1964-08-24

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

[Stage Direction]
met some newspapermen with whom I discussed the problem of the strike at La Presse on a friendly basis and in view of my trade union background, from 1952 to 1955, when I took part in several collective bargaining agreements and in the settlement of many labour disputes. I therefore discussed with those newspapermen the problem of La Presse.
In the evening, between seven and nine o'clock, I tried to make a phone call, but all public phones in the Laurentide hotel were busy, so I went to the reporters room to make that call.
Mr. Pigeon: Did the Minister of Forestry make any telephone calls to La Presse and/or Le Devoir in Montreal since June 4, 1964, and, if so (a) to whom were such calls made (b) what was the cost of such calls, and (c) to whom has each such call been billed?


Hon. Maurice Sauve (Minister of Forestry):: (a)	The Minister of Forestry was in communication by telephone with Mr. Michel Roy of Le Devoir on July 5, 1964, as explained in Hansard of Friday, July 24, 1964, at page 5923, as follows:
Hon. Maurice Sauve Minister of Forestry: On July 5 last, I was at the meeting of the Quebec Liberal federation in Quebec. In the afternoon I
At that time a reporter from Le Devoir was giving a report of the activities of the convention to his information manager, Mr. Michel Roy.
Following the telephone call of that reporter, I asked to talk to Mr. Michel Roy...
(b)	N/A.
(c)	N/A.
[Text]	.


TENDERS FOR FISHERIES PATROL BOAT
Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What are the names of the tenderers and the amount of each tender of a 40-feet diesel driven patrol boat for the Department of Fisheries?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Hon. H. J. Robichaud (Minister of Fisheries):: 1.
Yard
Engine
2. Stright-MacKay Ltd.
3. Gerald L. Stevens
4. Benton Gray
5. St. Mary's Bay Industries Ltd.
Tender price excl. s. tax
(b)	Volvo-Penta (Sweden), Model MD 96B (c)	Perkins (G. Britain), Model 6-354 (d)	Caterpillar (U.S.), Model D 330 (e)	Caterpillar (U.S.), Model D 333	15.867.00 16.047.00 16,246.88 18,211.30(a) G.M., Model V-6-53 (b Volvo-Penta, Model MD 96B (c)	Perkins, Model 6-354 (d)	Caterpillar, Model D 330 (e)	Dorman (G. Britain), Model 6LBT	18,426.00 18,628.33 18,655.93 18,874.91 20,399.83(a)	Perkins, Model 6-354 (b)	Volvo-Penta, Model MD 96B	22.350.00 22.450.00(a)	G.M., Model 5062-3200 (b)	Caterpillar D 330 (c)	Volvo-Penta (d)	Perkins 6-354	27,034.12 27.128.00 27.300.00 27.530.00G.M. or Caterpillar	40,150.00
Questions
2.	The contract has been awarded to Alber-ton Industries Limited.



Mr. MacEwan: 1.	What are the names of the tenderers and the
amount of each tender for a 45-foot diesel driven patrol boat for the Department of Fisheries?
2.	To whom will the contract be awarded?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1.
Yard
Engine
Tender price excl. s. tax
1. Stright-MacKay Ltd.
2.	*Alberton Industries
Ltd.
(Amended prices were
3.	Pinaud's Yacht Yard
Ltd.
4.	Benton Gray
5. St. Mary's Bay
(a)	Volvo-Penta (Sweden), Model TMD 96B1	$21,963.00(b)	Caterpillar (U.S.), Model D 333	22,046.00(c)	Dorman (G. Britain), Model 6LBT	22,341.00(d)	G.M. (U.S.), Model 7062-7200	22,661.28(a)	G.M. 7062-7200	25,607.00(b)	Volvo-Penta, TMD 96B1	25,846.00(c)	Caterpillar D 333	26,619.67(d)	Rolls Royce (G. Britain)	28,702.60
submitted after closing date but these have been disregarded)
(a)	Volvo-Penta, TMD96B1	31,708.00(b)	Caterpillar D 333	31,715.00(a)	Caterpillar D 333	32,435.00(b)	Volvo-Penta TMD 96B1	33,135.00(c)	G.M. 7062-7200	33,390.28(d)	Rolls Royce C6NFLM	36,273.00G.M. or Caterpillar	44,350.00
Industries Ltd.
2.	The contract has been awarded to Stright-MacKay Ltd.


PREVAILING RATE EMPLOYEES, MINES AND TECHNICAL SURVEYS, OTTAWA
Mr. Fisher: 1.	How many prevailing rate employees are there with the Department of Mines and Technical Surveys, technical services branch in Ottawa?
2.	What are their occupations?
3.	What consideration has been given in the past four years to bringing these employees within the civil service?
4.	Have the employees indicated any desire to become civil servants?
5.	What are the difficulties which prevent such a change or transfer?
6.	Is there any record of representations on this subject from any of the civil service associations?


Hon. W. M. Benidickson (Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys):: 1. Sixty four positions, one of which was vacant on July 15, 1964.
2.	Labourer, labour foreman, machinist, machinist foreman, toolmaker, sheet metal worker, welder and layout man, motor mechanic, electrician, carpenter, foreman carpenter, light equipment operator, handyman.
3.	In response to representations received early this year, the department asked for advice on current treasury board policy regarding change of status of prevailing rate

employees. The department was advised that there has been no change in the policy which was established in 1959, when it was decided by treasury board that exempt employees would not be brought under the Civil Service Act.
4.	Representations to this end were made by a staff association which claimed to represent the wishes of 48 of these employees.
5.	See answer to No. 3 re treasury board policy.
6.	Yes. The department received representations on this subject in a letter dated January 30, 1964, from the civil service association of Canada.


DEFENCE PRODUCTION CONTRACTS TO FAIREY AVIATION
Mr. Coates: 1.	What was the dollar value of contracts awarded by the Department of Defence Production to Fairey Aviation for the fiscal years 1959-60, 1960-61, 196162, 1962-63 and 1963-64 and the estimated value of contracts for 1964-65?
2.	What was the employment figure for the above years and the present employment at the plants located at Eastern Passage and Halifax international airport?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minisier of Industry):: 1.	The dollar values of prime contracts awarded by the head office and district office

of the Department of Defence Production to Fairey Canada Limited are as follows: 195960, $8,050,641; 1960-61, $3,710,599; 1961-62, $3,963,526; 1962-63, $3,684,905; 1963-64, $2,097793; 1964-65, (April-July 31) $2,848,935*.
* Information on the value of contracts placed in 1964/65 is available only to the end of July. An estimate of the value of contracts placed to the end of the current fiscal year cannot be made since it is the policy of the department to award contracts as the result of competitive tender, wherever possible.
These figures, while in direct reply to the question, do not reflect total plant work load attributable to Canadian defence expenditures since they do not include subcontracts received from other prime contractors of D.D.P. Nor do they necessarily reflect annual expenditures made by D.D.P. in Fairey due to the fact of overlap on contracts from one year to the next. Following is a table which more nearly reflects actual expenditures on prime contracts per fiscal year at Fairey: 1959-60, $3,751,000; 1960-61, $4,063,222; 196162, $2,096,627; 1962-63, $3,884,695; 1963-64, $3,266,685; 1964-65, (April-July 31), $968,300.
2.	Total average annual employment figures for the combined staffs at Eastern Passage and Halifax international airport are as follows: 1959-60, 865; 1960-61, 915; 1961-62, 854; 1962-63, 803; 1963-64, 759; 1964-65, 738 (estimated).


SAKIMAY INDIAN RESERVE
Mr. Orlikow: Did the R.C.M.P. visit the Sakimay Indian reserve on July 18, 1964 and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) did the R.C.M.P. have search warrants when they searched Indian tents and houses on the Sakimay Indian reserve (c) were dogs used at the Sakimay Indian reserve on July 18, 1964 (d) what was the purpose of taking dogs to that Indian reserve (e) were the police dogs kept on a leash while they performed their duties at the Sakimay Indian reserve?


Mr. D. S. Macdonald (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: So far as the
Royal Canadian Mounted Police is concerned:
(a)	Yes, to police a pow-wow on the reserve; to enforce the Indian Act and to keep peace.
(b)	Members did not have search warrants. No houses or tents were searched, but several vehicles were searched and seizures of liquor made. Appropriate charges were laid under the Indian Act or Saskatchewan liquor act in these cases.
(c)	Yes, dogs were there but were not used except as indicated in the answer to question (d).
Questions
(d)	To protect the police cars and any exhibits stored in the police cars. During a similar event last year, police cars were damaged and some exhibits were stolen when the cars were unattended.
(e)	The dogs were not performing any specific duties except as indicated in the answer to question (d). One dog was kept in the car at all times. One dog was let out for a few minutes and kept on a leash.


*RADIO STATION CKPM
Mr. Irvine: 1.	Who are the incorporators of the company that presently operates radio station CKPM?
2.	What individuals were the applicants before the board of broadcast governors requesting a grant of licence for radio station CKPM?
3.	On what basis, grounds and reasons did the board of broadcast governors grant such licence?
4.	How many applications were made before the board of broadcast governors within a period of five years prior to the granting of CKPM of their licence for a similar licence in Ottawa, and who were the applicants therefor?
5.	Who are the present shareholders (preferred and common) of the company that operates CKPM, what is their distribution of shares and are they Canadians?
6.	If CKPM is operated by individuals rather than a corporation, who are they, what is their personal interest and are they limited partners?
7.	What networks is CKPM affiliated with and what other individual radio stations is it affiliated with?
8.	What is the capitalization of the company, or net worth of the partners of the partnership?


Mr. J. B. Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of Stale):: 1. James A. Stewart, Mrs. Ailsa Stewart, William Gordon Burke-Robertson.
2.	The application was made by James A. Stewart on behalf of a company to be incorporated.
3.	The board of broadcast governors recommended the approval of the application by Mr. Stewart, indicating that in the opinion of the board the proposed new station would provide a desirable additional AM radio service to listeners in Ottawa.
4.	Nine applications were referred to the board by the Department of Transport for an AM radio licence in Ottawa since July 1959, as follows: October 1959, by James A. Stewart; October 1960, by James A. Stewart; February 1962, by J. W. Pellie on behalf of a company to be incorporated; July 1962, by Roger Seguin on behalf of a company to be incorporated; August 1962, by Sudbury Broadcasting Co. Ltd. (French language); August 1962, by Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (French language); December 1962, by Radio Prestige Ltee (French Language); December 1962, by

Questions
James A. Stewart; July 1963, by James A. Stewart.
5.	(a) The Department of Transport has always treated the lists of shareholders as confidential, (b) The shareholders are Canadians.
6.	CKPM is operated by a corporation, Confederation Broadcasting (Ottawa) Limited.
7.	None.
8.	Authorized capital $100,000.


HYDROGRAPHIC SURVEYS EXPENDITURES, B.C.
Mr. Barneil: What, for each of the fiscal years commencing
with 1920-21, are expenditures made for the sea-coast of British Columbia by the Canadian hydrographic surveys?


William Moore Benidickson: 1963-1964, $939,795; 1962-63, $1,008,997; 1961-62, $946,497; 196061, $681,282; 1959-60, $619,000; 1958-59, $692,000;	1957-58;	$479,000;	1956-57, $527,000;
1955-56, $380,000; 1954-55; $404,000; 1953-54, $428,000; 1952-53; $323,000; 1951-52, $188,000; 1950-51, $197,000.
Note: Expenditure records for the period prior to 1950-51 are not available.

Questions


IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA, 1901-1911
Mr, Choqueile: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada between 1901 and 1911?
2.	What was their country of origin?
3.	How many of those immigrants were English speaking and how many French speaking?


Mr. Hubert Badanai (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration):: 1. See attached table.
2.	See attached table.
3.	Not available. See further explanation in response to part 3 of question No. 1,676.
Total immigration to Canada by ethnic origin-10 year periods 1901 to 1964 (June 30)
-	1901-1910	1911-1920	1921-1930	1931-1940	1941-1950	1951-1960	1961-1964 (June 30)Albanian	9	156	37	119	238	138Arabian	... 349	34	44	16	63	613	366Armenian	... 1,444	409	1,191	55	96	1,534	2,197Austrian 	... 19,857	10,119	246	-	-	17,426	2,101Belgian	... 8,124	11,113	11,378	1,036	4,042	15,435	2,083British	... 675,684	669,188	503,726	78,678	244,020	479,640	89,095English	... 478,259	463,136	257,838	47,016	160,451	295,355	51,921Irish	... 26,741	42,939	74,460	13,094	25,351	67,309	13,770Scottish	... 133,617	140,745	146,856	17,085	47,328	106,724	21,139Welsh	... 19,645	8,354	14,862	1,483	4,890	10,252	2,265N.E.S	... 17,422	14,014	9,710	-	-	-	-Bulgarian	... 4,346	13,840	1,620	172	248	832	83Chinese	... 10,699	28,878	4,364	4	2,654	21,931	4,694Ozech-Slovak	... 398	1,529	28,165	7,425	5,947	6,874	582Danish	.... 3,286	3,841	17,987	908	3,229	27,652	2,599East Indian <3>	... 5,480	106	477	266	361	3,394	3,755Egyptian <5>	... 49	21	13	-	-	104	444Estonian	-	-	612	43	7,127	7,263	197Finnish	.... 12,621	9,651	29,610	758	1,228	16,386	1,301French	.... 15,835	12,197	5,055	13,482	14,780	41,045	10,346German	.... 19,958	18,213	72,980	12,163	21,468	249,300	24,938Greek	.... 3,914	5,301	3,835	848	3,399	39,377	16,110Hungarian	.... 9,876	4,611	29,959	4,177	4,978	47,313	3,066Icelandic	.... 2,659	988	297	82	116	396	31Iranian	.... 123	78	57	7	14	140	154Italian	.... 58,508	62,661	25,103	3,898	21,552	253,653	55,941Japanese	.... 13,441	7,242	4,099	989	42	1,102	542Jewish	.... 46,289	29,464	49,447	8,237	24,393	38,326	7,347Latvian	-	-	373	47	8,183	7,018	306Lebanese (2)	-	-	-	- 	-	1,765	1,503Lithuanian	-	-	5,553	443	8,951	3,696	294Luxemburger 	, 	32	128	-	-	368	53Maltese	.... 2	1,353	456	28	1,850	6,770	2,126Mexican	-	26	2	11	28	207	89Negro	.... 444	1,205	772	461	1,253	5,675	6,074Netherlander	.... 4,789	6,071	11,637	2,536	32,899	126,298	7,776Norwegian	.... 13,200	7,736	20,212	1,491	2,535	9,856	1,528Polish	.... 73,094	35,409	47,719	4,720	37,175	42,624	8,352Portuguese	.... 54	101	1,024	51	345	22,361	14,237Rumanian	.... 4,771	4,590	5,611	518	1,482	2,902	568Russian	.... 37,492	60,390	14,680	1,083	3,775	6,059	675Spanish	.... 366	2,771	249	201	494	5,873	3,887Swedish	.... 18,484	10,283	21,245	1,382	1,714	6,276	1,301Swiss	.... 1,438	1,385	5,305	670	1,544	9,798	2,408Syrian	.... 4,741	1,169	1,381	294	403	1,369	331Turkish	.... 2,404	1,651	107	7	24	591	764Ukrainian	.... 4,866	55,743	58,553	8,198	22,831	14,257	647Yugoslavian	.... 11,733	6,142	20,348	3,025	5,755	30,123	8,380Others	.... 5,765	757	350	115	204	981	1,440From the U.S.A. <*>....	
535,309	625,949	224,076	-	-	-	-1,631,892	1,712,256	1,230,202	158,562	491,321	1,574,841	290,749CD Breakdown by ethnic origin for United States immigration not available (*>
Prior to 1955, Lebanese included with Syrian. (s>
Ceylonese and Pakistani included with East Indian. (-0 From 1925 to 1952 Austrian included with German. <n Prior to 1955 Egyptian and Luxemburger included with others.	in 10 year periods prior to 1931.	
Questions


IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA, 1911-1921
Mr. Choqueltes: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada between 1911 and 1921?
2.	What was their country of origin?
3.	How many of those immigrants were English speaking and how many French speaking?


Hubert Badanai: 1. See attached table.
2.	See attached table.
3.	Not available. See further explanation in response to part 3 of question No. 1,676.
Total immigration to Canada by ethnic origin-10 year periods 1901 to 1984 (June 30)
-	1901-1910	1911-1920	1921-1930	1931-1940	1941-1950	1951-1960	1961-1964 (June 30)Albanian	9	156	37	119	238	138Arabian	... 349	34	44	16	63	613	366Armenian	... 1,444	409	1,191	55	96	1,534	2,197Austrian 	... 19,857	10,119	246	-	-	17,426	2,101Belgian	... 8,124	11,113	11,378	1,036	4,042	15,435	2,083British	... 675,684	669,188	503,726	78,678	244,020	479,640	89,095.English	... 478,259	463,136	257,838	47,016	166,451	295,355	51,921Irish	... 26,741	42,939	74,460	13,094	25,351	67,309	13,770Scottish	... 133,617	140,745	146,856	17,085	47,328	106,724	21,139Welsh	... 19,645	8,354	14,862	1,483	4,890	10,252	2,265.N.E.S	... 17,422	14,014	9,710	-	-	-	-Bulgarian	... 4,346	13,840	1,620	172	248	832	83Chinese	... 10,699	28,878	4,364	4	2,654	21,931	4,694Czech-Slovak	... 398	1,529	28,165	7,425	5,947	6,874	582'Danish	... 3,286	3,841	17,987	908	3,229	27,652	2,599East Indian 	... 5,480	106	477	266	361	3,394	3,755.Egyptian 	... 49	21	13	-	-	104	444Estonian	. . . 	-	612	43	7,127	7,263	197Finnish	... 12,621	9,651	29,610	758	1,228	16,386	1,301French	... 15,835	12,197	5,055	13,482	14,780	41,045	10,346.German	... 19,958	18,213	72,980	12,163	21,468	249,300	24,938Greek	... 3,914	5,301	3,835	848	3,399	39,377	16,110'Hungarian	... 9,876	4,611	29,959	4,177	4,978	47,313	3,066-Icelandic	... 2,659	988	297	82	116	396	31Iranian	... 123	78	57	7	14	140	154Italian	... 58,508	62,661	25,103	3,898	21,552	253,653	55,941Japanese	... 13,441	7,242	4,099	989	42	1,102	542Jewish	... 46,289	29,464	49,447	8,237	24,393	38,326	7,347Latvian	-	-	373	47	8,183	7,018	306Lebanese <2>	-	-	-	1,765	1,503-Lithuanian	-	-	5,553	443	8,951	3,696	294Luxemburger <5>	_	32	128	-	368	53Maltese	... 2	1,353	456	28	1,850	6,770	2,126Mexican	-	26	2	11	28	207	89'Negro	... 444	1,205	772	461	1,253	5,675	6,074Netherlander	... 4,789	6,071	11,637	2,536	32,899	126,298	7,776-Norwegian	... 13,200	7,736	20,212	1,491	2,535	9,856	1,528Polish	... 73,094	35,409	47,719	4,720	37,175	42,624	8,352Portuguese	... 54	101	1,024	51	345	22,361	14,237Rumanian	... 4,771	4,590	5,611	518	1,482	2,902	568Russian	... 37,492	60,390	14,680	1,083	3,775	6,059	675Spanish	... 366	2,771	249	201	494	5,873	3,887Swedish	... 18,484	10,283	21,245	1,382	1,714	6,276	1,301Swiss	... 1,438	1,385	5,305	670	1,544	9,798	2,408Syrian	... 4,741	1,169	1,381	294	403	1,369	331Turkish	... 2,404	1,651	107	7	24	591	764Ukrainian	... 4,866	55,743	58,553	8,198	22,831	14,257	647Y ugoslavian	... 11,733	6,142	20,348	3,025	5,755	30,123	8,380Others	... 5,765	757	350	115	204	981	1,440From the U.S.A. 	... 535,309	625,949	224,076	-	-	-	-1,631,892	1,712,258	1,230,202	158,562	491,321	1,574,841	290,749
(1>
Breakdown by ethnic origin for United States immigration not available in 10 year periods prior to 1931.
(2)	Prior to 1955, Lebanese included with Syrian.
(3)	Ceylonese and Pakistani included with East Indian.
(4)	From 1925 to 1952 Austrian included with German.
(5)	Prior to 1955 Egyptian and Luxemburger included with others.


IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA, 1921-1931
Mr. Choquelie: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada between 1921 and 1931?
2.	What was their country of origin?
3.	How many of those immigrants were English speaking and how many French speaking?
Questions


Hubert Badanai: Questions


IMMIGRATION TO CANADA, 1931-1941
Mr. Choqueile: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada between 1931 and 1941?
2.	What was their country of origin?
3.	How many of those immigrants were English speaking and how many French speaking?


Hubert Badanai: 
IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA, 1941-1951
Mr. Choquelle: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada between 1941 and 1951?
2.	What was their country of origin?
3.	How many of those immigrants were English speaking and how many French speaking?
Questions


Hubert Badanai: Questions


IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA, 1951-1961
Mr. Choqueile: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada between 1951 and 1961?
2.	What was their country of origin?
3.	How many of those immigrants were English speaking and how many French speaking?


Hubert Badanai: 
IMMIGRANTS TO CANADA, 1961-1964
Mr. Choquetle: 1.	How many immigrants entered Canada between 1961 and 1964?
2.	What was their country of origin?
3.	How many of those immigrants were English speaking and how many French speaking?
Questions


Hubert Badanai: 1. See attached table.
2.	See attached table.
3.	All prospective immigrants to Canada, especially those who will be seeking employment upon arrival, have always been closely
Total immigration to Canada by ethnic origin-10 year periods 1901 to 1964 (June 30)
Albanian	
Arabian	
Armenian	
Austrian	
Belgian	
British	
English	
Irish	
Scottish	
Welsh	
N.E.S	
Bulgarian	
Chinese	
Czech-Slovak	
Danish	
East Indian <3>....
Egyptian <5>
Estonian	
Finnish	
French	
German	
Greek	
Hungarian	
Icelandic	
Iranian	
Italian	
Japanese	
Jewish	
Latvian	
Lebanese <2>
Lithuanian	
Luxemburger <5>....
Maltese	
Mexican	
Negro	
Netherlander	
Norwegian	
Polish	
Portuguese	
Rumanian	
Russian	
Spanish	
Swedish	
Swiss	
Syrian	
Turkish	
Ukrainian	
Yugoslavian	
Others	
From the U.S.A. tt>.
1901-1910	1911-1920	1921-1930	1931-1940	1941-1950	1951-1960	1961-1964
						(June 30)
. -	9	156	37	119	238	138. 349	34	44	16	63	613	366. 1,444	409	1,191	55	96	1,534	2,197. 19,857	10,119	246	-	-	17,426	2,101. 8,124	11,113	11,378	1,036	4,042	15,435	2,083. 675,684	669,188	503,726	78,678	244,020	479,640	89,095. 478,259	463,136	257,838	47,010	166,451	295,355	51,921. 26,741	42,939	74,460	13,094	25,351	67,309	13,770. 133,617	140,745	146,856	17,085	47,328	106,724	21,139. 19,645	8,354	14,862	1,483	4, S90	10,252	2,265. 17,422	14,014	9,710	. 4,346	13,840	1,620	172	248	832	83. 10,699	28,878	4,364	4	2,654	21,931	4,694. 398	1,529	28,165	7,425	5,947	6,874	582. 3,286	3,841	17,987	908	3,229	27,652	2,599. 5,480	108	477	266	361	3,394	3,755. 49	21	13	-	-	104	444. -	-	612	43	7,127	7,263	197. 12,621	9,651	29,610	758	1,228	16,386	1,301. 15,835	12,197	5,055	13,482	14,780	41,045	10j 346. 19,958	18,213	72,980	12,163	21,468	249,300	24,938. 3,914	5,301	3,835	848	3,399	39,377	16,110. 9,876	4,611	29,959	4,177	4,978	47,313	3,066. 2,659	988	297	82	116	396	31. 123	78	57	7	14	140	154. 58,508	62,661	25,103	3,898	21,552	253,653	55,941. 13,441	7,242	4,099	989	42	1,102	542. 46,289	29,464	49,447	8,237	24,393	38,326	7,347[DOT] 	-	373	47	8,183	7,018	306[DOT]	-	-	-	-	1,765	1,503[DOT] 	-	5,553	443	8,951	3,696	294[DOT] 	32	128	-	-	368	53. 2	1,353	456	28	1,850	6,770	2,126[DOT] -	26	2	11	28	207	89. 444	1,205	772	461	1,253	5,675	6,074. 4,789	6,071	11,637	2,536	32,899	126,298	7,776. 13,200	7,736	20,212	1,491	2,535	9,856	1,528. 73,094	35,409	47,719	4,720	37,175	42,624	8,352. 54	101	1,024	51	345	22,361	14,237. 4,771	4,590	5,611	518	1,482	2,902	568. 37,492	60,390	14,680	1,083	3,775	6,059	675. 366	2,771	249	201	494	5,873	3,887. 18,484	10,283	21,245	1,382	1,714	6,276	1,301. 1,438	1,385	5,305	670	1,544	9,798	2,408. 4,741	1,169	1,381	294	403	1,369	331. 2,404	1,651	107	7	24	591	764. 4,866	55,743	58,553	8,198	22,831	14,257	647. 11,733	6,142	20,348	3,025	5,755	30,123	8,380. 5,765	757	350	115	204	981	1 440. 535,309	625,949	224,076	-	1,631,892	1,712,256	1,230,202	158,562	491,321	1,574,841	290,749
Breakdown by ethnic origin for United States immigration not available in 10 year periods prior to 1931. <z) Prior to 1955, Lebanese included with Syrian.
(3) Ceylonese and Pakistani included with East Indian.
<4) From 1925 to 1952 Austrian included with German.
(6) Prior to 1955 Egyptian and Luxemburger included with others.
7166

Questions
examined at the time of their application as to their ability to speak either or both of Canada's two official languages. However, it was not until January of this year that information respecting language ability was recorded in such a way as to enable tabulations to be produced in this respect. Of the 51,323 immigrant arrivals during the first six months of 1964, 22,975 were able to speak English while 4,317 were able to speak French. A further 1,053 had some knowledge of either English or French but it was not considered sufficient to permit their carrying on a conversation.


CIVIL SERVICE COMPETITION 64-263
Mr. Aiken: 1.	With reference to competition No. 64-263 of the civil service commission for planning and research officers. Department of Public Works, for which positions is the knowledge of both the English and the French languages required?
2.	What positions are presently available to be filled from this competition?


Hon. Maurice Lamoniagne (Secretary of Stale):: 1. There are three positions to be filled at the present time. It is essential that at least one be filled by an officer with a knowledge of both the English and French languages.
2. Three planning and research officer positions.


PUBLIC WORKS TUG &quot;CANSO&quot;
Mr. Coates: 1.	Is it the intention of the government to remove from service the Department of Public Works tug Canso and, if so (a) will a replacement be provided for the Canso (b) if no replacement is planned for the Canso what does the government intend to do about the crew of the tug?
2.	Were tenders called for the replacement of this tug prior to April 22, 1963, and did the present administration cancel this tender call?


Hon. J. P. Deschatelets (Minister of Public Works):: 1. Yes, at the conclusion of the 1964 dredging season, (a) No replacement is planned, (b) The crew will be laid off at the end of this season and will be considered for alternate employment elsewhere in the public service according to their qualifications, experience and length of service.
2. No.


FISHWAY CONSTRUCTION, QUEENS COUNTY, N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: 1.	What is the total cost of the fishway built on the Salmon river. Queens county. New Brunswick, in 1963?
2.	How many men were employed on construction of the fishway and how long did it take to build?
3.	What is the result of the latest count of salmon using this fishway?


Hédard-J. Robichaud: 1.	An adult salmon counting fence was built on the Salmon river, Queens county, New Brunswick, in 1963. Total cost $15,813.70.
2.	Construction was by contract and consequently information re number of men employed not available.
3.	To date no salmon have passed through this counting fence. It is a late run river and it is not anticipated fish will enter until the fall of the year.


GRAIN UNLOADING FACILITIES, SAINT JOHN, N.B.
Mr. Fairweather: Are there facilities at the port of Saint John, New Brunswick, to discharge a cargo of grain as well as load such a cargo and, if not, what plans has the national harbours board prepared to add this necessary facility and by what date?


Hon. J. W. Pickersgill (Minister of Transport):: There are no facilities for the discharge of waterborne grain cargoes at Saint John harbour, and the national harbours board would not feel justified in recommending the installation of such facilities without evidence that they would be used to the extent necessary to warrant the expenditure.


TRANS-CANADA HIGHWAY WIDENING, CALGARY, ALTA.
Mr. Woolliams: 1.	With reference to the widening of the trans-Canada highway through 16th avenue north Calgary, what financial share, if any, is the federal government contributing to this necessary improvement?
2.	Under the agreements with the provinces, does the federal authority make contributions to the improvement and widening of the trans-Canada highway, irrespective of what route it follows?


Jean-Paul Deschatelets: 1. No requests have been received for participation by the federal government in the widening of the trans-Canada highway through 16th avenue north Calgary.
2. No. Canada will only share in construction costs on the route designated in the trans-Canada highway agreements. The shareable portion of construction costs is limited to that required to construct a two lane highway to a specified standard as provided for in the trans-Canada highway agreements.


INTEREST ON NATIONAL DEBT
Mr. Laprise: What amount has been paid in interest on the national debt since confederation?


Hon. Miichell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Total interest payments on the national debt of Canada since confederation is estimated at $15,202,067,544.


QUESTION PASSED AS ORDER FOR RETURN
Mr. Herridge: 1.	What was the policy adopted with respect to the purchase or expropriation of land surrounding Buffalo Pound lake in connection with the building of the Saskatchewan dam?
2.	What were the number of parcels of land purchased or expropriated?
3.	What was the acreage, assessed value, and amount paid for each parcel purchased or expropriated?
Return tabled.


DIVERSION OF CANADIAN WHEAT AND FLOUR BY RUSSIA TO CUBA
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I direct this question to the Prime Minister because the matter covers more than one department. It has to do with an article in the London Sunday Times of yesterday's date regarding the diversion by the U.S.S.R. of wheat sold under the contract between the U.S.S.R. and the Canadian wheat board. Is it a fact that some 250,000 tons of wheat and flour under the 1963 contract with the U.S.S.R. were diverted by the purchaser, the U.S.S.R., to Cuba; and was this action agreed to by the Canadian government? Naturally I should like to know too whether the wheat board asked for the views of the Canadian government before consenting to this diversion.


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I did notice the report to which my right hon. friend has referred, and I am going to ask the Minister of Trade and Commerce to deal with the matter.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members may recall from my disclosure to the house last year of the terms of the agreement between the U.S.S.R., the Canadian government and the Canadian wheat board, there were in effect two agreements, one of them under which the U.S.S.R. purchased certain quantities of wheat and flour on which credit terms were available, and a second agreement relating to the sale of wheat and flour for Cuba. Under that second part of the agreement sales were strictly for cash.
To make the position quite clear, Mr. Speaker, under the Canada-U.S.S.R. trade agreement concluded last fall there was a 20220-453i
Inquiries of the Ministry sale of approximately 252,000 tons of wheat and 175,000 tons of flour for direct shipment to Cuba on a cash basis. I might add that all shipments of wheat and flour purchased under the Canada-U.S.S.R. wheat agreement have been completed with the exception of a small quantity of flour to be delivered shortly to Cuba.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I would then direct this question to the Prime Minister. With respect to the diversion of this wheat and flour to Cuba, has there been any complaint made by any friendly government?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Not to my knowledge, Mr. Speaker; and even those governments which have cut off normal trade with Cuba have agreed, I think-I am speaking particularly of the United States-not to prevent the sale to Cuba for cash of exports of certain foodstuffs and medical supplies.


John George Diefenbaker: Among the countries in the western hemisphere that have discontinued trading relations, recognition and the exchange of representatives, are there any which are allowing the diversion of wheat or wheat products to Cuba?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I cannot answer that question without an examination. I shall be glad to look into it. I should add that the countries to which my hon. friend refers are selling direct to Cuba for cash, foodstuffs and medical supplies.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Burnaby-Coquitlam):: May I ask a supplementary question. I ask the Prime Minister if he knows of any international commitment which Canada has made which would preclude our selling wheat either directly or indirectly to Cuba.


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, Mr. Speaker.


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the minister who reports to parliament for Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation, and because of the imperative nature of my question, may I direct it to the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that within a few days hundreds of veterans in the Fraserview veterans project in Vancouver will be facing an order increasing their rent by 80 per cent, with the alternative of agreeing to a purchase price which is unacceptable to them or an eviction

Inquiries of the Ministry notice, I ask the Prime Minister if he will interest himself to see that this order is withheld pending a further investigation of the complaints. I am asking if this can be done in view of the fact that the order is to take effect within a few days.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I will look into the matter immediately as requested by my hon. friend.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: My question is directed to the Minister of Labour. In view of the fact that Thompson, Manitoba, has suffered an exodus of more than 3,000 residents since August 12, can the minister inform the house whether he has taken any steps to encourage negotiations or bring about renewed negotiations in order that another place in Canada might not become a ghost town?


Hon. A. J. MacEachen (Minister of Labour):: I wish to advise my hon. friend that whatever steps can be taken by the national employment service, as an agency of the Department of Labour, will be taken to assist in the situation. If my hon. friend could be more specific as to what particular matters he has in mind, I would be glad to take the question as notice.


INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Marcel Lessard (Lake Sf. John):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question to which either the Minister of Finance or the Minister of Industry and Minister of Defence Production could reply. Are they in a position to inform the house of the progress made in the talks and negotiations between the Peugeot and Renault companies, as well as the Quebec government, on the one hand, and the federal government, on the other, concerning tariff concessions to be granted to those companies if they were to establish themselves in the province of Quebec?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, I have nothing to add at this time.


PUBLIC SERVICE
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: With further reference to the recent salary increases, may I ask whether a message has been received by the Prime Minister from Vancouver respecting the dissatisfaction particularly of clerks and typists, grades 1 and 2? The message states that these employees were overlooked in the last group B cyclical review and have now been granted paltry increases of $90 and $120 per annum. The telegram asks for an immediate review by the treasury board. In the face of what the Prime Minister said the other day, is he prepared to say that the matter is being reviewed by treasury board so that a measure of fairness and justice will be done to these people?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I said on Friday the matter will be looked into at once. It is under close examination, and I hope a statement can be made on it tomorrow.


John George Diefenbaker: Is it before the treasury board?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, and I think it will be the president of the treasury board who will report to the house on it tomorrow.


POST OFFICE DEPARTMENT
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Theogene Ricard (Si. Hyacinthe-Bagot):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Postmaster General, I should like to direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. Would he tell the house whether a new stamp, bearing the words "Free Quebec" was issued lately by the department?


Mr. Alexis Caron (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: I shall refer the question to the minister.


BAY OF FUNDY
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the

Prime Minister. In view of the statement by the chairman of the Atlantic development board that the engineering feasibility of the harnessing of the bay of Fundy tides has been confirmed, is it the intention of the government to request the board to initiate immediately an economic investigation into this matter?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be glad to take that question as notice, and I hope I or one of my colleagues will be in a position to reply tomorrow or the next day.


Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):: As a supplementary question, in view of this announcement will the Prime Minister also reassess the other projects in the maritimes such as Passamaquoddy and Mactaquac, and will there be any diminution in government interest in them?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Well, Mr. Speaker, these projects are all related to each other, and I hope we would not decide on one without examining the relationship of that one to all the others.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Harold Edward Winch: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Veterans Affairs but in his absence I shall direct it to the acting minister. In view of the impassioned demands being made continually upon members of this house relative to veterans allowances, otherwise known as burnt out pensions, before this session closes will there be legislation introduced to take care of their increased costs since the last amendment of 1961?


Hon. Lucien Cardin (Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Veterans Affairs I shall take this question as notice and bring in an answer tomorrow or the day after.


Harold Edward Winch: Do I understand that there will be an answer tomorrow?


Louis-Joseph-Lucien Cardin: Tomorrow or the day after.



EDUCATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Minister of
Inquiries of the Ministry Finance whether he is ready to make any report as to the various agencies in the provinces to which students should apply in respect of the student loan legislation?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I hope very much to be able to make a full statement probably on Thursday or Friday of this week.



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Lessard: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of National Defence.
Is he in a position to inform the house whether he intends to wait until the special committee on national defence presents its report to make a decision as regards the purchasing of the new military equipment recently recommended by his specialists' committee?


Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National Defence):: No, Mr. Speaker, it is not the intention to do so.


Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Piclou):: As a supplementary question, does the minister expect that the government will make a decision on the matter of these anti-submarine weapons by late this fall?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I would hope so.



HARBOURS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stuart A. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Minister of Transport but in his absence perhaps the acting minister might take it as notice. Can the minister advise the house whether reports current in Vancouver over the week end regarding the issue or transfer of leases on waterfront properties to the Coal Harbour Development Company are correct? Is so, may I ask him whether the views of the Vancouver west end and downtown ratepayers association have been taken into account and, further, whether there is financial stability in the company to which these leases have been transferred?

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. G. J. Mcllrailh (President of the Privy Council):: I will be glad to take the question as notice and give an answer tomorrow if possible.



INQUIRY AS TO HOLDING OF BY-ELECTIONS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforth):: I wish to address a question to the Prime Minister. Last week the right hon. gentleman told me he was giving consideration to calling by-elections in Westmorland and Waterloo South. I was just wondering whether they will be called in the next 44 days so that representatives of these constituencies can participate in the flag debate.


Lester Bowles Pearson: This is naturally an important factor in the consideration I have been giving to this matter. I hope to be able to make a statement later in the week about the date of these byelections.



AIRPORTS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Transport, may I direct a question to his parliamentary secretary. In view of the fact that we are still awaiting the installation of certain escalators at Winnipeg international airport, can a statement be made soon as to when these installations will be made?


Some hon. Members:: Order paper.


Mr. Jean-Charles Caniin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: I will take the question as notice.



