleur de lis or a maple leaf or any other symbol in the fly, rather than the great seal of Canada which is now in the red ensign.
This formula of choice would, it seems to me, present a fair series with a wide aspect of selection to the people of Canada. The people could indicate their preference in a democratic way by numbering their various choices in accordance with their wishes. By this formula, the final solution will be the result of the efforts of everybody in this country who took the trouble to make a choice at all.
While Canadians were making their choice and the results were being tabulated, it seems to me this parliament could go about its

urgent business. We have had some indication from the Prime Minister in his statement this evening of the issues the government thinks -and I share this opinion-are urgent. But this is after all a mediocre list-a list of expediencies. It is a list which does not include in any way the fundamental and ongoing problems of this country. By this suggestion of mine Canadians would be given a choice according to their preferences and we would not be subjected here to the game of hide and seek caused by the government's other items to which, understandably, it wishes to give priority.
Another thing which could be dispelled by this formula of mine would be the overriding threat of a general election which seems to be put forward by the Prime Minister and other members of the government every time somebody wants to take a rightful share in the debates in this house. These threats are born of frustration because of bad organization, and I think they are to be repudiated by people who have tried to explain the proper function of a free and democratic parliament. We have had a new gimmick tonight in this faltering endeavour to bring some semblance of order to a perambulating parliament. I suggest that the Prime Minister has advanced the threat of closure on this issue in every aspect but that of the actual rules. I suggest his statement about the disposal of this flag resolution amounts to de facto closure.
Now I see it is 10.30 and everybody will wish to ponder my words over the next 48 hours.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: So that the record may be clear, after the one day holiday we are getting this summer, would the acting house leader be able to announce that we will be dealing with the spending program of the government by way of the main estimates on Thursday and Friday, or do we carry on with the debate on the flag resolution?


Mr. MacNaughl:: The first item to be called on Thursday would be the resolution preceding the bill to establish youth allowances. By agreement among the various house leaders, that will go through without any debate. Then we will go on with the flag debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Friday as well?


John Watson MacNaught: Friday as well.


Gordon Minto Churchill: No main estimates.



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:


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I apologize for appearing so frequently on this late night show, but duty impels me. A few days ago I received a telegram from Robert Keiver, president of local 480 of the Trail and district smelter workers union. I will read the telegram:
This is to advise you that commencing at about 7 p.m. Monday June twenty second a special delivery of mail was made door to door to Trail members of our union. Normally no mail delivery is scheduled for this time of day. Our information is and can be attested to that postal employees at Trail were requested at about 2 p.m. to work overtime for four hours after 6 p.m. These postal employees were obliged to make a delivery over and above normal deliveries which consisted mainly of a communication from the employer Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company to each of its employees residing in the city of Trail in company envelopes and metered indicating four cent postage rate. This extraordinary privilege accorded by the Post Office Department to Cominco takes place on the eve of a referendum being conducted by the union representing the employees and the vote is a phase of a labour dispute between the company and its employees. We are not objecting to the content of the material distributed in this instance but seriously question the principle involved which appears designed to give an employer an advantage in a dispute with his employees. We respectfully request you to raise this matter and demand a full investigation by the responsible federal authorities.
That is signed, "R. Keiver, president, local 480, Trail and district smelter workers". Mr. Speaker, I have also received other telegrams and several 'phone calls from interested persons in the district. This has created quite a lot of comment in the district, because it is considered a somewhat unusual circumstance. I have been informed that some of the postmen at least were in uniform when they were delivering these special delivery letters. I have been reliably informed that only four cents postage was paid by Consolidated Mining and Smelting Company instead of the 29 cents that is normally required under the circumstances. I have been informed recently that the postmen are not certain, even at this date, whether they will be paid by Consolidated
Proceedings on Adjournment Motion Mining and Smelting Company for this overtime or by the Post Office Department.
On that account, Mr. Speaker, I asked the minister the following question a few days ago:
Has the minister any information to give the house with respect to his inquiries concerning an unconventional special delivery of mail in Trail, undertaken at the request of the Consolidated Mining and Smelting Co. Ltd. on the evening prior to a vote of the employees on an arbitration award?
We all know the minister has an excellent record as a good administrator and in wartime he rendered good service to his country in this respect; and he has an excellent record since in British Columbia in his association with the forestry industry. I am sure, therefore, he wants everything in his department to be run according to Hoyle and according to the regulations. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, because of the concern of the union men concerned and other patrons of the Trail post office, and in view of the apparent irregularities, I would appreciate it very much if the minister would give the house some information with respect to what appears to be a most unusual situation.