THE CANADIAN ECONOMY


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. D. M. Fisher (Port Arthur):: I want to ask the Prime Minister a question. It arises from a speech by Dr. Deutsch which was widely reported in the United States. Since the annual report of the economic council was given to us only a short time ago, and since there was very little in that report which seems to dovetail into, or be a replica of, what Dr. Deutsch came out with in terms of Canada's economic growth, I wonder whether the Prime Minister would consider seeing that the complete text of what Dr. Deutsch had to

say in the United States is made available to all members of the house.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I would be very glad to discuss the matter with Dr. Deutsch and see whether the text of that speech can be made available to members.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, August 20, consideration of the motion of Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty King George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves conjoined on one stem-in the colours red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker and the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
Mr. Donald Maclnnis (Cape Breton South):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday I referred to the introduction of this flag resolution and to the Prime Minister's open invitation to members to participate. It is a well known fact that members on this side of the house have since accepted that invitation and have made their observations on this subject. The Prime Minister saw fit on one occasion to refer to this as a filibuster. Whether the participation to which I have referred is known as a filibuster or not, I can tell the house that I personally am proud to take part in this debate.
When I spoke on Thursday I also gave reasons why I personally believe that the term "filibuster" as applied by the Liberals to the debate is certainly not applicable to what has taken place in this house. I indicated that in Wednesday's debate, which took up fewer than 29 pages of Hansard, there were two pages of rulings from the Chair, 61 identified interruptions and in all more than 100 interjections by hon. members. There were, in addition, speeches by an hon. member of the New Democratic party and by a representative of "the Liberal group", to repeat a phrase used by the Minister of Trade and Commerce in the course of his own contribution, during which he made no reference whatsoever to his leader, or to the Liberals being a party.
This reminds one of the statement made by the Minister of Finance during a television broadcast when he said he "thought the Liberal party had a leader." In this case the Minister of Trade and Commerce does not

recognize that there is either a party or a leader. Of course, as was mentioned on another occasion, the hon. gentleman has his own ambitions and is probably directing all his energies in that direction.
The Minister of Forestry took exception to certain remarks I was making and rose to tell the house just why he was present as a minister. It is interesting to see that as reported on page 7106 of Hansard, in the second column, the minister's first sentence was:
I thought we had been elected in this parliament to take decisions.
This fact is clearly indicated by the Liberal party when it takes the decision, the personal decision, of the Prime Minister and gives it its blessings. It has been my understanding that we as members are here to make decisions. Of course it is a very simple matter to make a decision, but it is our further duty to make the right decision. Much doubt has been cast on the decision of this house to introduce to this country a three maple leaves flag which is the personal choice of the Prime Minister.
I say it is his personal choice, Mr. Speaker, because in my own province, as I said before, the two members for Halifax, in my opinion with prior knowledge, made these very bold statements which are a clear indication to the Prime Minister that his personal choice has not been accepted within his own party. These two hon. members made it quite clear that any support which they would give the three maple leaves flag was qualified support.
I further indicated, Mr. Speaker, that the members of his own cabinet are divided on this particular matter, and I threw out the challenge that one particular minister had informed me that his choice would be anything but the three maple leaves flag. He was against it. At the same time he indicated to me what was his choice, which is a clear-cut indication that within the cabinet itself this party is divided. And why should it not be divided? It is the personal selection of the Prime Minister. The Minister of Forestry indicated that we were here to take decisions, but hon. gentlemen opposite are giving the decision of	the Prime Minister their
blessing.
Why have we not heard from the Liberal members on this particular matter, Mr. Speaker? Why do they not get up in support of the three maple leaves flag? Why have we not heard from the two members for Halifax, who qualified their support for the three maple leaves flag? Let us hear them get up now and give their unqualified support. Let us also hear from the cabinet minister who is
Canadian Flag
quite dissatisfied with this proposed flag. These opinions were all expressed prior to the introduction of this resolution, so let us hear these hon. gentlemen support the three maple leaves flag; and give it unqualified support, not the qualified support they indicated they would give when they knew what the resolution would contain.


Mr. Regan:: I would not support your
filibuster.


Mr. Mandziuk:: They have nothing to say.


Malcolm MacInnis: The hon. member now interjecting is well aware of what I think of his ability, especially when he was trying to chair a certain committee.


J. Nicholas (Nick) Mandziuk: Which member?


Malcolm MacInnis: He does not even show enough ability to make himself properly identifiable. The finger of blame in this debate has been pointed in many directions and for many reasons, but as far as I am concerned the finger can only be pointed in one direction, and that is in the direction of the Prime Minister himself, who has made a personal choice and imposed it on the members of his party. Perhaps I should say "group", because after all that is what the Minister of Trade and Commerce called it. He has imposed on his own group his opinion of what should be the flag design.
The Prime Minister has now said that he is willing to allow this matter to go before a committee. This was the suggestion put forward some time ago by the Leader of the Opposition. However, the Prime Minister's willingness to allow it to go to a committee comes rather late, considering that his action to date has put his own members in such a position that they are more or less obligated to go along with the pressure put upon them by the Prime Minister, which was made quite clear when he introduced his resolution in the first place.
I say the finger can be pointed in one direction and one direction only, namely directly at the Prime Minister. Should he not wish to take my word for this, perhaps he would like to go back to some of the advisers he was looking to for advice not too long ago. He might question the advice of Mr. Ryan of he Devoir, to whom I understand he went for advice. He might ask what Mr. Ryan thinks of this particular flag design; and in that connection he might read an editorial which appeared in that paper over the week end in which the lack of leadership on his part in pointed out, a matter which his own group is fully realizing is the case today.

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, the usual sort of contribution is coming from hon. members opposite. I have invited them to get up, if they are in favour of the three maple leaves flag, and give the house their unqualified support for the personal choice of the Prime Minister. But that they cannot do.


Gerald Augustine Regan: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a point of order. I submit that the fairy tales told by the hon. member in the last ten minutes have nothing to do with the subamendment and should be ruled out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: I have been listening intently to the speech of the hon. member, and frequently during the last few minutes he has referred to the question of designs. There was the question of the three maple leaves and of one or two other designs alluded to by the subamendment. In my opinion, although he is being rather general he is within the ambit of the subamendment.


Malcolm MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, I am grateful to you for putting the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Regan) in his place. However, through you, sir, I would call his attention to the remarks of the Minister of Trade and Commerce, his own colleague, to which he did not see fit to rise and raise a point of order. If I have strayed I submit I have not strayed nearly as far as did the hon. member's own colleague, the minister, on that occasion.
With reference to the three leaves design, it has become obvious across the country to many members of the Liberal group that what the Prime Minister has tried to do in foisting his personal choice upon this parliament has become a very difficult task, and quite possibly hon. gentlemen opposite will rise in their places within the next few hours or days and those who can will indicate their reasons for supporting the three maple leaves flag. But I would very much doubt whether many of them could do that with a clear conscience.
Today we have a flag flying which was referred to by the late Mackenzie King as the official Canadian flag. We have flying today a flag which was recognized by Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent, who said that no new flag should be a party flag. We have flying today a flag which was recognized by the present Leader of the Opposition when he was prime minister. In conclusion I can only say that if it was good enough for the three prime ministers prior to this administration coming into office, it is certainly good enough 
for this present Prime Minister leading the group he is in in this house.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings.


Hon. George C. Nowlan (Digby-Annapolis-Kings):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy to be recognized even though I have not yet risen. Perhaps I might attribute my recognition to the shadow cast by my six foot five inch frame when I do rise. This reminds me of the situation one found, as a small boy born in the days before there was complete pollution of our streams, before our rivers were dammed and all the brooks had been frozen, when one walked along the banks of a brook in late February or early March and heard the sound of a little water trickling underneath the ice. Then one could run back home and say "I think, spring is coming". Sometimes, of course, spring was followed by a freeze and the water would stop running. Sometimes the water kept on running and it would not be too long before one could hear the cracking and booming of the ice in the lakes and would know that a complete thaw had taken place; that not only had spring arrived but summer, even a belated one, was not far removed.
Certainly this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate I am speaking in an atmosphere similar to that sound of running water underneath the ice, and at this stage I should not want to say anything or do anything which would result in a freeze and stop the running of the water. We can always be optimistic, and perhaps it behooves all of us at this time to be very careful of the situation.
Mr. Speaker, there are one or two general statements I should like to make while carrying on this debate. In the first place I think all members here are fair minded, subject to some political pressure, and will admit that this debate has been of a very high standard.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


George Clyde Nowlan: Did I hear something from the other side? I might have known that some would disagree.
This has been an emotionally charged debate in respect of matters which are very close to many of the members. This is a debate which could have aroused bitter feelings, recriminations and statements which would be very difficult to overlook or control in a parliament such as this. Of course there have been political overtones, as there always are when dealing with matters of this kind; because in a proper sense of the word this

is a political body, and politics are bound to be interspersed in our activities.
I do suggest there have been less politics and more sentiment and expression of feeling during this debate, considering the subject matter. I am sure that students of parliamentary history, when reading the speeches made during this debate at some time in the future when many of us are no longer members here, will find it very difficult to understand the comments of some of the press columnists to the effect that this is a very poor parliament. A poor parliament could not have produced a debate such as we have had, and I refer to speeches made by hon. members on all sides of this house. Some great speeches have been made. Of course all the speeches made have not been great, but on the whole parliament as an institution can be very proud of the debate which has taken place.
As I have said, I am sure that students in the future, after we have been long since forgotten individually, will read this debate not only to discover the history of Canada but because of its high quality. The speeches have been emotionally charged, but the situation has been adequately handled. I am sure speeches to be made from now on will continue to be of that high order.
Mr. Speaker, there are two misconceptions I should like to deal with at this time. One has been the suggestion that this debate is a filibuster. That suggestion has been made casually by one or two hon. members opposite, although not by those in the front row. That suggestion has been mentioned casually on occasion by the radio and press men. The suggestion was given an official position a day or two ago by the Minister of Trade and Commerce, who referred to the debate as a Tory filibuster. That was the first time the expression was used by an hon. gentleman in the front row opposite. That minister had the nerve and temerity to call this a Tory filibuster.
I remind that hon. gentleman that we are speaking here today at the proper request of the Prime Minister, who said it was the duty and responsibility of all hon. members in all parties to not only express the feelings of their constituents but their own feelings as well. I agree with the Prime Minister that it is our duty to express our opinions, and that is exactly what we are doing and have been doing for a week or more. It is true that one or two speeches have been made in repetition, and that two or three 20220-454
Canadian Flag
speakers have spoken twice during this debate. That is understandable for various reasons known to hon. members who have had the responsibility of marshalling the debate and arranging for speakers.
Generally speaking there has been no repetition. This is the first time I have spoken during this debate, and I know there are other members on this side of the house who have not spoken but who will, I am sure, take part in this debate. They will not be taking part in a Tory filibuster but will be expressing their opinions in response to the wishes of their constituents. Our constituents expect us to speak, Mr. Speaker, and for some of us in any event our consciences demand that we do so. I think in all fairness that fact is generally recognized by hon. members on the other side of the house.
Mr. Speaker, I think there has been a little suggestion, outside those one or two references by hon. members opposite who criticize us because we are taking up some time, that this is in fact a filibuster. There has been some criticism on the part of radio commentators and editorial writers who suggest this debate is being carried on for purely political purposes and that we are speaking only for the benefit of the people back home. All I can say, Mr. Speaker, is that these intellectual halfwits who have no knowledge of sentiment or emotion themselves are hardly in a position to speak for those of us who do feel keenly and strongly about this matter.
If anyone desires a political reply to the charge of filibuster, Mr. Speaker, I call upon that distinguished member of the press gallery, Mr. Blair Fraser, who has never been recognized as a Conservative apologist but who has been accused of writing apologia for the Liberal party. He is a personal friend of mine, and I absolve him of that latter charge entirely. Mr. Fraser several days ago, commenting over C.B.C., said this was one of a number of false statements being put forward by certain people. He wanted to deny emphatically that it was the purpose of the Conservative spokesmen in the House of Commons, who were exercising their rights, to conduct a filibuster.
The second misconception, Mr. Speaker, is related to the suggestion that we are blocking or interfering with the nation's business. I must say that we are very concerned with the nation's business. I remind hon. members that the Prime Minister outlined the business which had to be done before the flag debate commenced and suggested that after the flag

Canadian Flag
debate was concluded there was going to be a recess of parliament. The business to which the right hon. Prime Minister referred has been completed and we are now dealing with the flag debate. If we are interfering with anything, Mr. Speaker, apparently we are interfering with our own vacations. There may be those who think we do not deserve to have a vacation because we are now receiving the huge sum of $18,000 a year. In any event, no one could suggest we are blocking the nation's business, because we would be away from this place were it not for this particular debate.
I think all members of parliament, not only those on this side, have been subject to a very caustic and critical press because of the fact they are prepared to participate in and listen to this debate when, were it not for this debate, they would be out of here. Again, if one wants to call an unprejudiced witness, in that same radio broadcast to which I referred a few moments ago Mr. Blair Fraser said no one could accuse the Conservative opposition of interfering with or interrupting the business of the country because if we were not dealing with this issue we would be away on our vacation and the business of the country would not be under discussion.


John George Diefenbaker: The government has
nothing ready.


George Clyde Nowlan: The Leader of the Opposition says the government has nothing ready. We are at least giving them time in which to produce something. We hope that when we get through with this matter they will be able to produce something, and if they do we will deal with it.
I wish to make one further reference to the Minister of Trade and Commerce. We all appreciate the real and obviously sincere concern which he felt for the future of the Conservative party. It almost brought tears to our eyes to realize he was so concerned about our future and, as I said, we appreciate it. But I will tell him that having been here for quite a few years and having taken part in public life in this country for many years, I have a very high appreciation of the contribution the Liberal party has made to the history and development of this nation, and I appreciate the fact that the Minister of Trade and Commerce shares these views and recognizes the countribution which the Conservative party has made to the history and development of this country.
With all due respect to hon. members farther down this side of the house and the

contributions they have made from time to time for the good of the nation, I think everyone realizes that the two great old parties have been largely responsible for the development of Canada, and I hope and expect that this will continue to be so. But I want to assure the Minister of Trade and Commerce that his worry about our future is no greater than our worry about their future. What we are afraid of is that the Liberal party, as a result of their actions in this debate and the attitude they have taken, are going to become a sectional party rather than a national party and will largely cease to exist in certain parts of the country.
On Friday the Prime Minister made a statement which was very belated but very welcome. Apparently when the votes are taken on the amendments and the motion before the house the party whips will be relaxed and hon. members may vote as they see fit. This is certainly a rather belated conversion. As I have said, I do not want to deaden the sound of running water and I certainly do not want to raise any blood pressures at this time, but I think anybody will admit that the action of the government in bringing forward the flag resolution and the way it has been handled has been characterized, to put it gently and kindly, by a certain degree of stupidity and a high degree of stubbornness. No more kindly description could be applied to what has happened.
We were told that a flag had been produced by somebody for which the Prime Minister apparently took credit, although most of those on the other side do not know who produced it; and we were told that we could take it or leave it and if we did not take it there would be an election. If ever before there has been a political blunder in a highly emotional situation such as this, I have never seen it. I doubt that there ever has been such an action since confederation which affected people generally in their hearts, their souls and their minds to the extent this has, and which has been characterized with such stubbornness and such stupidity as the government has shown up to now. Therefore we welcome the statement of the Prime Minister that there will be no political pressure brought to bear on hon. members opposite when we come to vote, in that the whips will be off and the fate of the government will not be determined in any way, shape or form. In other words there is not going to be an election-


John George Diefenbaker: Three months late.


George Clyde Nowlan: -because of the result of the vote. In that connection I draw attention to a former political leader in this house who was succeeded by an hon. gentleman to my left. I refer to Hon. M. J. Coldwell who was leader of the C.C.F. party in years gone by and who is one of the distinguished parliamentarians of this parliament and country. I wish to quote from a speech he made in the house on December 9, 1953. As found on page 748 of Hansard, he said:
No partisan recommendation should be made. When a recommendation is made to parliament-
He was referring to a flag.
-the government should feel that it would be acceptable at least to the vast majority of members in all parts of the house. The matter of choosing a national emblem is too important to have connected with it any sort of political controversy either In the house or across the country.
Those words, uttered in 1953 by one of the distinguished parliamentarians of this country and of this century, are words which 1 would commend to all hon. members at this time. As I say, we welcome this conversion on the part of the Prime Minister, belated though it is. Some of us cannot quite forget the communist trials in the Stalin era when men were so brainwashed while they were confined that when they were released and brought into the open courtroom they confessed to sins of which they had never heard because they had been brainwashed to that extent. I hope that the brainwashing which has taken place on the other side of the house has not been of such severity and intensity that hon. members opposite cannot recover from it before we come to the vote.
1 see that time is passing, Mr. Speaker, and as I did not mark the time I started I must watch myself. A partisan decision as to the flag was the first mistake that was made by the government. The second mistake which I suggest has been made by the government in dealing with this matter was when the proposed flag brought forward by the Prime Minister and the government was denuded of all historical significance, of everything which bespeaks our pride, our history and our traditions.
I have heard it said that the red ensign does not have a great deal of history behind it. There has been debate as to when it was used first. It has been said that it was flown over the parliament buildings up to 1904 and that it was then taken down. I have heard it suggested that it was not used during the first world war and that it came into use by virtue of some order in council long after the first world war was over.
20220-454i
Canadian Flag
I can speak with some little authority in this matter because I happen to be one who as a very junior soldier served in France for a very short time during the first world war. I well remember Sir Robert Borden, for instance, then prime minister of Canada, coming to Tincques in France on July 1, 1918, Dominion day, and Canadian ensigns were flying to welcome the prime minister. I am sure that others in the house including the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre who served in the first world war, can vouch for the statement I am making today.
If one wants further corroboration one does not need to go to a Tory politician or spokesman. I would refer the house to General Andrew McNaughton, who could hardly be described as a Tory supporter. I have been talking to him lately. He was commander of the Canadian corps of artillery during the first world war and was a great soldier and a great leader in the field. He said that the Canadian red ensign flew over the corps headquarters at that time. He remembers it very well, and he was proud of the fact that it was there.


Mr, Matheson:: May I ask a question on that point? Was it not the blue ensign? Was not General Currie's flag the blue ensign?


George Clyde Nowlan: I am not sure what General Currie's flag may have been. General Currie was commander of the Canadian corps, which was almost equivalent to an army command, although it was only recognized as a corps. General Currie may have had his own flag and it may have been the blue ensign. However, so far as the Canadian corps troops were concerned, so far as the Canadians serving in France were concerned, it was the red ensign that was flying.
As I have said, I think the second mistake which was made in connection with this proposed flag was the denuding from it of all references to our tradition, our pride and our history. You are taking a flag which is rich in history, which is colourful, and discarding it. I remember the first day I came into the courtyard of this House of Commons. Perhaps to some extent I was emotionally aroused because I was taking a seat in the House of Commons. However, I have never forgotten the picture of that red ensign flying over the peace tower. I never can forget it. I can say, and I am sure most hon. members will agree with me, that in colour, in richness and in the general picture that

Canadian Flag
this flag presents, it is second to none which is flying anywhere in the world today.
Now, it the resolution is adopted we are starting literally-and I do not mean to make a pun-and figuratively with a clean sheet. We are going to do away with our history and our tradition. In that connection I should like to refer the right hon. Prime Minister and other Liberals to the statement of a great liberal-not Liberal in the political sense-President Woodrow Wilson. We all recognize him as one of the great liberals of the North American continent. He said this in an address on June 14, 1915:
The things that the flag stands for were created by the experiences of a great people. Everything that it stands for was written by their lives. The flag is the embodiment, not of sentiment, but of history. It represents the experiences made by men and women, the experiences of those who do and live under that flag.
I think, Mr. Speaker, that is as fair a definition of a flag as one can get, and I commend it to hon. gentlemen opposite. The corollary to that mistake is the belief that the Canadian people would accept this denuding of our flag, this stripping of our heritage and tradition. There has never been a greater example, I will not say of political stupidity but of political ignorance, than has been shown in connection with this matter; to think that the Canadian people would stand idly by and see the flag which millions revere being cast aside so that we start off again with a clean sheet. If any government thought that would be accepted by the Canadian people, it is absolutely beyond my comprehension.
The reason for it, of course, or so we are told, is that this will achieve national unity. Feeling strongly as I do on this matter, and I know I am speaking for many others who feel the same way, I may say that if by throwing our flag into discard, by coming up with a new emblem of some kind or other, we could achieve national unity; if we were convinced of that, I think we would pay that price to achieve national unity. The trouble is you hear statements made by hon. members around this building. I am not referring to any one group or province or anything else, but we hear that this will not achieve national unity. The flag is only the beginning. Our problems are much deeper, and unless other solutions, financial, constitutional and otherwise are found, national unity will not be achieved. Finally you are told that this

flag is simply a problem for English Canadians. Now, when you are facing that situation it is rather difficult to be convinced that if you are prepared to drop the red ensign, if you are prepared to start with a new sheet, you are going to achieve national unity.
We are asked to give up everything, many of us are, which we hold dear; everything of our pride, our history and our traditions. We are told afterward that this does not achieve anything in the end. Are we to scrap the flag we have, the flag which is flying over this building today, that warm, colourful, beautiful symbol of our history and our heritage? What are we to accept in exchange? We are prepared to make an exchange if we were sure it would be the means of accomplishing national unity, but we are not prepared to do it on the information we have at the moment.
We are asked to swap, and for what? We have a suggestion brought forward by the Prime Minister-I am not saying he developed it, but it is reported that he did- concerning the three maple leaf design. I had someone check with the office of the Secretary of State, and I found that there were 24 different copyrights on the three maple leaf design. They cover everything from beer to boloney and many other products in between. There are those who suggest one maple leaf as the design. I do not want to cause any discomfiture in that particular quarter, but I found that there were 327 copyrights issued covering one maple leaf. These are the matters which we are supposed to debate. We are asked to strip the hallmarks of our history and accept a copyright design for beer.
Now, Mr. Speaker, we are told that all this will achieve national unity, but I doubt it. There are extremists in all places; there are extremists both English and French. There are extremists in various provinces. We all have to recognize that fact. I recognize it, and I make apologies for some of the English speaking extremists just as I am sure some of my hon. friends from Quebec make apologies for some of the extremists in their own province. A country which has no pride in history has very little hope for posterity. I am sure the French Canadians have pride in their ancestry, just as we have in ours. I am wondering what the habitants who came to the defence of this country and fought under the union jack to defeat Montgomery and save this country from becoming a colony of the United States would think today. I would think they would turn over in

their graves if they heard some of the statements which are allegedly being made by their descendants in this country.
It is not only limited to Quebec. I am speaking now from a prejudiced, personal position. I come from the ancient province of Nova Scotia. I come from that most ancient of constituencies, Digby-Annapolis-Kings, which includes Port Royal, the ancient capital of this country. This is the place to which Champlain came. He settled in that rich valley and developed enough courage and strength during two or three years to go on and establish French settlements at Stada-cona and Hochelaga. We have a Port Royal, which name was changed only a few years ago by commission from the postmaster general in order to re-establish that old name. In that little community you have the Order of Good Cheer, which has been going on for over 300 years and which was established by Champlain. It is meeting regularly now and has been for more than three centuries. Surely this is part of our heritage, part of our tradition. One can say it has not got much to do with the flag, that you don't get a kettle on a flag; but if you scrap your traditions, if you start scrapping one then scrap all the others.
I simply point out that we have a French Canadian heritage not only in the province of Quebec, of which all Canada is proud, but we have it in my own constituency, in my own town, Port Royal. We are very proud of it, and we want to see it maintained.
My own position-and the Prime Minister said we should make our own positions clear -is very simple. In the two or three minutes left to me I want to say that in the first place I believe in supporting the red ensign. I believe it is a beautiful flag, a flag of history which contains our heritage and our traditions. I will support it as long as that is feasible in this discussion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


George Clyde Nowlan: Some modifications may be developed. I can think of modifications which can be developed following suggestions which may be coming forward with respect to one maple leaf. Somebody said to me today, "I thought you and your party were in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. Why have you been telling the people you are in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag if you don't intend to support the maple leaves flag?" For years my party has stated it has been in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag, but I never dreamt that by adopting a distinctive
Canadian Flag
Canadian flag we would denude it of everything of our history, traditions and heritage. I thought it would be possible with the red ensign to superimpose a maple leaf, or any other emblem, but I never thought the proposal meant the elimination of everything pertaining to our pride, history and traditions. That is what I meant, and that is what I believe my party meant when we said we were in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag.
Providing these ancient hallmarks are preserved we are prepared to accept any modification, maintaining the red ensign substantially; but I am not married to that. If that is impossible, if we cannot do that by agreement in this house, I support the proposal for a plebiscite because I believe, sir, in this matter-
[Editor's Note: And an object having been thrown from the gallery:]


George Clyde Nowlan: It's all right. I don't think it's his heart's blood; I think it's his brains.


Mr. Bigg:: It will be a live bomb next.


George Clyde Nowlan: As I said, Mr. Speaker, if necessary I am prepared to accept a plebiscite on this matter. I do not think it is necessary, but certainly it is better to have that, to have all the Canadian people consulted, than to have any decision forced upon us by any government majority. Or as an alternative, as the Prime Minister hinted on Friday and as the Leader of the Opposition has also mentioned, the question of a committee of the house, should be given very careful consideration if that is the only avenue possible.
I read in the paper, or heard something this morning, to the effect that "this man Diefen-baker" would not agree to a committee and that he wanted interminable debate thereon. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that for any committee which may be set up there would have to be ground rules established first, and as I understand our rules, ordinarily a majority report is printed and there is no minority report. I do not think anyone in this parliament would expect a committee to be set up which would simply bring in a bare majority report, but I think in this case there would have to be a very substantial majority in favour of the committee's report, and it should not require a unanimous report because we do not want a situation where one or perhaps two people veto the decision of a committee of this house. But if you had a committee set up with ground rules established, whereby there would

Canadian Flag
have to be substantial unanimity in the committee's report, then I do not think there would be any need to debate it at length afterward in the house. In that way we would either get a substantially unanimous report accepted with very little discussion or we would not get a report at all, and in that event we would still be faced with the situation which exists now.
I apologize to the house, Mr. Speaker, for having taken up its time, but I have stated my own feelings on this matter and I am confident that men and women of good will, as the great majority of men and women in this house are, can work out this matter sitting down together and discussing it. I am confident we can arrive at a solution to this problem, which is probably the greatest emotional problem we have been confronted with, certainly since conscription and possibly since the beginning of confederation. This country in its first century has shown evidence of the development it can achieve, and I am certain its second century is going to show greater progress.
I am confident that by reason, by good will, co-operation and discussion we will be able to work out a solution to these problems which confront us, and that we can look forward to the second century of our confederation's history with even greater pride than that with which we look back on our first century.


Mr. Ralph Cowan (York-Humber):: Mr. Speaker, on rising at this time to speak on the subamendment-and I understand we are being held very closely to the terms of the subamendment-I would point out that I desire to comment in particular on the first paragraph of the subamendment-"Are you in favour of the red ensign"?
I want, in introducing my remarks, to state definitely that not only am I a Liberal, but I am a Liberal of the Liberals. I would say to you, sir, there has not been a national convention of the Liberal party in Canada nor an Ontario provincial Liberal convention, outside of the Hepburn years, at which I was not an authorized delegate and entitled to vote, since 1923.
A national flag is the visible evidence of a country's soul and the symbol of its pride, and without it a nation is a dead thing. We have a national flag. We have a distinctive national flag.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I am very happy to live under it, and I will do everything within my power
[Mr. Nowlan.1
to maintain it as the distinctive national flag of this nation. In 1919, as a boy of 17, I spent my summer vacation in the city of Ottawa and was here when the national Liberal convention was held at which Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King was selected as leader of the Liberal party. I acted as a scrutineer, at the age of 19, in the federal election of 1921, scrutineering for Eddie Lapierre who was the Liberal candidate in Nipissing when we won that riding from Charlie Harrison, who had been a Union government man and in 1921 ran as a straight Conservative. For 45 years I have taken part in provincial and federal elections as an active Liberal and have voted in many parts of Ontario as I moved from paper to paper during the course of my university years, before settling permanently in Toronto on Canada's major daily and outstanding weekly.
In the Canada Gazette in 1924 we find a certified copy of a minute of a meeting of the committee of the privy council, approved by His Excellency the Governor General on January 26 of that year. It reads:
The committee of the privy council have had before them a report, dated 23rd January, 1924, from Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, prime minister and secretary of state for external affairs, submitting that he has recently had his attention drawn to the practice which prevails of flying the blue ensign with the Canadian arms in the fly over the office of the high commissioner for Canada in London.
The reason offered for this variation from the union jack, which is flown over all Canadian government buildings in Canada, is to be found in the need very generally felt by Canadians in London for a distinctive emblem which will afford a ready means of distinguishing the character of the buildings over which it floats, and the portion of the empire to which they belong.
The Prime Minister considers that this purpose would be served by the employment in this connection of the red ensign with the Canadian arms in the fly, which though originally authorized by the Admiralty to be flown over vessels of the Canadian mercantile marine, has come to serve a wider application, having been displayed in times past from the government buildings in Ottawa, and quite generally throughout the country, where it is still often spoken of as the 'Canadian flag', meaning thereby, the distinctive emblem of Canada.
In this minute the word "distinctive" is used twice and the word "distinguishing" once. I quote further from the minute:
The Prime Minister, therefore, recommends without contemplating any variation from the present practice regulating the flying of flags from the government buildings within the Dominion of Canada, and assuming that no local regulation would be violated thereby, that the requisite authority be given for displaying the red ensign with the Canadian arms in the fly, on suitable occasions from all buildings owned or occupied by

the Canadian government, and situated without Canada.
I point out that when the Canadian red ensign was designated as Canada's distinctive flag, every seat in the province of Quebec was held by a Liberal member, and W. L. Mackenzie King, with that backing behind him, and knowing the red ensign was acceptable as our national flag, took the action which resulted in this minute of a meeting of the privy council. It still holds.
However, in 1945, at a time when there was some uproar developing with regard to a national flag, there was a further order in council concerning the use of the Canadian red ensign. It is P.C. 5888, dated September 5, 1945. It reads as follows:
Whereas the Right Honourable W. L. Mackenzie King, the Prime Minister, reports that by order in council P.C. 134 of January 26, 1924, authority is given for displaying the red ensign with the shield of the coat of arms of Canada in the fly (commonly known as "the Canadian red ensign") on suitable occasions from all buildings owned or occupied by the Canadian government and situated without Canada:
That the Canadian red ensign was employed by Canadian forces during the present war: and
That, until such time as action is taken by parliament for the formal adoption of a national flag, it is desirable to authorize the flying of the Canadian red ensign on federal government buildings within as well as without Canada, and to remove any doubt as to the propriety of flying the Canadian red ensign wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag-
The order in council continues:
His Excellency in council, on the same recommendation is further pleased to declare and doth declare that it shall be appropriate to fly the Canadian red ensign within and without Canada wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
Mr. Speaker, the word "distinctive" appears four times in these orders in council, and the word "distinguishing" appears once.
As an active Liberal I attended the 1958 leadership convention of the Liberal party and I voted wholeheartedly for the leader we selected; I would vote for him again if another leadership convention were to be held tomorrow. But I want to give the house some facts and figures with regard to the claim that this party is committed to the realization of a new flag for Canada within two years of election.
As I say, I attended the 1958 convention, and I attended the national Liberal council meeting in 1960. Normally at those meetings I am placed as a member of the committee on health and welfare or the committee on labour, sometimes on both. I am interested
Canadian Flag
in these three fields of human endeavour and I always will be.
At these conventions they hold a plenary session, as they call it. That is a fine, big sounding word. A plenary session is held just before a rally breaks up. Some pleasant things are said, good wishes are exchanged and the delegates go home. Usually half of them have already gone home before the plenary session opens.
Well, at this particular plenary session I listened intently while the recommendations of the committees in which I was most interested were brought forward as suggestions from the resolutions committee. I happened to be sitting to the right of a Liberal member of the Senate. The chairman of the resolutions committee said the party was committed to a distinctive national flag. This was the first I had heard of such a proposal and, let me point out once more, I was an authorized delegate to the convention.
I turned to the senator who was next to me and said "What is this all about? A distinctive national flag? I must get up and ask about that." He put his hand on my shoulder and said "Hold your horses. There is an element in the party that wants a distinctive flag, a flag different from the one we have now. But in the orders in council the word 'distinctive' appears and reappears. We have a distinctive flag now." "Well," I said, "If that's the way it is, I will keep quiet." I did not know there was any motion going in with regard to a distinctive flag. It was voted on, together with the other recommendations, about 20 minutes before the rump convention ended.
Later I looked at the orders in council, having never looked at them before, and found, as I have reported to this house, four references to the word "distinctive" and one to the word "distinguishing".
I	am speaking today because I do not believe the great bulk of the Liberals across this nation of ours are committed to the doctrine of a new flag for Canada different from the red ensign. I have in my hand a press clipping from the Toronto Star of May 19, 1964, in which William MacEachern, one of our ablest writers and a senior man in the news room of the Star, reports on the introduction of the flag question into this parliament. The first paragraph reads:
Prime Minister Pearson today invited the opposition to throw his minority government out of office in a no-confidence vote Monday if it doesn't like the government's flag policy.
II	a vote of no-confidence wins support of the majority in the house, the government must resign and a new election must be held.

Canadian Flag
Further on in the article, Mr. MacEachern quotes the Prime Minister as saying:
"Some people are forgetting that we have a very formal commitment as a party which is binding on the government to bring about a decision within two years of the election. We are getting toward that month. We only have now 10 months. From now on we will have to be a little more specific."
I have outlined to the house what happened when I attended this Liberal convention as a properly designated delegate, as I have attended so many Liberal party rallies and gatherings of one kind or another. I had never heard before of this proposed new flag, although I was told a certain element of the party was asking for one. This was when the senator explained to me that the word "distinctive" covered the situation because it appeared in the orders in council. Then we were suddenly presented with a flag design in the month of May, 1964.
Now, as a good Liberal-and I believe I am a good Liberal-I will not disclose what goes on in the Liberal caucus. It is one of the unwritten laws that one does not disclose what goes on in caucus once the doors are closed. But I can tell the house this. I am not prevented from disclosing what does not go in a Liberal caucus, and I would point out that we never saw any details of this flag until Votes and Proceedings of May 26 were issued on May 27. The opposition saw this design as soon as we did. If this denotes that the Liberal party caucus has given its approval to the design in question, I would like to know when it did so. I attended all the caucus meetings and the design was not shown and, as I say, we did not see it until Votes and Proceedings appeared on May 27.
I wish to draw attention at this point to a piece of campaign literature put out by the Liberal party. The heading is "Time for Action-Vote Liberal". This was circulated in my riding in March, 1963. The country voted in April, 1963. There are ten pages to this small leaflet, and every word in the report was written by the national Liberal federation or the Ontario Liberal federation, the address of which is 100 Adelaide street west, Toronto, Ontario. I paid for the printing of upwards of 25,000 copies by Spalding Printing Company, 16 Queen Elizabeth boulevard, Toronto. There is not a single reference in those ten pages to a flag. That piece of publicity was given to me and, as I say, circulated in my riding of York-Hum-ber.
I hold here in my hands two pieces of Liberal publicity, one addressed to my

second daughter, Miss Catharine Cowan, 55 Humberview road, Toronto, Ontario, who is now a graduate of Trinity College and who in June completed one year at the Sorbonne in Paris and has a certificate for French and historical studies from that body. The other is addressed to me at the same address. There are five pages of Liberal publicity in this literature which was mailed out to I do not know how many people, and never a mention is made of the flag question in any way, shape or form.
I have another piece of Liberal publicity in my hand entitled "The story of Liberalism in Canada". I do not see any date, but it must have been printed since 1958 because it carries two pictures of our present leader. In this piece of Liberal publicity I am proud to read this statement:
The achievements of Mackenzie King and his colleagues were best recorded by the man who succeeded him as prime minister, Louis St. Laurent, who said in 1948:
"In recent years Canada has achieved even more than national unity within her borders. We had the unity required to make a vital contribution to victory in war. We have worked hard for the restoration of peace in the world. We have maintained in our own country a level of employment and prosperity never before known. Most observers, I think, would say that ours is the happiest country in the world".
They are the words of Prime Minister Louis St. Laurent in 1948. He said that "in recent years Canada had achieved even more than national unity within her borders." If we have not unity now, whose fault is it? The Liberal party was in power from 1948 till 1957 and we are now back in power again. I just wanted to bring this piece of Liberal publicity to the attention of the house.
During the course of the recent election campaign a gentleman came to me and pointed out that a booklet had been issued entitled "The policies of the Liberal party; general election, 1963". At the bottom of page 5 of this booklet I find this statement:
Within two years of taking office, a new Liberal government will submit to parliament a design for a flag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of any other country.
I read this statement in this printed booklet and I asked my friend, a Liberal, "How many copies of this booklet were printed?" About ten copies came to my Liberal committee rooms in Toronto and I never knew one speaker to refer to it. Printed on it is "National Liberal federation, 251 Cooper street, Ottawa," and it is printed by Gauvin Press, of Hull. It contains the policies of the Liberal party. Long

before the bottom of page 5 is reached we see these statements:
It means adequate pensions. It means better health care, available to all when needed... It means.. .improving democracy in our political institutions.
It continues:
The first aim of Liberal policies is a Canadian identity that creates unity without uniformity...
The second aim of Liberal policies is to increase our national wealth...
But security, happiness, achievement are not possible for us alone. The fourth aim of Liberal policies is that a growing, progressing, Canada will have a constructive influence for peace and progress throughout the world.
As I say, this statement about the flag appeared on page 5, almost as an afterthought. I have given hon. members the history of it, and I am glad to draw the attention of this house to this point.
Since this flag debate commenced I have spent three different Saturdays in Toronto doing research. I spent one entire morning in the offices of the Toronto Globe and Mail, another in the offices of the Toronto Evening Telegram and the third in the offices of the Toronto Daily Star. I enlisted the services of a very dear friend of mine who served in the first world war and has been suffering from the effects of trench warfare for more than 40 years now. He is a gold medallist in the field of advertising, a man respected in all fields of publicity in Canada. I asked him to note for me all the advertisements which had appeared on behalf of the national Liberal federation in the city of Toronto during the election campaign in 1963, and I have a complete list. With this list in my possession I went to these three newspaper offices and read every one of those Liberal party advertisements which appeared in the three Toronto papers. I have to report to this house that not once was mention made of any change in the flag of this nation.


Frederick Johnstone (Jack) Bigg: Same old gang.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: On April 8, 1963, we had the election. On the Friday previous, April 5, we had a tremendous meeting of Liberal supporters in the Maple Leaf gardens. I contributed a great deal of money to that meeting and helped make it the success it was. We are supposed to have had 22,000 people present at the Maple Leaf gardens, with an overflow in Massey hall. The Toronto Globe and Mail for April 6 said of this meeting on April 5, "Crowd fills gardens and Massey hall. Giant Pearson meeting and the crowd that flocked to the biggest political rally in Canadian history .. .There was a military band to set
Canadian Flag
the buoyant mood of the evening". But no mention of a flag is made anywhere in that report of the meeting. I sat on the platform and heard every word uttered in Maple Leaf gardens, but not once was there any mention made of a change in our flag.
In the Globe and Mail for April 1, 1963, there appeared what are known as teaser ads, but no mention was made of the flag. On April 6 there was a full page ad in the Globe and Mail with all our pictures. It said "Here's where decisive government begins. It's time for action. Vote Liberal". But no mention of the flag.
In the Toronto Star there is no mention made of a flag in the report of the Liberal rally held in the Maple Leaf gardens nor in the advertising connected therewith. An ad which appeared on April 6 says "Canada needs a majority government."
In the Telegram for March 30 our leader is quoted. The report says: he added that the government should spend not a nickel on anything that would not increase production and reduce unemployment. The Telegram on April 4 carried a Liberal party advertisement which said "Unless we can elect a government that can restore stability and create the climate for economic expansion, few of the other issues raised in the campaign will be capable of solution. It is first necessary that we elect a stable government with a working majority".
Well, Mr. Speaker, we did not achieve that first necessity, a stable government with a working majority; but the advertisement said that was the first necessity.
The report in the Telegram for April 6 in connection with this giant meeting held in Maple Leaf gardens and Massey hall quotes the Prime Minister as saying that it was "the largest and most significant meeting ever held in Canada". Why was no mention made of the flag at the largest and most significant meeting ever held in Canada? The report goes on: "Mr. Pearson said Canada's problems today are too serious to be entrusted to any coalition. He pledged unselfish and effective leadership, not one-man government which breaks apart under strain".
This is the type of report contained in the three Toronto papers to which I have referred, and I can tell this house that no mention was ever made of the flag question. We were told always to vote for a stable government, because there is no alternative to a stable government. We have not got a stable government now, and if there is no alternative

Canadian Flag
what have we got? That is the question I put to this house at this time.
I would point out there are many references today that "Only by adopting a new and distinctive flag are we going to restore unity to this country. Only by putting up another piece of bunting will we restore unity to this country."
I should like to quote from the front page of the Toronto Globe and Mail of August 6, as follows:
The time has come to reach a decision on the official Canadian flag in the Interests of national unity and to give Canadians a much-needed sense of pride and confidence in their country-
That is what Mr. Pearson said.
I should like to point out that I for one have a sense of pride and confidence in this country, as I believe millions and millions of other Canadians have pride and confidence. I have not seen anyone running around with head down, despondent over the fact that we now have the red ensign as the national flag, as it was okayed by the Mackenzie King government in 1924 and again in 1945.
I should like to impress upon you the claim that the Liberal party is supposed to have a mandate in respect of the flag question. We are told that the government of the day has a mandate. I went to the office of the chief electoral officer and spent some time there on two occasions, as well as some time in my office here in the House of Commons doing some research in respect of this so-called mandate. I should like to point out that I am now speaking as though Sherwood Rideout, the late member for Westmorland, were here. The 129 Liberal members in this house do not even have a majority vote in the 129 ridings they represent. If we total up the votes cast against the sitting Liberal members we find they exceed the number cast for the sitting Liberal members. We are told we have a mandate, but I do not see how we can have a mandate on the basis of a minority vote. In looking up the definition of "mandate", it is interesting to find that it means "a clear instruction, authorization or direction." That definition is taken from Webster's third new international dictionary in the parliamentary library. One could also refer to Murray's Encyclopaedic Dictionary, which gives the same definition, and to the 1902 Contemporary Review, December, page 809, which states:
No practical politician can desire to lay too much stress upon the mandate theory of a general election.