John Robert (Jack) Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for having furnished me with a copy of the telegram in question and a subsequent telegram which he received. Within a matter of minutes of the time I received the first wire I gave instructions to look into this matter. We received a preliminary report by telephone. It was not complete. Because I was going to be in the west over the week end I assured my hon. friend that I would make inquiries while there and would let him and the house have a further report today.
I have little to add to what the hon. member has said. The letters in question, and there were many of them, were delivered at the post office in Trail in the late afternoon of the day in question. They were stamped, as the hon. member says, with a four-cent stamp, or rather they were metered with a four-cent stamp charge recorded. I do want to make perfectly clear that if there is any fault in the matter the fault is not that of the postmaster in Trail.
After the letters were delivered to the post office a request came from the company to deliver the letters during the evening; at least, an inquiry was made as to whether they could be delivered during the evening. The company said they were prepared to pay any reasonable charge for this extra work. A rate

Answer to Question
was suggested for the postmen who might be willing to deliver these letters during the evening. The postmaster then quite properly called his superior in Vancouver, the district director. By this time it was evening and the district director, thinking he had a precedent for so doing, because of the time factor, authorized the postmaster in Trail to put the proposition to the postmen and ask them whether or not they would be willing to deliver the letters that evening at the rate of so much per hour. It was not a request but an inquiry. All but one of them said they would take the advantage of the opportunity to make some overtime. They showed up in the early evening at the post office, some in uniform and some not, and they delivered the letters.
In the course of my conversation I asked the district director to produce the file on which he relied as a precedent. That file has not yet been supplied to me; he undertook to send it off by air mail either last night or today. I agree with the hon. member that there seems to have been an irregularity, to say the least. The district director gave me to understand they would have done the same thing for the union, although that does not excuse
it if it is improper. When I receive the report, which I would expect to receive, not tomorrow because of the holiday but on Thursday, I will advise my hon. friend further. I also intend to have a legal opinion on the position and if disciplinary action is required in the case of the district director it will be taken. But until I see the documents on which he relied as a precedent I cannot definitely say that there has been a breach of the regulations.
It is certainly an extraordinary procedure, one which should not be encouraged, and I must say I commend the district director for saying frankly: "If anyone is responsible, I am; don't blame the postmaster". As I say, I will keep the hon. member informed, and if further action needs to be taken I can assure him it will be taken.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: Mr. Speaker, I should like to thank the minister for his frank and clear explanation of the circumstances and the information he has to date; and also for his kind compliment with respect to my being a learned person.
Motion agreed to and the house adjourned at 10.42 p.m.
[Answer to Question No. 1,319 referred to on page 4811 of June 29 issue.]

Answer: (a) To answer this question, it will be necessary to secure from the province
latest figures regarding projects completed by March 31 1964; (b) see the subjoined summary of projects; (c) see the subjoined summary of projects; (d) see the subjoined summary of projects for Roberval county; (e) see answer under part (a); (f) None.
Part (b) Number of	Number of	Part (c)projects	projects	AmountNewfoundland	33	NilPrince Edward Island	27	(1)	$ 9,712.37Nova Scotia	41	(4>	97,625.00New Brunswick	29	(2)	112,800.00Quebec	127	(5)	259,441.00Ontario	28	(6)	171,768.00Manitoba	59	(10)	696,442.00Saskatchewan	81	(12)	2,004,060.00Alberta	24	(3)	792,651.00British Columbia	16	Nil



COUNTY OF ROBERVAL

[Stage Direction]
Number
[Stage Direction]
Description
[Stage Direction]
Position
[Stage Direction]
Class
[Stage Direction]
Shareable portion of total cost
[Stage Direction]
Federal share
[Stage Direction]
5054
[Stage Direction]
Use of land for other purposes-procurement of marginal farm lands and co-operative development of blueberry-land in the county of Roberval, Dalmas and Proulx townships
[Stage Direction]
Approved
[Stage Direction]
A
[Stage Direction]
$ 114,773.00
[Stage Direction]
$ 57,386.00
[Stage Direction]
5055
[Stage Direction]
Use of land for other purposes-procurement of marginal farm lands and co-operative development of blueberry-land in the county of Roberval, Racine township
[Stage Direction]
Approved
[Stage Direction]
A
[Stage Direction]
206,572.00
[Stage Direction]
103,286.00
[Stage Direction]
5122
[Stage Direction]
Use of land for other purposes-procurement of marginal farm lands and co-operative development of blueberry-land in the county of Roberval, Beaudet township
[Stage Direction]
Recommended
[Stage Direction]
A
[Stage Direction]
130,754.00
[Stage Direction]
65,877.00
[Stage Direction]
5124
[Stage Direction]
Use of land for other purposes-procurement of marginal farm lands and co-operative development of blueberry-land in the county of Roberval, Parent and Albanel townships
[Stage Direction]
Recommended....
[Stage Direction]
A
[Stage Direction]
120,572.00
[Stage Direction]
60,286.00
[Stage Direction]
5125
[Stage Direction]
Use of land for other purposes-procurement of marginal farm lands and co-operative development of blueberry-land in the county of Roberval, Sainte-Elisabeth parish
[Stage Direction]
Approved
[Stage Direction]
A
[Stage Direction]
58,564.00
[Stage Direction]
29,282.00
[Stage Direction]
5126
[Stage Direction]
Use of land for other purposes-for a survey of development in the two planned blueberrygrowing areas of Roberval and Abitibi
[Stage Direction]
Recommended
[Stage Direction]
A
[Stage Direction]
140,406.86
[Stage Direction]
70,203.43
[Stage Direction]
5049
[Stage Direction]
Use of land for other purposes-procurement of marginal farm lands and co-operative development of blueberry-land in the county of Roberval
[Stage Direction]
Approved
[Stage Direction]
A
[Stage Direction]
148,566.00
[Stage Direction]
74,283.00
[Stage Direction]
to
cn
Answer to Question
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, July 2, 1964