When there are a thousand questions of the day how does one claim to have a mandate on any particular one, particularly when the point at issue has not been mentioned during the course of the campaign?
I should like to refer to an address given yesterday afternoon on the C.B.C. radio hook-up. The program is known to many people in Canada as "Capital Report". Yesterday afternoon Mr. Donald McGillivray of the Southam newspaper service spoke from approximately 2.20 until approximately 2.30. He was speaking on the flag issue. I hope most members heard his address, although I do not suppose many did in view of the fact that members are only able to take vacations on week ends. During the course of Mr. McGillivray's remarks he said:
Mr. Diefenbaker hasn't got the full support of all members of his party on his flag stand. The Quebec members have been the most unhappy since most of them have little chance of winning on a red ensign platform.
He then went on to say:
The Conservatives.. .in their speeches in the Commons have pounded away at two things... And the second is that people believe that the replacement of the red ensign by a new flag is some kind of concession or appeasement to Quebec-
The second is harder to answer because the new flag is, in fact, related to the needs of Quebec. There would be no urgency about changing the flag now if it wasn't for what is happening in Quebec. The Conservatives disagree with him but Mr. Pearson obviously feels deeply that the union jack on the flag is such a standing affront to Quebec that it must be quickly removed if the country is to be kept together.
But this attempt to meet the grievance of one minority group-
I refer to Mr. McGillivray's report because it would be heard from one end of Canada to the other on the C.B.C. network.
I was not in the house on Friday last. I went to Toronto on Friday morning to be present at the opening of the Canadian national exhibition which, I may say, does not enjoy a $47 million subsidy from the federal government but operates on its own. There appeared a report in Saturday's Globe and Mail in respect of statements made in the House of Commons on Friday regarding a free vote.
I should like to make some reference to this free vote question. How can we have a free vote in this house when the resolution stands in the names of the Prime Minister of this country and the Minister of Justice? I suggest there could be no free vote under those circumstances. There are individuals in this parliament who hope to be appointed as senators, judges and perhaps to diplomatic

positions. I am not one of those individuals. I am not a lawyer and could not be a judge;
I am not a diplomat, so could not be part of the foreign service. I suggest there is no record in Canadian history of a free vote question being introduced in the House of Commons by a prime minister of any day. There have been many free votes, but I suggest it is impossible to have a free vote when the resolution stands in the names of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice. I maintain that in order to have a free vote the resolution should be introduced in the name of someone other than those gentlemen.
Mr. Speaker, if you intend to restrain me I should like to point out that I am dealing with the main resolution.


Mr. Speaker:: Without attempting to be too facetious I should like to point out that before we can vote on anything we have to clear up the subamendment. I hope you are going to propose something we can vote on.


Ralph Bronson Cowan: I suggest that we vote in favour of the red ensign when dealing with the first clause of the subamendment which reads:
That the amendment he amended by adding thereto the words:
"and that in such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following:
1. Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?
I ask the voters of Canada to vote yes in answer to that question when the plebiscite is placed before them.
Mr. Speaker, I have so many notes here I will be able to speak for 40 minutes on each and every amendment and subamendment that is proposed. I should like to quote from the front page of the Ottawa Citizen of Wednesday, March 13, 1963. The article to which I have reference gave me great encouragement during the last campaign, and gives me a good deal of encouragement now. In the lower right hand corner there is a two-column heading "Pearson doesn't reject red ensign as our flag". I should like to read this report, by Southam news services, under that heading:
Pearson doesn't reject red ensign as our flag.
Sherbrooke-Liberal leader Pearson said today he had "never rejected the red ensign as Canada's flag and do not do so now."
Commenting on reports out of Winnipeg last week that he wanted to see something other than the red ensign as Canada's national flag Mr. Pearson said that he merely wanted a distinctive Canadian flag.
This was Liberal party policy and in mentioning it to a group of ethnic editors in Winnipeg he said that "there are people in Canada who think
Canadian Flag
the red ensign can be mistaken for another emblem", such as the naval ensign or the Australian flag.
To reject the red ensign would mean the rejection of a British symbol, the union jack, which means much to so many people who have served and fought under it, and this he did not advocate. But he did want a search to be made immediately for a unique Canadian flag.
That quotation is from the Ottawa Citizen of March 13, 1963, within four weeks of the election in 1963 when this minority government was placed in office. I should also like to refer to a dispatch which appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail on May 16, 1962, written by Thomas Sloan who was reviewing meetings that took place at Chicoutimi. We have this report of a Chicoutimi meeting:
The fact, however, that the flag Is still an issue and not merely a means of getting applause was forcibly brought home to Mr. Pearson at his final meeting of the Quebec trip Monday night. There the Liberal member in the last House of Commons for the riding of Lapointe, Augustin Brassard, publicly pledged that if a Liberal government did not adopt a national flag in two years, "I invite you to ask me to return to private life."
Of course the next month Mr. Brassard was invited to return to private life.
He received hearty applause for that statement, as he did for another, which was perhaps a little more embarrassing for the Liberal party: "All across this country, Mr. Pearson has promised a distinctive national flag, without a union jack." The Liberal chief backed quickly away from that issue, contenting himself with saying in his address that he favoured "a distinctive flag for Canada which could not be confused with that of any other country." Further than that Mr. Pearson would not go, and he refused to make any comment at all on Mr. Brassard's statement after the meeting.
In referring to these statements with regard to the red ensign, I have shown you that it was not discussed at all in vast sections of the country. I make the statement to the house that this country has not given a mandate to anybody to alter the red ensign, our beloved symbol of loyalty and faith in the future. The Globe and Mail of last Saturday reports the hon. member for Villeneuve in this way:
Mr. Caouette regretted that statements had been made mostly by representatives of the Canadian west, that the proposed flag was nothing more than an attempt to please Quebec.
Of course the hon. member for Villeneuve does not know much about Ontario. He has not got a member from that area. No doubt he paid attention to the loyal speakers from the Canadian west, but I can assure him that on this score the feeling is just as strong in the province of Ontario as it is in the

Canadian Flag
Canadian west. He is reported as having also said:
We want Canadian symbols on our national emblem-not the symbols of France or the symbols of England.
What a sacrifice he would be making. The union jack is there, if he wishes to call it a symbol of England. Any symbol of France is not as prominent as the English symbol, as he prefers to call it, but he is willing to make the great sacrifice of ditching two things in order to get rid of one.
I would point out that when we are asked to vote on two flags we have this statement to bear in mind which was made by the Prime Minister on May 26, 1964 appearing in Hansard at page 3581, to a question by the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Mont-calm (Mr. Pigeon):
Mr. Speaker, there can be only one national flag-
We who like the red ensign and who are willing to scrap for the red ensign agree that there can be only one national flag. A second flag simply muddies the water. My time is running short, but I hope to be able to speak again on this matter when the subamendment has been disposed of. On May 19 the Globe and Mail made this comment with regard to the action of the Prime Minister:
He has chosen to press the divisive issue of a national flag at a time when emotions are already deeply stirred by the question of national unity-or rather, by the lack of unity. ...It will be a long job, and in the course of it, Mr. Pearson may well find himself persuaded by the people that he made the wrong choice at the wrong time.
I am a convinced Liberal, a man who has always worked for the Liberal party except that I would not vote for Hepburn Liberalism in the provincial field. That is one time I voted Conservative; I voted for Dr. Minerva Reid. She was a prohibitionist Conservative, and they are very few and far between. I voted for Dr. Minerva Reid in Toronto High Park and I make no apologies for having supported her, even though she did not win the election. I say to the house as a convinced Liberal that the red ensign is Canada's national flag, that it should remain as Canada's national flag, and that if any changes are made in it it will lead to a division such as this country has never seen.
The Liberal government won a Pyrrhic victory in 1956 in the pipe line debate. We have not secured an over-all majority in the country since in four successive general elections. The problem is, who won what victory in 1956? Are we going to be like the Bourbons who "never remember and never

forget?" Are we going to try to force this divisive issue at this time and have to watch four general elections or more go by without an over-all majority for the Liberal party?
I would ask all members of the house to support the red ensign, which is Canada's national emblem and is known as such from coast to coast. We have not got here in this country a roofless ruin. We are a nation that was built with the support of Great Britain and the support of France.
Some speakers talk about now being the time to cut the umbilical cord that they say is tying us to Great Britain, but even if they cut the umbilical cord they will still want British investment. Canada is the biggest field for British investment. All they want to do is change the family name. I am proud of the family and nation into which I was born. I want to see the jack continue on the red ensign and I believe that to do otherwise will create a division in this country that generations yet unborn will be unable to heal.


Mr. Remi Paul (Berihier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere):: Mr. Speaker, for several weeks now the house has been debating the flag issue, a debate which should have taken place more than 100 years ago when the Fathers of Confederation gathered to prepare, study and draw the confederation act, as they were anxious to build a great country which would become Canada, an international power. Indeed, by the active part played by its people in the making of a world still faced with the problems of peace, but a world which will finally find the peace promised to men of good will by the Infant in the manger.
In the darkest times in its history, Canada found amidst its people the strength, energy, courage, and generous men who did everything in order to save the Canadian democracy.
Since the beginning of the twentieth century, two terrible conflicts threatened with complete destruction the whole world as well as democracy, pre-eminent source of freedom; political, religious, social and individual freedom, freedom of the press, of speech, of action.
In those stormy periods, many Canadians, both French and English speaking, took refuge under the same flag, the flag of freedom, and there are many who sleep in a soil they loved to the point of martyrdom, smiling in their supreme sacrifice and repeating these words: "We die, but freedom and democracy do not".
I want to pay tribute to all those who gave their lives for the triumph of freedom and

democracy. I salute with respect those many veterans; we have the honour of having in this house a few of them who bear the scars of their courage and heroism.
Those veterans looked up to the red ensign to find the courage necessary to face the enemy. In the thick of the battle, when enemy bullets were whizzing on all sides and their comrades in arms were falling like ripe fruits, those valiant soldiers looked up to that flag which inspired them to charge the enemy with even greater courage and determination. They fought blindly for us, our children, our political institutions, our freedom and the survival of democracy.
Who could blame those veterans for being attached to the red ensign which for them is the very symbol of their present existence? Veterans, I respect you, I admire your courage and I understand you. You have the right to protest because some people would take away from you the red ensign you have coloured with your own blood and which, unfortunately, was too often used to bury a comrade in arms who had gallantly died on the battlefield.
My English speaking compatriots rightly love this flag which reminds them of their mother country. For them, the red ensign symbolizes the history of England, the triumph of the strong over the weak; it represents British institutions and the extension into the North American continent of the English civilization and the British culture which largely contributed to the greatness and prosperity of Canada.
For a great many new Canadians the red ensign means freedom; it is the flag under which they were welcomed in Canada, land of hospitality. They are rightly attached to the flag which meant the promised land of hope and, in some cases, deliverance.
That English flag, the French Canadians cherished it, too. Who, if not the French Canadians, made it possible for England to keep Canada in 1813, at the time of the American aggression? My compatriots cherished this red ensign at the battles of Verdun and Vimy, and just a few weeks ago we were proud to celebrate the twentieth anniversary of the landing in France, and the road to victory was paved by a French-Cana-dian unit, the Chaudiere regiment.
As a citizen from the province of Quebec I could remain indifferent to this matter of a national flag inasmuch as, since 1948, Quebec has had its own flag which the then premier of the province, Hon. Maurice Duplessis, took from the Cremazie monument, in the
Canadian Flag
Canadian metropolis, where it stood motionless. He gave it a new historical meaning and raised it on the Quebec parliament building in February 1948. The fleur-de-lis banner, which the French had abandoned in the mud of the plains of Abraham battlefields, after having been defeated by Wolfe and his men, and which was hiding in its folds the shame of defeat, that banner flies proudly today in the province of Quebec, where everybody salutes it with respect, pride and dignity.
My French ancestors became attached to the fleur-de-lis flag which, for them, was the symbol of freedom as well as the expression of French culture and civilization, and when they abandoned that flag on the smoky battlefield of the plains of Abraham, the French were defeated but not vanquished.
The Roman Catholic clergy instilled into my French speaking compatriots respect for the strongest, love for the new Canadian country and courage in defeat. The French Canadians gathered around the parish church, and faithful to their mother tongue, their culture and their faith, they worked to rebuild the Canadian nation. The French and English cultures found today in Canada are the basis of the moral wealth which our country offers to the rest of the world.
For almost a century, English and French Canadians have lived together under the confederation pact, and they sometimes worked hard to build up this country; like our forefathers, we have laboured to attain national unity. This national unity is deeply rooted in the confederation pact itself, and when every Canadian citizen lives up to the letter and the spirit of the confederation pact, then Canada will know the true national unity which, as far back as 1864, was the proud and sincere hope of Macdonald and Cartier, as well as of all the fathers of the Canadian confederation.
This national unity is going through a real crisis today, because of the flag debate, which may have disastrous results, by arousing nine provinces against the province of Quebec. I protest against the allegations of my English speaking fellow members when they say that this idea of a distinctive flag is one more concession to the province of Quebec. French Canadians never wanted any special privilege. They merely claimed, as they still do today- though somewhat more noisily-recognition of their rights, and they do not want to be considered all the time the cause of everything that happens in this country.
Why try to create the impression in this house and throughout the country that the government, by introducing the flag resolution, only wanted to satisfy French Canadians.

Canadian Flag
Personally, I have never been as Canadian as I am today, but if this discussion on the flag goes on in the same vein, I shall understand even better why so many of my French speaking compatriots are Quebeckers rather than Canadians.
If I were convinced that the government, in introducing its proposal, wanted to curry favour with French Canadians, I would vote against the choice of a distinctive flag because I consider that national unity must be founded on understanding, co-operation, harmony, good will and justice.
In order to favour national unity, the government has no right to grant one or several privileges to a particular ethnic group, even if this group is French Canadian. The government has a duty to treat all citizens on an equal footing, by allowing each and every one to use its rights in order to make possible the complete development of the Canadian personality.
I protest against those who claim that the fleur-de-lis reminds French Canadians of the most sad and shameful pages in their history. I will be careful here not to accuse my English speaking compatriots who would perhaps be ashamed also if they looked back on the behaviour of their ancestors. I am not ashamed of my history, I respect it; I also respect the historic past of my English speaking compatriots, I am as proud to be a French Canadian as those who claim with equal emphasis that they are English Canadians. I do not disown the historic past of my ancestors and of all the builders of this country when I contemplate the advisability of giving Canada a distinctive flag. The past must be the source and the inspiration of the present courage to determine the well-being and the future life of Canadians.
The "Pearson flag" proposal may be questioned by many, but personally I congratulate the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) for having the courage to put this question before the house. However, I blame the right hon. Prime Minister for trying to make a political football out of this important matter of a distinctive flag.
Why did the Prime Minister introduce his resolution concerning the choice of a distinctive flag with so much clumsiness? Did the restricted group of newspapermen invited by the head of government and who were the first informed of the choice of the right hon. Prime Minister deserve his confidence to such a degree that he neglected to inform in the first place the hon. members of the exact significance of his flag proposal? Because of his behaviour, the Prime Minister prepared the

stalemate with which the House of Commons is now faced.
Last May the Prime Minister stated that during the discussion on the flag everyone would be allowed to vote freely regardless of the party line. Later the Prime Minister indicated that he would consider that matter as a vote of confidence in his government. Last Friday the Prime Minister reverted to his original statement to allow a free vote to his supporters on the flag question.
In my group we are free to vote for or against the choice of a distinctive flag. Although the Prime Minister wanted to consider that question of a distinctive flag as a vote of confidence in his government, I was going to vote for a distinctive flag. But I would not want in any way that my vote be interpreted, in due time, as an unqualified approval of the policies of the Prime Minister and of his government. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, putting all partisanship aside, I shall vote for a distinctive flag and in due course against the adoption of the union jack as a symbol of our allegiance to the commonwealth. In accepting the explanation given by the Prime Minister on the resolution concerning the union jack, I ask him whether he would not see fit to introduce a third resolution to indicate our allegiance to the great United Nations family and a fourth to proclaim our participation in NATO activities, etc.?
The house has under consideration an amendment submitted by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) and a subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More).
I wish to point out first of all that I respect the opinion any hon. member may have on the flag issue. Some are shocked because a distinctive flag is to be substituted for the red ensign. If they feel it is their bounden duty to fight to maintain the red ensign I say to them: follow the dictates of your conscience. Although I do not share their opinion on the matter, I appreciate their feeling and I will not accuse them of fanaticism or racism, unless proof to the contrary is produced. At first sight, the subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City seems to offer an interesting solution to put an end to what looks like a marathon debate on the choice of a distinctive flag.
What could be the result of a plebiscite in the form suggested by the hon. member for Regina City? In my opinion, a majority vote on this issue would be the surest way to proclaim the red ensign the most popular flag in Canada. Would that mean that the red

ensign would be the choice of the majority of the Canadian people? I suggest that it would not, Mr. Speaker. The rabid supporters of the red ensign would vote solidly in the affirmative on the first question asked: "Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?" The vote of those who favour a distinctive flag would be divided according to the preference shown for one or the other of the three choices suggested under the subamendment of the hon. member for Regina City.
To really reflect the feeling of the people, question No. 1 on the plebiscite should be amended to read as follows: "Are you for or against the Canadian red ensign as the Canadian flag? If not, which flag do you prefer? Then, the choice should be made among the three other suggestions contained in the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina City. In its present form, the subamendment is dangerous because, on the one hand, it tends to confirm a principle, that of partisanship in favour of the Canadian red ensign, whereas with the three other questions which would be included in a referendum, those in favour of a distinctive national flag would be divided into three categories and the total results of one or the other of the three other categories or selections could be taken into account to try and upset the results obtained from those who would support the Canadian red ensign.
There is also the danger that a plebiscite would separate the younger generation from that of forty years and over. The younger generation, both French and English-speaking, wants a distinctive flag at any cost. As far as national unity is concerned, there would then be a greater cleavage between French and English Canadians. Such a plebiscite would give rise to controversies with regard to race, language, history and religion. Is there a country in the world which was ever called upon to choose a national flag by means of a plebiscite?
I feel that this is the responsibility of members of parliament, who were elected in a democratic way to look after the interests of their constituents, to consider and solve problems, and to adopt or reject administrative matters brought before the house. If the Canadian people were to settle every contentious, serious and important matter by means of a plebiscite, what would be the use of having members of parliament?
Personally, I am not afraid to assume here in the House of Commons my responsibilities in that connection, and if my constituents feel that I was mistaken in taking the stand
Canadian Flag
I intend to take, they will be free to dispense with my services in due course.
Next October, we will celebrate the centennial of the Charlottetown conference, which laid the foundations of the Canadian confederation. Is it not time more than ever for Canada to have its own distinctive flag on the eve of these centennial celebrations?
When I talk of a distinctive flag, I do not necessarily mean the flag with the three maple leaves, but if it is the only distinctive flag proposed to us, I will vote for it. Occasions of discord, dispute, discussion and flagrant injustice are too numerous and too often undermine national unity, for me to support the idea of choosing a flag by means of a national plebiscite.
I have always faithfully voiced in this house the needs, aspirations and feelings of my constituents of Berthier-Maskinonge-Delanaudiere who wish, with a few exceptions, that Canada be granted a distinctive flag, without publicly discussing the matter as it would be done if a referendum were held because, in my opinion, this would be disastrous.
It is quite difficult to deal with details without stating my views on the main subject. Mr. Speaker, I am conscious of the bearing of the statement which I want to make on the amendment proposed by the Leader of the Opposition. I am perhaps risking my political career, but in politics and as a practising lawyer, I have never accepted any half-measure, any compromise with my conscience, and that is why I regret to disagree with my leader on the flag issue, and I must add that I will also vote against his amendment.
In taking such a stand, I am renewing my approval of the political platform of the Progressive Conservative party, which also advocated the choice of a distinctive Canadian flag. As early as 1958, I promised the men and women of my constituency that I would strive to give Canada a distinctive flag, and if such opportunity is afforded to me by the Liberal party, I will lay aside partisanship and honour my pledge to my electors; I shall then have the satisfaction which stems from the fulfilment of one's duty.
On January 23, 1961, the hon. member for St. Boniface, Mr. Laurier Regnier, submitted a resolution which was discussed by the House of Commons and which read as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag.


Mrs. Jean Wadds (Grenville-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to take part in this debate with mixed feelings, as many members of this house have done. First of all, I feel no apology is needed for the length of this debate. This is a subject with regard to which members quite rightly wish to clarify their positions.

Since it is a highly emotional subject it cannot be dealt with in a hurried way and no one should be expected to avoid expressing his or her deep personal convictions in relation to it. We have already seen various changes in opinion-changes in the tone and temperature of the debate as it has continued -and it would indeed be foolish of any government to expect so serious a matter as this to be dealt with in haste or in a peremptory fashion.
Certainly, we have all been able to profit from the eloquent speeches made thus far. I have in mind contributions such as have been made by former ministers-among them the former ministers of national defence, forestry, labour and finance. My hon. friend from Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan), was the latest of these hon. gentlemen to speak and his contribution, like those of his colleagues before him, could not fail to be helpful. These are all serious, experienced men with deep-seated convictions. I know, of course, that there have been other contributions of a high calibre, many of which I have heard. They are too numerous to mention individually, but I must refer to one speech, that made by the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton). He too remarked on the sincerity of many of the speeches made on the subject and drew attention to the dignity they had given to this debate. His own speech added to that dignity, supporting as it did the suggestion made by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt) that a small committee of this house be set up in an attempt to find some way of ending the unfortunate predicament in which we now find ourselves.
I agree with a previous speaker who said it was the responsibility not only of the government but of every member of this house to try to find ways and means of dealing reasonably and wisely with this sensitive subject. I regret very much that this debate is taking place at all at the present time. It has been given priority over other matters which we should be discussing as soon as possible. Despite the well ordered, well worded and conscientious expressions of opinion we have heard, this is a subject on which feelings can easily be aroused; it is a subject upon which misinterpretation can easily be placed and with regard to which misunderstanding can easily arise. The unfortunate incident which occurred this afternoon while one of our members was addressing the house is striking evidence that we are discussing a dangerous and divisive theme.

The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) was speaking honestly and from his heart when he said it makes him bleed, as a Canadian of other than French or English origin, to find the two founding races fighting between themselves and using this contentious subject for political and partisan reasons. I am one of a great many of English origin who feel the same way as the hon. member for Ontario does. And I am sure there are just as many Canadians of French origin who feel sadness and discouragement at the increasing tensions.
We have a serious responsibility here, Mr. Speaker. An elected group of people naturally have a responsibility to deal fairly with, and solve by discussion and debate, problems which less civilized groups formerly solved by force. But particularly in a federal government we meet here with the recognized responsibility of having to deal with an enormous variety in geography, with many races and religions. We must assume that more tolerance and understanding is demanded of us. We in a federal parliament, to paraphrase a great Britisher, "were not sent here to witness the breakup of a federation". This unfortunately is not an extremist fear as exemplified by the many violent comments and actions. We have the best opportunity of any Canadians to get to know other parts of Canada, to hear about them, to learn of their feelings and their problems. We should therefore be in the best position to give leadership in strengthening confederation.
One cannot help but arrive at a dismal frame of mind when one hears on every hand disrespect for and lack of faith in parliament. I believe the general attitude to parliament has never been at such a dangerously low ebb. We all know from the record of other countries what happens under such circumstances. Respect for law and order deteriorates. People refuse to listen to those who have responsible positions and turn to something new and different. We know that criticism is natural, indeed desirable, and should be constant. But cynicism is not desirable. I am seriously concerned that during this past year the general attitude to government seems to me to have grown steadily worse. We in this chamber seem to have done nothing but disappoint and worry and confuse other Canadians.
We find ourselves in this comfortable chamber very much in the same position as students who have had the opportunity to be sent to a very expensive and very much admired boarding school in that, once here, we
Canadian Flag
spend our time debating the merits of our ancestry rather than getting down to work and studying the subjects which would be useful in solving the problems ahead of us. This is why I speak without any enthusiasm for this debate itself. This is not a subject which should have emergency priority; quite the reverse. While the country is divided on problems of health and welfare, on fiscal and monetary and tax problems which affect the daily life and well-being of each citizen, we are delaying facing this division. We are increasing it, because the longer it goes on the worse it gets and the greater is the need. We are daily opening new divisions and lessening the chances of unity.
The symbol of unity, Mr. Speaker, is not unity itself, any more than the skeleton of an elephant is strength. It needs the sinews on it and the blood in it to have any life or spirit. I think a Canadian flag is most important. I think it is so important that it cannot be forced. I think it is so important that it would be a tragedy if it became the symbol of disunity and, as has already been suggested, a political symbol.
Has there ever been a time before, Mr. Speaker, when we have heard such alarming and shocking talk-talk of one part of Canada separating from another? Have we ever before heard talk of the breakup of the commonwealth, talk of republicanism? This is indeed shocking, Mr. Speaker, in such a rich and young country as ours, which has had an excellent upbringing of law and order, where we should be full of enthusiasm, of optimism, of good will and good temper. I do not believe it is good enough to make political excuses. I do not agree that this is the fault of a minority government. Many countries have operated constantly and for many years with minority governments. A minority government does not need to be ineffective. Undoubtedly, Mr. Speaker, there are people in many parts of this vast and varied country who would like things to be different from what they are at the present time. With time, study and attention I would hope that many of their wishes and hopes will be fulfilled. But this is no reason at all to disrupt our national stability and make another group of people dissatisfied. What kind of future, Mr. Speaker, can we hope to face if we are going to follow a "rob Peter to pay Paul" technique?
The hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) made a wise and mature sounding statement when he said, while speaking in this debate some weeks ago-I believe this closely resembles his words-that, "no one's tears

Canadian Flag
are to be ignored", the inference being that the striving people of one of our provinces, the sufferers from the yet unnamed and subtle revolution, should receive sympathy. I most heartily agree with this, but I am also much concerned with, and my sympathy equally goes out for, those who will suffer, and are suffering at the present time, from the ruthless and most unexpected discarding of things which they hold very dear.
If the hon. member for Leeds is right-and on this particular point I think he is right indeed-when he says that every tear is important, then I would suggest to him and his party that serious consideration be given to the tears of loss that many people will shed as a result of this proposal. It seems to me cruelest of all to toy with the intangibles of life. The hurts of extra taxation, the hurts of taking from people material things, can be repaired. They can be reasoned with; they can even be discontinued. But you cannot reason with someone who has lost a son or a father or a brother and who wants to keep what is to them-and no one can change it-the symbol of that sacrifice.
Canadians, Mr. Speaker, are very reasonable people. We are called reasonable people throughout the world. Canadians will compromise, will understand and will give in to a majority if they are sure it is a majority. But it is only fair to give them time to find this out. Pushing this debate, threatening no recess of parliament until it is through, gives an unpleasant impression of coercion which is neither useful nor sensible. If any unity can come, if any unity can be achieved by creating a distinctive flag, then by all means let us put our minds toward achieving it. But let us not merely replace one dissatisfied group of people with another equally dissatisfied group. Are all the facts of history going to be changed? Are we suddenly going to arrive at a new, mysterious understanding just because we fly a different flag which no one has ever seen before and which many people dislike? Far from it.
I am intrigued, Mr. Speaker, with the new horizons of understanding and the possibilities we now face for tolerance to and understanding of other countries and nations of the world. How are we Canadians going to achieve this understanding of other countries and other nations if we cannot reach some compromise between ourselves, and understand one another? How can we give the leadership to attain this goal of a modem world if we cannot get along together? I do not think

that the presently proposed flag is any contribution toward solving our problems in any way whatsoever. I regret to say that I find this whole debate ill-starred and ill-timed. It seems to me that we will not only end up with the cart before the horse, but we will end up with no horse at all. We are dealing with a catalyst, in itself a harmless bit of material, but once dropped into the chemicals smouldering in Canada, no one can possibly foresee the result. Mr. Speaker, such a gamble is not the course of wisdom, not even the course of common sense.


Mr. D. R. Gundlock (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, in rising today to take part in this debate concerning the flag, a plebiscite and the particular design proposed, I find myself slightly confused. I prepared my speech some time ago. However, at the end of last week there was an obvious change in the attitudes of the leaders in this house, with some hope of co-operation. I may say this is a very welcome attitude.
A great deal has been said about this flag issue throughout the country, and particularly in this house. Many volumes of Hansard have been filled with speeches against and in favour of the proposed design. I should like to quote some of those words later on today. Many representatives of the people of Canada have risen in their seats in this chamber accepting the right, privilege and duty to express the feelings and views of their constituents. Many of these individuals have appeared as delegates rather than members.
As I have said, I was happy to witness the change of heart, if I may use those words, on the part of the leaders of the parties in this house, and particularly on the part of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). At an earlier date the suggestion was made that the vote on this issue would be a free vote. I think that suggestion was made even before the resolution was placed before us. After the resolution was made public we were informed quite clearly that the government would stand or fall on this issue. We were told we would have to accept the specific design proposed, whether we were in favour of it or not. Many viewpoints have been expressed by representatives of the people, and as time has passed there has been an obvious change. The Prime Minister I think finally began to realize that Canadian people were not willing to accept a specific design without having the opportunity of expressing their feelings. Many individuals have taken exception to the proposed design while others are prepared to accept it. Some people like the design, although I think they

represent a minority, particularly in my riding.
Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could point out the feeling in my riding by reading some of the vast number of letters that have been written by representatives of town councils in places such as Cardston, Lethbridge and Nobleford, as well as by secretaries of the various branches of the Canadian Legion. I could go into great detail to point out how strongly people feel about the red ensign. I must admit that there are some, particularly the younger people, who favour a flag with a maple leaf design, either that proposed by the resolution or one that has been suggested since, having only one maple leaf. The percentage of people in my riding who favour the design proposed by the Prime Minister is very small, approximately 8 per cent. The group which favoured a single maple leaf design amounted to approximately 16 per cent. The great majority favoured the retention of the red ensign. The great majority of the people in my riding are willing to co-operate, and will accept a distinctively Canadian flag other than the red ensign, although one having a similar design.
Mr. Speaker, very much has been said about this country being divided in two, one side in favour of the government proposed design and the other in favour of the retention of the red ensign. The meetings which took place last week apparently resulted in a willingness to co-operate. I am sure a solution to the obvious difficulty has not been found but I am very pleased to observe this willingness to co-operate.
Mr. Speaker, I must apologize for taking up the time of this house, but as I pointed out earlier, I feel it is my duty and privilege as a delegate of the people in my riding to bring their views to this house. It seems apparent at this stage that there will now be a free vote in this house, and I must point out, that being the case, that the people will not accept a distinctively Canadian flag adopted by this parliament without having the opportunity of publicly expressing their opinions. They wish to have some voice in the choice of a design, and I think that is their right, Mr. Speaker.
I did mention the free vote, Mr. Speaker, and I should like to say a few words about that subject. This means something to the Canadian people and to members of the house but, quite frankly, what it really means I am not too sure. I said earlier that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) indicated a long time ago there would be a free vote. Then he reversed his position and said the
Canadian Flag
government would stand or fall on this issue. Last Friday he said there would be a free vote. Members of the house know that a free vote means certain things. If you look back through history and examine the precedents you will find that a free vote really does not mean a vote on something brought forward by the Prime Minister of the country and seconded by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Favreau). How can the house vote freely on a resolution brought forward in this manner? I sincerely hope this can be so. I am very optimistic about the trend that negotiations between the party leaders have taken and the trend that the debate in the house is taking, but I fail to see how we can really expect a free vote on a certain design at this late date.
I said earlier that there are people who are quite willing to have a distinctive flag. In fact, generally speaking I think all Canadians are quite willing to have a distinctive flag although their ideas as to the design may vary. As I came up to parliament hill this morning I noticed the flags of the commonwealth nations on display. There are many beautiful flags there and some I am quite sure we would like, but I was quite proud to notice the Canadian red ensign flying there. I thought it looked very beautiful and there are many people in Canada and many members of the house who think the same way.
I think the designs set forth in the subamendment are suitable for presentation to the public in a plebiscite so they may make their choice. As far as I am concerned, what I think I would probably do would be to take the red ensign and replace the union jack in the corner with the complete red ensign. There would then be a lot of room in the fly for green maple leaves, red maple leaves, a big golden maple leaf or a peace pipe as has been suggested by certain Indians. The views of the Indians have had very little representation in this house. I believe I have mentioned before that I represent the largest Indian reservation in Canada, the Blood reserve at Cardston, Alberta, and among my constituents is an Indian who is a member of the other place. These Indians have very strong views in this matter.
There are other Indians very close to Ottawa on the Six Nations reserve who pride themselves on having been allies of the Queen for many years. They consider themselves to be a nation and feel that they should be heard. They also pride themselves on the fact that many, many years ago they formed the first successful league of nations known

Canadian Flag
to the world, and I think they should be complimented for this. They have their ideas about designs for a flag if there is to be a new one and have suggested that a peace pipe might be included in the design; but not for one moment have they ever considered doing away with the union jack completely. In the opinion of many Canadians this is one symbol that must be included in any new design.
I have found that in the interval since the flag debate began up to the present time many people who were actually in favour of a new design, and particularly in favour of the one presented by the government, have been having second thoughts about the matter. I have realized from speaking to them that they have had little conception of what the union jack really meant, not only to the various provinces and areas of the country but to Canada as a whole. I could go into great detail in talking about the various crosses that make up the union jack, but I will content myself by pointing out that when you honestly and sincerely sit down with people and discuss this matter at length and in depth you find that many who had strong feelings earlier in favour of the new flag do not feel that way at this time, and quite rightly so. You talk to them about expressing the Christian idea in our flag and having a Christian emblem and many people ask what you mean. When you discuss this matter with people who do not understand and have not taken the trouble to find out, their reaction is one of amazement and they have very little criticism for the ensign. As a matter of fact, they wish they had not been so sure that they wanted to get rid of it.
I said earlier that much has been said in this debate. I should like to quote particularly a statement made by the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) in concluding his speech. As found on page 6532 of Hansard, he said:
I say and repeat that we have everything to gain by remaining within confederation. We will be better oil financially, and the opposite is untrue.
That is what I want to say to the house. I commend the hon. member for bringing this point to the attention of the house. There are many others in the house who feel the same way, myself in particular. I am very glad that such a statement has been made because there has been so much talk about the differences between east and west and increasing the cleavage between the races. I deplore this kind of talk. Words such as I quoted from Hansard a moment ago are what we need in this debate and every other debate in the

house. It is this sort of co-operation which crosses party lines and races, Mr. Speaker, which will bring us forward not only to the designation of a distinctive flag but on so many other matters that face Canada today.
I wanted to point out as well, Mr. Speaker, along the same line, that there has been a great deal said about the cleavage between the races, the differences between east and west. It has been said that maple leaves do not grow west of the great lakes and that there should be all kinds of other symbols on our flag. I mentioned that in so far as the Indians are concerned we could have a peace pipe or a beaver. We could have many other things. Frankly, I like the maple leaf design very much, but not particularly the three leaf design. I believe it would be better to have a single leaf design. In spite of this adherence to the maple leaf I just cannot see throwing away the emblems of our heritage. In my opinion, we are just like a family. It does not hurt the younger members or any members of a family to have some sort of respect for their elders. Some people take exception to the fact that we want to keep our ties with certain countries. I know there can be a lot of arguments advanced and a lot of red herrings drawn across the path, but the fact we have the British North America Act which grants certain rights to people is a rather unique situation in this world today. It is something of which we ought to be very proud. If it had not been for the protection of the union jack I doubt very much if we would be in this house or have the British parliamentary system of which we are so proud. It must be a good one because it is about the oldest parliamentary system surviving in this world today.
Certainly, this constitution was given to us under the union jack and guaranteed to us by the union jack. It was given to us at a time when we certainly needed a guarantee. I just cannot see how the Canadian people can scrap this sort of thing and along with it the fleur-de-lis. When we talk about certain laws and principles, we must recognize our heritage from France. We have it in our language, not only in French Canada but in our English language. If you look for the definition of a word in the dictionary you often find that it is a derivative of a French word. I am speaking frankly and very honestly right now. It is difficult for me to understand French Canadians wanting to throw away the fleur-de-lis and the union jack, if for no other reason than their mother tongue

and the protection and guarantees which account for their very existence today.
I should like to say also, Mr. Speaker, that I am very optimistic at this point. I think that before long we will have co-operation which will not only bring an end to this debate but may even lead to some co-operation on the design of the flag. I have tried to point out time and time again that we are not adamant. I do not believe there is anyone in Canada who would not be willing to co-operate a little bit on a design for a distinctive flag provided, of course, that we keep certain emblems. We have noticed students travelling across the country, many being present here in Ottawa, and as a matter of fact in the galleries. I was back in my area, in the city of Lethbridge, for a couple of days. I was not on holidays, as I hoped to be, but I attended a civic reception. In that civic reception were 20 high school students from the city of Montreal who were visiting 20 different homes in the city of Lethbridge. As a matter of fact I sat beside the premier of Alberta, Premier Manning. I do not mean to give the impression that I am any more than personally friendly with Premier Manning, because he is of a different political stripe than I am.
I have always felt about Premier Manning in the same fashion as was indicated by the prime minister of Iceland. He was holidaying in Banff and I should like to quote from the Globe and Mail for August 12 a statement he made:
Prime Minister Bjami Benediktsson, of Iceland, holidaying here during a cross-Canada journey, says he is puzzled by the Alberta political situation.
"There's nobody against the government," he said. "It's rather an odd situation when you have a 63-seat government and only three opposition members-and so far I have discovered only one person who openly supports the Social Credit party."
I am only quoting this, Mr. Speaker, to point out that I am not that kind of politician. I do admire our premier, though, and I did attend this civic reception with him. These students were there. This was a good thing. The students were visiting 20 homes in the city of Lethbridge. I have not heard of another city in Canada that is carrying on this type of program. I am very proud of it. I mentioned something about co-operation, and here is a very good example of it. Upon further investigation I found that this was not an isolated instance, but an exchange of students took place every two weeks from the time school closed until it opened. The public school board and the separate school board of
Canadian Flag
Lethbridge co-operate in sending 20 students to Montreal and they are replaced by Montreal students who go to the homes these students have left. I am sure that this type of co-operation will bring about the understanding that Canadians need.
In spite of the extreme partisanship that my constituents have they are trying hard to understand other people's viewpoints, and not only are they trying but they are doing something about it in a very concrete manner. This is the way we will make progress on this matter. I would like to say I was never prejudiced, but there was a time during this debate when I almost was prejudiced. However, I am glad I was very patient and, as I said earlier, I feel much happier now.
Some 25 years ago I remember installing a heating system in my house. I ordered the apparatus from Montreal. It was a good deal, almost as good a deal as I could have had other places, and I felt as a true Canadian then, at a time when I had not the slightest idea I would ever be standing in this chamber talking about different flag designs, plebiscites and everything else. But I have always had that little feeling for my country and I am proud to stand here today and point out what my constituents think. It we talk a little more I think we will arrive at a distinctive flag that will make many Canadians happy and feel it is what it should be.
Surely the Prime Minister, the government and all hon. members opposite will listen to this sort of plea, and I put it in the form of a plea, that we do this thing. If we do we will not find complete agreement in every part of the house but we will have sufficient agreement so that we can go ahead and give the Canadian people a distinctive flag. Frankly, as I said earlier, I believe the people probably should have a choice, and various designs can easily be worked out when we come to that point. Some choices are indicated in the subamendment and others may be incorporated.
This is something I could not say several weeks ago because at that time this proposal was, to me, a political one. The three maple leaf design was definitely a political design and at that time I could not imagine its being associated with anything but a political flag because of the manner in which it was introduced. It was the design of one person, the leader of the Liberal party; but now I am happy to see the progress we have made.
Some people have been critics of this debate and have called it a filibuster, but if we in the great Conservative party had not taken this stand-and I do not agree it has been a

Canadian Flag
filibuster-we would not have reached our present point of progress. There is a much more happy atmosphere in spite of all the things that have been said, and if this party is to go down in history as being accused of a filibuster I emphasize once more I am glad to have taken part in it because, without it, we would not be at the point where we are today. I look forward to a time in the very near future when we will have a distinctive flag that will unite Canada and which will be of a design that is very acceptable to most Canadian people.


Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roselown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, my remarks will be brief, but in view of the many letters I have received from my constituents I would be remiss in my duty if I did not make their views known to the House of Commons. I know other hon. members have received as many letters as I, and when they have spoken the papers have screamed "obstruction," "filibuster" and everything else. As a matter of fact one of the hon. members from Halifax used that term "filibuster" in his broadcast yesterday. But I point out that this is not a filibuster; it is merely bringing the views of our people before the House of Commons.
I have brought one letter along with me as a sample of the many I have received. It states:
Mr. Pearson, In his latest speech on the "Nation's Business," stressed two points: 1, the need for Canadian unity; 2, the need for a "distinctive" Canadian flag.
Regarding the first point, that is, the need for Canadian unity, everybody knows that the public controversy aroused to date by the introduction of Mr. Pearson's flag has reduced Canadian unity to the lowest ebb in our history.
Regarding the second point, that is, the need for a "distinctive" Canadian flag, only Mr. Pearson seems to be unaware of the fact that we have in the red ensign one of the most distinctive flags in the world. Where it flies on Canadian embassies, no one fails to recognize it as Canadian. Only Mr. Pearson seems to doubt this. Yet Mr. Pearson's flag-


Paul Theodore Hellyer: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, is it not the custom that we do not refer to hon. members by their surnames but rather by the constituencies they represent?


Clarence Owen Cooper: I am reading a letter.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member, as I understand it, was referring to the text of a letter.


Clarence Owen Cooper: This is a letter I received and I have brought it before the house as a

sample of all the letters I have received. I shall continue:
Only Mr. Pearson seems to doubt this. Yet Mr. Pearson's flag possesses no distinctiveness whatsoever, and can in no way be compared with our nation's flag, the Canadian red ensign.
I think it is time, Mr. Speaker, that you know I stand for the red ensign and I am proud of it. Of all the samples and designs I have received at my office, the one suggested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) is the most vacant looking. I think the right hon. gentleman is way off the beam in throwing away our red ensign, together with all our tradition, and proposing this new flag. I stand for a vote, and the sooner the vote can be brought about, the better. Let the people decide what they want. I do not believe that at any time in Canadian history one man has backed a certain design and forced it on the people of Canada. Therefore, I am in favour of the amendment and of the subamendment. I think we should hold a plebiscite and let the people of Canada express their views on this subject.
Just as an example of the publicity this flag is getting across Canada, and possibly to let us all have a little laugh, let me tell this little story. In our town, not too long ago, a man came out of a corner tavern, really loaded, and said in a drunken voice: "I am for a maple leaf flag. It has a bar at each end". That is an example of the publicity this flag is getting across Canada.
I know many who are present in this chamber will recollect the old song "We'll Never Let the Old Flag Fall". That promise is being broken by members on the government side-a promise which was sung with all our hearts in the first world war. No doubt most hon. members can recall, also, the poem by Dr. John McCrae, with its moving lines:
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.
Today in the House of Commons the government is breaking the pledges and the promises which were made in two world wars.
Our flag, with the union jack in the corner is a symbol that we belong to the great commonwealth of nations. I have been down in the United States on a few occasions in connection with defence installations, a joint effort by our two countries. On these visits I saw our red ensign flying side by side with the stars and stripes. I must say it did look

very good. It made me proud to have a part in that flag.
I know the maple leaf is Canada's emblem. But I should like to point out that the sugar maple is grown in only a small area of Canada, and that west of the great lakes we shall have to tell our children what those red blobs are on that flag-they have never seen a maple leaf. In fact very few maples are grown in western Ontario.
I am a westerner. I am a wheat farmer. Canadian hard red spring wheat is known all over the world and it is grown in every province in Canada. I think a sheaf of golden grain would be more appropriate as a Canadian symbol than a maple leaf.


An hon. Member:: How about a fish?


Clarence Owen Cooper: With these few remarks, let me indicate my intention to support the amendment. In my opinion the red ensign is more symbolic of Canada than any flag which has been shown to me so far. A Canadian can look with pride on this beautiful old flag and be proud that he has a part in it. I might go back a few years to the turn of the century when the western provinces were formed. People went there from every part of the world, from dozens of countries. We have a mixed population out there. And just ten years later they were called to fight for their country. We saw this mixed population take arms and go overseas to fight for the land of their adoption, with the red ensign flying before them.
It was only a generation later that their sons and daughters were called upon to cross the seas and fight for the land in which they were born. I say with great pride that the province of Saskatchewan, with its small population, contributed the largest number to the armed forces of any province of Canada on a per capita basis. This is something we are proud of.
I said my remarks would be brief, Mr. Speaker and I will conclude by saying once again that I will certainly support the subamendment before the house.


Mr. Albert Bechard (Bonaventure):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian parliament is now writing a very important page in its history. The debate on this resolution and its happy conclusion, with the adoption of a distinctive national flag, will stand as another milestone on the road leading to the independence of our country.
Canadian Flag
Following the Statute of Westminster and other important legislation passed since then, it will be a positive action taken by a truly responsible government and parliament and proof of our maturity.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, it is with a deep emotion and pride that I rise to express my humble opinion, as well as the views of my constituents, on the resolution under consideration, the purpose of which is to adopt a distinctive Canadian flag, as indicated in the resolution.
As could be expected, an amendment was tagged on without delay by the official opposition and it did not even wait for the house to vote before it moved an amendment to the amendment.
Having followed the debate from the beginning and especially last week, I will no doubt be allowed to say that I am completely against the idea of a plebiscite as suggested in the amendment of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker), for two reasons.
First of all, if the national flag issue were dragged on the public and political hustings under the present circumstances where unfortunate statements and speeches are being made both here and outside, that would create disunity instead of strengthening national unity, which was the prime reason why the government introduced this resolution.
The second reason is that the Canadian people have elected in a democratic way representatives who received proper mandates to deal with the business of the nation. Consequently, the members of this house have the responsibility to execute the specific mandate entrusted to them. Settlement of this matter by a plebiscite cannot be seriously contemplated in a parliament where there is a responsible government.
The rare examples of such a measure in Canada repudiate any further application thereof, and especially in this case. Besides, we have the words of the leader of the official opposition himself to convince us of the inadvisability, uselessness and inefficiency of this procedure. Indeed, at time of the debate in this house in 1942 on the advisability of a plebiscite to relieve the government of previous commitments concerning the recruiting of soldiers for overseas, the present leader of the official opposition who was then member for Lake Centre stated, as recorded on page 186 of Hansafd for January 30, 1942:
Allow the members of parliament to vote on this question. Do not submit the question to the people of Canada, for in my opinion the taking of

Canadian Flag
a plebiscite at this time may well destroy the unity of Canada.
And the same person added later, when the decision was taken, as one can read on page 836 of Hansard for February 25, 1942:
A plebiscite is to be taken regardless of the fact that in the long history of Great Britain, with all the constitutional changes which have taken place, no government has ever submitted any matter to the people by way of plebiscite.
I could quote other testimonies as bitterly eloquent and perhaps even more so on the part of members of the Leader of the Opposition's Conservative family, but I am short of time. I will only remind the house, and more especially certain members opposite, of those words of the acting leader of the Conservative opposition of the time, Mr. Hanson, who stated during the same debate in 1942, as recorded on page 26 of Hansard of January 26:
Let this government rise to the level of its duty; let it not be afraid to lead. A plebiscite is not a policy; it is the negation, it is the avoidance of a policy. It is merely an unworthy expedient to avoid facing a vital issue. Its purpose is to avoid facing a vital issue. Its purpose is to avoid rather than to face responsibility; it is to avoid rather than to enforce the performance of a duty. It is not a declaration of faith; it is a declaration of impotence.
I know that those historic words have already been quoted in this debate; that is why I wish to do it myself in order to point out to the official opposition, and to its leader in particular, the strange, curious and contradictory position in which it now finds itself.
What more will the subamendment proposed by the hon. member for Regina City bring? Nothing more than the confusion which the latter has spread in the debate, turning it into an open, concerted and unfortunate attack against one of the founding groups of this country. That is obvious if you just refer to some of the speeches made in this house over the last week.
To those who, faced with their disappointments and their blunders, clamour in this house and elsewhere that the proposed flag with three maple leaves was designed to appease the province of Quebec, I will say that they are wrong to spread such untruths and to say such things because for a long time the people of Quebec have longed for unity within confederation. If for years they have been asking for a distinctive national flag, it is to strengthen that unity without which we cannot develop fully as an adult nation. That is why, although they are very proud of their origins, the people of Quebec want for Canada a truly distinctive flag which

will not bear any sign of subservience to either of its inhabitants' mother countries.
Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that in an adult country such as Canada, which is recognized as such throughout the world and by all international bodies, it is superfluous to discuss in 1964 the need for our country to have its own flag which will show in Canada and abroad that we are a sovereign state, an independent state, a symbol which will identify us everywhere and in all circumstances, as is the case for France, England, Ireland, Italy and all the countries of the world which can easily be identified by their distinctive flags.
Last week, I had the opportunity to meet delegates of the various commonwealth countries to the conference on education now being held within our walls. Without exception, all of them expressed the greatest surprise over those endless discussions concerning a distinctive flag and over the fact that our country is still without a truly distinctive flag. Among them was a representative of Ghana who could not believe that this whole debate was taking place. As hon. members know, Ghana is an African country and a member of the commonwealth which obtained its independence in 1957 and which has its own distinctive flag. Would Canada be lagging behind Africa? Unfortunately, we must admit that such is the case, at least in that respect.
Symbols play an important part in the life of a nation and the most important of those symbols, in my opinion, is the national flag. Now, a national flag must be distinctive, in this sense that it must not be confused with the flag of another country on account of any of its characteristics. That is why, with all due respect for the red ensign, which a 1945 order in council gave authorization to fly pending the adoption of a distinctive flag, we have to admit, with regret, that we never had and do not have yet a truly Canadian flag, symbolizing Canada as a whole and constituting the emblem of all Canadian citizens.
I think the time has come for Canada to have a flag which all Canadians, without exception, can contemplate with pride, a flag which could symbolize our great country, be the object of our affection and loyalty and become a rallying and unifying emblem, insuring for the future the greatness of Canada from coast to coast. In my opinion, such a symbol could not be put in better concrete form than is described in resolution 44A.

Indeed, are not the three red maple leaves on one stem the symbol which His Majesty George V attributed to us by royal proclamation on November 21, 1921? Before that, Queen Victoria had by proclamation dated May 26, 1868, conferred to the province of Ontario three green maple leaves on a golden ground which we find again on the escutcheon of the province of Quebec. The royal proclamation of 1921 which was issued at the request of Right Hon. Arthur Meighen, who was Conservative prime minister at the time, was the logical result of serious and deep-reaching studies and of the recommendations made by the special committee appointed after the first world war by Sir Robert Borden, another Conservative prime minister, to study the problem of Canada's symbols, which was considered of great importance. That committee, which, as far as I know, was composed exclusively of brilliant and prominent Conservatives like Major General Willoughby, G. Gwatkin; Thomas Mulvey, under secretary of state; Sir Joseph Pope, under secretary of state for Foreign Affairs; and Arthur G. Doughty, Dominion Archivist had considered the matter for several months. Whom of these hon. gentlemen does the right hon. Leader of the Opposition have in mind, when he accuses this government of breaking with the past; does he mean Mr. Meighen, Mr. Borden, Mr. Gwatkin or anybody else?
When suggesting to the Canadian parliament the adoption of symbols, and a distinctive Canadian flag, no hon. member in this house should try to express narrow nationalism. And the suggestion of a distinctive flag must not be interpreted in this way by anybody not sharing the views of those who favour this symbol of our maturity, that is, a distinctive Canadian flag.
It is not a question of denying our past, our history or our institutions. Quite the contrary, we must respect, and we do respect our past, our history and our institutions, and I believe that the adoption of a distinctive flag is the logical consequence for a nation which has reached nationhood; it is the greatest tribute we can pay to our past, to our history and to our ancestors who have built for us this great country of ours, so that we can, in 1964, live in a mature and sovereign country possessing the rights of a state which has reached its political majority.
To give our country a distinctive flag is to give the whole world, all international organizations to which we belong, all nations and all Canadian citizens in the first place, the 20220-455
Canadian Flag
proof that we are proud to be Canadians. Also, we are only attempting-and that is very important-to give to the spirit of our people, to the enthusiasm of our citizens, an emblem around which and under which our youth and the whole Canadian people can rally in adversity as in joy, in peace as during the dark days of war.
All Canadian citizens of any origin, of any language and of any creed, born on Canadian soil or who, voluntarily, sometime during their life, have adopted Canada as their new country, without repudiating their origins, have decided to leave the flag of their birth country and to rally under the banner of their adopted country to form with their new countrymen the great Canadian family which they and we want great, strong, independent and respected a mari usque ad mare.
Our forefathers worked too hard to pioneer and to develop this land, soaked with their sweat and fertilized with their blood, a land now the home of close to 20 million people, a country with all modern communication facilities, great natural resources, etc. etc., that this country should not have the right and the legitimate pride to display the distinctive signs of its majority.
To continue such wonderful work, I shall contribute to it with those of my colleagues who believe in the necessity for our country of having a distinctive flag, in voting with pride for resolution 44 (A) that is for the flag with the three leaves.


Hon. J. W. Monteilh (Perth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in this debate because, like so many other people in Canada, I feel very strongly about this whole issue. I should also like to mention the fact the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) acknowledged his feelings that hon. members would wish to present their opinions on this flag issue at the time it was being considered. I should like to emphasize that fact and deny the suggestion that we are partaking in a filibuster. I certainly do not admit that this is a filibuster and I will give more detailed reasons at a later time.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to make one or two remarks about that what was said by the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Bechard). He admitted that this was an important debate, and he is one of the few members on the government side who have participated in it. He said we were taking one more step towards independence. I suggest that is an expression of utter nonsense in view of the fact this country is completely

Canadian Flag
independent at this time. There is no subservience on the part of this country to any other country in the world. I should like to ask that hon. member what he means in this regard. Does he mean by any chance that this is a step towards the removal of our sovereign as Queen of Canada, so that Canada will subsequently become a republic? I should like him to answer that question.
With all due respect to the people of Canada I am sure they will laugh at the suggestion made by the hon. member for Bonaventure that Canada is at this stage something other than completely independent. This country of ours has been a country since 1867 and has, during these past years, become completely independent. I do not understand how the hon. member can compare this country to Ghana. I suggest the circumstances are entirely different.
Mr. Speaker, I intimated earlier that I am taking part in this debate because I feel very strongly about the flag issue. I should like to point out that resolution 44 (A) states:
That the government be authorized to take such steps.. .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 on the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker, and on the amendment to the amendment of Mr. More.
Mr. Speaker, I have read the resolution in an attempt to point out that prior to June 15 the resolution up to the end of the word "flag" in the second last line formed part of a whole resolution worded in such a way that the red ensign was going to disappear entirely. Under the present alignment of two split resolutions it is still to disappear completely. Apparently to some this might appear desirable, Mr. Speaker, but I must insist that to millions of people across Canada it is next to sacrilege.
I have heard it said, as I mentioned earlier, that the red ensign denotes some sort of colonialism or subservience to Great Britain. Utter nonsense. I think it is well worth pointing out though, that while under these two resolutions the red ensign is to disappear completely from the picture as far as the people of Canada are concerned, the union jack is to be retained to be flown on certain occasions to denote our commonwealth relationships, or something of that nature. If one stops and examines the picture it would seem that for those who did have any idea there was any kind of subjugation or what have you by
[Mr. Monteith.j
Great Britain, the flying of the union jack under such circumstances would not be as acceptable as the red ensign. I know we are not discussing the second part of the split resolution but I do want to point out that the union jack is the flag of one country, Great Britain, and under those circumstances how can it be flown by us without denoting more subservience of some kind to that country?
I admit I have not made a study of the complete history of the Canadian red ensign. Others claim to have done so. I cannot cite certain dates on which it is presumed to have originated. All I know is that during the course of the debate it has been pointed out by many members on this side of the house that it has been flown as the flag of Canada for many years, certainly longer than I can remember. This whole question is not one of dates and figures. It is a question of the heart. It is the most emotional issue that could be brought before this house. I admit I am emotional about it but so are millions of other Canadians. That is why I insist that this whole flag question should not be before the house at this time. But, Mr. Speaker, as long as it is before us I for one propose to fight for our principles in this issue.
I know certain newspapers and other news media have taken it for granted that the result is a foregone conclusion. It has been said that no matter how wrong the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) may have been in bringing this issue before us at this time, no matter how many people may dislike the Prime Minister's personal choice of a flag, or how much, we should fold up and accept this dictum. No, Mr. Speaker, I cannot do that. I feel very strongly that in an issue such as this it is my duty to fight this coercion in every parliamentary way possible.
I do not accept defeat of the principles under which I grew up in this country. I do not accept the suggestion that having to fly this proposed flag is a foregone conclusion. I do not believe it is inevitable. It cannot be suggested for one minute that discussion of this issue is holding up the country's business. That is just not so. The Prime Minister has indicated that a recess can be had when this debate is over. We are not delaying the business of parliament. I admit we are delaying our own vacations but I for one am happy to forgo any vacation to prevent if I can this high handed, arbitrary action which would divide our country irretrievably for years to come.
The Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) spoke the other day, and certainly

he showed a great deal more concern for the Conservative party than for his country. I suggest that he pay particular attention to his own party. No one has any mandate to bring in a distinctive national flag, particularly without the union jack on it at least in some form.
I was not present this afternoon for all of the speech of the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) but I am told that probably never before has a greater indictment been made of the government than was made by that hon. member. I feel that this whole question is one that should not be before us. I am repeating myself, but I feel so strongly about the matter that I say: If unity is wanted in this country, for goodness sake take the flag question out of parliament. May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.
At six o'clock the house took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The house resumed at 8 p.m.
Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, before the dinner recess I had dealt with the fact that, in my opinion, the Prime Minister's choice of a flag is not inevitable, along with some other facets of the flag question. I had pointed out that 1 did not believe the question should be before parliament at all. I should like to mention one or two other thoughts I have had in connection with this matter.
I have had the honour and privilege of representing my constituency for something over 11 years. During that period of time I believe the citizens of Perth county have trusted my judgment on most matters that have come before parliament for consideration. I feel that they have sent me here to do my duty as I see fit. In all honesty, I feel that for certain matters, such as economic, fiscal and many other matters of this type that come before us, I am probably in a better position to pass judgment than a lot of the citizens of my constituency simply because I have ready access to the pertinent information. I feel it is my duty, after weighing all the considerations, to make up my own mind and act accordingly. To me, sir, this just makes good sense.
However, Mr. Speaker, on such a fundamental problem as the choice of a new flag, my opinion should not carry any more weight than that of any other citizen of my constituency. Their feelings on this divisive question are just as sincere as mine. I feel that certain 20220-455J
Canadian Flag
attitudes expressed to me, particularly by those who have served in Her Majesty's active forces, should carry as much or more weight than my own. The representations made to me, particularly by returned men but including many organizations and hundreds of individuals have, by a huge majority, been in favour of the retention of the Canadian red ensign. I admit that I have had some three or four letters indicating that the individuals concerned would be in favour of the Prime Minister's suggestion. I believe the huge majority, not only of my constituency but of all Canadians, would accept a modification of our present flag but certainly not the complete destruction of it.
I mentioned earlier that I had represented this constituency for some 11 years. Prior to that I had some municipal experience. I think that experience has led me to believe that on certain questions a plebiscite is a good thing. I was reminded just recently of an incident in my municipality which has had long range benefits to my city. Many years ago the Canadian Pacific Railway wished to bring a line into Stratford. Many business interests were in favour of this. They wished to have competition against the old Grand Trunk Railway which had given good service. The tragedy of the whole matter, Mr. Speaker, was that Canadian Pacific wished to have their roadbed come in along the river flowing through the middle of the city of Stratford. They wished to have their station in the middle of the downtown section, which is right in the heart of our parks system. This matter caused concern in the city. A plebiscite was held and those dreamers who could see the future of our parks system won out by a narrow margin.
I only mention this to show the benefits to be achieved by a plebiscite under certain conditions. I think anyone who has seen the Stratford Shakespearian festival would agree to two things. First, I do not believe there is any more beautiful parks system in any city in Canada, similar in size at least. I believe this was only possible because this plebiscite was defeated. Second, there would not have been a Stratford Shakespearian festival if we had not had this beautiful parks system to encourage those who dreamed. We all fully realize, I am sure, what that festival has meant to culture all across Canada. To me, Mr. Speaker, this is a concrete example of the long range benefits of a plebiscite.
The subamendment reads:
That the amendment be amended by adding thereto the words:

Canadian Flag
"and that in such a plebiscite among the questions to he placed before the people should be the following:
1.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign?
2.	Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
3.	Are you in favour of the three maple leaves design?
4.	Are you in favour of a one maple leaf design?
This subamendment moved by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More) sets out four choices from which a flag for Canada may be selected. I have indicated, and I indicate again that my personal choice would be the retention of the red ensign, and there are many reasons for this which I will deal with in more detail later in my remarks.
This whole question is so personal and is of such a type that I do not feel the opinion of the most studied student of heraldry is worth more than mine or those of many, many millions across Canada. As a consequence, I feel these four choices should be at least presented to the electorate so that they would have an opportunity of showing a preference.
It should be noted that the subamendment states:
-and that in such a plebiscite among the questions to be placed before the people should be the following:
And it goes on to list the four choices. There are other choices which could be included if the subamendment carries, and such other choices might be decided by a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. This has been dealt with in some detail by the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Nesbitt), the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) and several others during the course of this debate.


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: No, not at the moment. You can make your own speech whenever you feel like it, and there are many other people on your side of the house I would like to hear speak also, like the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley), the hon. member for Peel (Mr. Beer), and the members from the Toronto and York ridings. I think they would be very interesting.
If the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) would only refer a study of this matter to such a committee it would provide a cooling off period, which I believe to be vital to the unity of Canada. Many hon. members in this debate have made just about the most impassioned speeches I have heard since I

entered the House of Commons. They were all from the heart. I ask the Prime Minister not to let them fall on deaf ears.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I hear words of contempt, one might almost say of derision, from the other side of the house when I make these statements. I am serious. It is time some of you people got a little serious. I claim that this is no way to develop unity in the country.
Now I would like to say a few words on the various clauses of the subamendment and I shall first deal specifically with choice No. 3, the question dealing with the three maple leaves. I feel this is a reasonable choice to put before the people of Canada. The Prime Minister has indicated his adamant approach to this flag design. Indeed there has been a great campaign going on, and I am assuming this is backed by the Liberal party, to try by high pressure methods to sell this particular suggestion to the people of Canada. We have seen buttons, we have seen flags, we have seen miniature flags, and we hear of the Minister without Portfolio (Mr. Dupuis) placing an order for 100,000 bumper stickers. If this is not a campaign I do not know what it could be called. Mr. Speaker, this commercialization of something which may never come about is to me deplorable.
I feel this is doing a great injustice to our present emblem, but despite the fact that there has been so much discontent shown in regard to this suggested design, I do believe that it should be included in a plebiscite from which a choice could be made.
I now mention clause No. 4 in the subamendment which deals with one large maple leaf in the middle of the flag, instead of three, and otherwise is practically similar in design to the three maple leaf design. I believe there are some who have indicated a desire for this particular pattern. Many representations have been made suggesting that even though preference might be for the red ensign, or a modification thereof, at least a one maple leaf flag would be better than a three maple leaf flag.
However, Mr. Speaker, I have to admit that the foregoing two suggestions-that is, the three maple leaves and the one maple leaf-do not move me in any way whatsoever. I fail to see how either of these two examples could be representative of all Canada. First, we know that there are many varieties of maple trees in Canada, and I would ask just which one is this? Also we

are aware, as the hon. member for Rose-town-Biggar (Mr. Cooper) mentioned this afternoon, that maple trees are not a natural tree in the western provinces. Further we know the maple tree is much more prevalent in certain areas of the northeastern United States than in some areas of eastern Canada. To me it just does not have any heraldry or tradition behind it. Both designs leave me cold.
I now come back to the red ensign which is listed as No. 1 in the subamendment. It is not my intention to put a lot of quotations and detail on the record. I was, however, particularly moved and impressed by an article written by Mr. Stafford Johnston, the associate editor of the Stratford Beacon-Herald on May 26 last.
I do not intend to read the whole article but I would point out that it was written on May 26 last and shall give it in summary form. The writer started out by pointing out that 20 years ago that day he was in the line of vehicles, many miles long, heading for Portsmouth, about to go aboard ship for the landings in Normandy. That is in summary form. The author gives details of his experience during those days. This, for me, has great bearing on the feelings of many people across Canada, so I should like to read some of these details as given in the remainder.
The day we have been remembering lately was not D-day, but D-plus-5, when we came to the first moment at which I can remember any letdown.
On Sunday, June 11, 1944, our brigade headquarters was in the village of Le-Fresne Camilly. The invasion beaches were seven miles behind us, and the enemy three miles in front. The seven or eight vehicles that made up the headquarters were parked around three sides of a courtyard. The home of Mme Jeanne-Marie de Gastebled occupied the fourth side of the square. It was a big house, and it needed to be; one result of the invasion, inevitably had been the shooting-up, and bombing of a good many houses, and a lot of doubling-up of families in other houses. We never did get close to a count on the number of people then sheltered under Mme de Gastebled's roof, but when all the children came out in the morning to see the soldiers, the place looked like a schoolyard.
Some time during that day the Brigadier emerged from the truck which was his home and office, and took a look around. It was probably the first relaxed moment for him since the run-in to the beaches five days before. He noticed a flagpole in the middle of the courtyard and that gave him an idea. "Run up a Canadian flag," he said, in an off the cuff order.
This was, of course, a silly order. Modern armies don't carry flags into battle. During the weeks before the channel crossing we had all listed and checked, and counted and rechecked every item of equipment, and stowed and restowed it in the
Canadian Flag
vehicles, and the lists certainly did not include anything as unnecessary to battle as a flag. It was easy enough for the boss to toss off an order, but to us underlings it seemed obvious that the order could not be obeyed.
However, the signallers had an idea. They rummaged in a locker where they had signal flags stowed and, by a minor miracle, they found a Canadian flag mixed in with the kind of flag the signallers use for wigwagging. We found some rope, and somebody shinnied up the pole.
The French children watched all this, and some of them must have reported to their mothers and! their aunts. By the time the flag was ready to run up the pole, we had quite an audience of French civilians, women, children and old men. Madame herself emerged from the house, followed by a younger woman carrying an immense silver tray with glasses of wine. Madame made a short speech, and while we did not follow the words, we got the general idea that Canadians are a good thing. The brigadier, when he felt the atmosphere getting emotional, turned coward, and retreated to hiding. The rest of us tried to pretend we did not feel moved by seeing the flag go up.
It was the Canadian red ensign, of course.
The people, three miles away at the time, who might have wanted that flag to be pulled down, consisted of the two German divisions then opposed to 3rd Canadian division. The 21st Panzer division was a top rated division of the regular German army. The 12th S.S. division was one of the fanatical outfits in which every man was a nazi party member. For another month they fought us to a standstill, before we finally broke out of the bridgehead.
Hitler's elite troops couldn't make us pull it down, but now, 20 years after, it seems that a resolution of parliament may. Defeat comes strangely.
Mr. Speaker, I should like to repeat that last paragraph:
Hitler's elite troops couldn't make us pull it down, but now, 20 years after, it seems that a resolution of parliament may. Defeat comes strangely.
I should like to leave it-and I am serious about this-with you and the house for contemplation.
Now, we come to item two of the subamendment. It reads:
Are you in favour of the Canadian red ensign with changes made thereon to show the main heritages of both founding races?
I, personally, could accept this suggestion. I feel the majority of Canadians would accept it and I honestly believe it would be the best compromise and the one most acceptable to our people. The fly might contain a large fleur-de-lis, or maple leaf, or the designer might put forward a design where both appeared. We could then leave the union jack in the corner. This would please all those who are in favour of retaining the red ensign while at the same time indicating to the rest of the world the value of the great contributions which have been made to Canada's history by those of French origin. We could be

Canadian Flag
proud of such a combination of symbols which would, at the same time, indicate the freedom under which we have always lived, and pay tribute to the heritage and tradition to which we have all grown accustomed and in which we believe.
On the evening of July 1 on parliament hill those present witnessed a sight which, I believe, will always live in the memory. At least, it will live in mine. It was a beautiful sight. There were some 66 red ensigns around the grounds whereas usually there are about 22. I admit the display caused me to become somewhat emotional, and I am not a bit ashamed of it. I was disturbed. I was frustrated. And I was angry at the people on the other side of this house who are trying to tear this flag down. It was a memorable setting, and to think there was any possibility of such a sight disappearing aroused strong feelings in many others beside myself.
I pass the garden of the provinces twice each day on the way to and from this building. I wish hon. members would go out there and take a look at the ten flags which are flying. There are three which have white backgrounds and insignia of some sort in the middle. I am sure all who saw them would have to agree that they cannot compare, in distinctiveness, with all the other flags flying there-the other seven flags. I do not say this with any disrespect for the three flags concerned and I certainly do not claim to have any aesthetic virtues. But I do claim that a flag with a white background is not good enough to be a flag of Canada.
I admit that certain people do not have the same feeling for the red ensign as I have. Some time in the future, when the present generation of older citizens has been replaced, it. may be that some change will be more readily acceptable. I repeat that nothing could be more divisive than bringing forward this flag issue at the present time. It is one which strikes at the very roots of all of us.
I remember when audiences in Canada did not stand up to a man for the singing of "O Canada".
Today this is generally accepted, and one would say that such hesitancy would be an irreverence and unheard of. Only time has accomplished this meeting of minds across Canada. The time may come, and conceivably before too long, when much more unity of purpose can be achieved in coming to a decision on a new flag or even a modification of our present one.
[Mr. Monteith.l


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


Jay Waldo Monteith: Mr. Speaker, I do not think I started until at least five minutes after, but I should like to repeat one story to finish. While in discussion the other evening with the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Starr) he mentioned a friend of his had been requested to ask the blessing at a banquet at which the hon. member was present. The words had impressed my colleague as they did me, and I trust he will not mind my passing those words on for the thoughtful consideration of the house. They were simply: "Oh Lord, help us to stand for something, so that we will not fall for everything".


Mr.   Reg. Cantelon@Kindersley: Mr. Speaker, after having listened to so many excellent speeches on this topic I am afraid this one may bore you very much. However, as you have listened to so many I hope you can put up for a little while with some of the same ideas repeated in my own language. When one is making a speech, which must be about the one hundredth speech on this topic by now, surely no one would expect any very great originality or very much new material, and I claim neither for this one. However, since this is an emotional and historical topic and one on which one might be expected to have an opinion, as well as one on which one's constituents also have opinions which, as members, we ought to respect, I should like to state what are my own views and what I conceive are those of my constituents.
It is quite certain that the original reaction of my constituents to this proposal to change the red ensign to a new and distinctive design was one of amazed disbelief. This point has been emphasized over and over again. Is it true that the Liberal party did in fact pledge itself to introduce a new flag within two years of taking office? If it is, it has certainly never been brought to the attention of my constituents. Nor, as has been pointed out on many occasions, was it brought to the attention of the constituents in eastern Canada. This fact was emphasized very much this afternoon by the Liberal member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan), who stated that not a single advertisement placed by that party in the election of 1963 and published in Toronto had to do with a new flag. I doubt whether anyone in the west noticed that promise either. If they did I think they all thought this new and distinctive flag would merely be a new form of the red ensign. Or perhaps

they thought it might be a formal declaration that the ensign would be adopted.
After all, there is no reason why they should think otherwise. In 1946 the Liberals had been in almost universal approval of the red ensign. When the order in council at the end of the second world war during the term of office of Mr. Mackenzie King proclaimed the red ensign, that flag then began to have an even more general acceptance than it had had before. It was flown from public buildings, from schools under provincial jurisdiction in my own province, and largely substituted for the union jack which had generally been flown up to that time.
In these circumstances one can see why the Liberal promise had no impact. One can see why it was thought that the implementation of that promise was to be merely a confirmation of what was becoming an established practice. This view is again confirmed by the comments of the hon. member for York-Humber this afternoon, whose documented facts are well worth remembering. There was shocked disbelief on the part of the great number of my constituents when they realized that the interpretation by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of a distinctive Canadian flag was one of a flag which had no element of familiarity or any historical significance. They reacted to this fact, as I said previously, with astonishment and then in many instances, I am sorry to say, with a great deal of anger. I received petitions containing literally hundreds of names requesting, and in some cases demanding, the retention of the red ensign. Demanding is a rather strong word in the English language, but it shows their belief that the red ensign has for many years been recognized as Canada's flag. Not one single letter of approval have I had from my constituents for the new maple leaf design.
Those of my constituents who are members of the Canadian Legion were among the strongest opponents of the new flag, which of course is quite understandable. Certainly they have a very strong belief that the red ensign is Canada's flag and that it was the flag under which they fought. No arguments from our Liberal friends can change that incontrovertible fact. I would not like to say that they fought for a flag, they fought for their country, our country. But to them that flag represented their country and they do not like to see it done away with and, rightly or wrongly, done away with at the whim of one man. He is unfortunately a man who has demonstrated that he is incapable of organizing the business of this parliament; a
Canadian Flag
man who does not have the genius for compromise which is so essential to the leader of a party. He is said to have had training as a diplomat. Heaven help us if our present diplomats are no more conciliatory or appreciative of the effects of stubborn, intractable action than is the Prime Minister, with his stubbornness on this flag question. I suspect that at 68 years of age he is in fact years older than the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) who chronologically is one year his senior. This could account for the odd things he does, like saying to his supporters that they could have a free vote and then emphasizing that his government would stand or fall on the result of that vote. Of course, he has now modified that stand. However, irrational attitudes are characteristic of the aged.
In putting forward the views of my constituents I would like to quote from a letter I received from a resident of Eston on May 21. He says, amongst other things:
Well, I am like a lot of the rest of the people of the west. I think the old flag should be left the way it has been for so long, as the Legion fought two world wars to protect it. So I hope the Conservative government-
-he was a little out there-
-will see that this is put to a vote of the people of Canada and find out for sure what flag they want. I don't like this thing of Mr. Pearson shoving or showing off. I think there is lots of other things Mr. Pearson could be doing besides worrying about a new flag. I have never heard of the U.S. wanting to change their flag and I don't think Canada should either.
This is the general attitude of the letters I have received. Rightly or wrongly, nearly all opponents of the new distinctive flag refer to it as the "Pearson flag". To illustrate this point I should like to quote from a telegram I received on June 16 from Tompkins:
Vote no on Pearson flag. Reasons, leaf design not distinctly maple. Jack absent.
I think these quotations emphasize very clearly what is the general attitude of my constituents. Those of the Legion who attended the recent national convention held in Winnipeg were incensed at the poor taste of the Prime Minister in making a controversial announcement to introduce a new flag at what they consider was a service of dedication and remembrance on a Sunday night. Why was not the announcement made at the opening session on Monday morning? This is the logical question they ask. And I ask the same question: Why had it to be done at that service, at what was a service of dedication? Did not the Prime Minister realize how controversial an announcement

Canadian Flag
he was making? Is this just another example of his poor judgment?
The legionnaires present on that Sunday night were indignant at the attitude of the press, who magnified a small disturbance into a major incident. Why did they do so? Was it to make the Prime Minister a martyr to those nasty legionnaires? While the legionnaires admit that some disturbance was created by a few, and I think under some provocation as a result of the Prime Minister's announcement, they consider that very little disturbance did occur. They cite the fact that the Prime Minister was able to deliver his whole speech as proof of the good manners of their members. When we remember the ill-mannered boorishness of an organized demonstration against the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker) in Vancouver we can see that the legionnaires were well mannered by contrast and that the Prime Minister was bothered very little.
The Prime Minister has now precipitated into the political arena an issue which, in my humble view, time was solving for us. Very seriously his manner of attempting to substitute another flag for the one we recognized as ours was tactless and ill considered, and it was especially ill considered at a time when we have rumblings of separatism from Quebec. This is a time when the rest of Canada should not have its antagonisms aroused against Quebec, and yet this is just what this new flag is doing. Instead, we need a calm reappraisal of our attitudes and a sympathetic understanding of Quebec's problems. Surely the Prime Minister does not feel that his flag is going to contribute to such an understanding. It may please Quebec, but it will harden opposition to what may be Quebec's legitimate demands. From personal experience as the result of the few visits I have made home in the last four months I can confirm that this indeed is exactly what it is doing.
Whether he likes it or not there are many Canadians who think and say that this flag is just a sop to Quebec. I hasten to add, my party does not say this. I do not say this. I could not and would not, because if you will examine my name you will see that there is more than just a stirring of French ancestry in my past. It is true that may have been many hundreds of years ago, but I still have a very soft place in my heart for my French ancestry, and I resent any such thing being said. I would not accuse the Prime Minister of such political opportunism, but the accusation is being made by others. The Prime
[Mr. Cantelon.l
Minister could meet those charges with better grace if the flag had not been selected as it was selected by the cabinet and, hence, many people think by the Prime Minister himself. Indeed, the Prime Minister made it very plain that this flag was his personal choice. He alone then must accept the responsibility for the design and for the lack of judgment and foresight in introducing it now. There were many other ways in which a flag could have been selected and this suspicion avoided. Why was not an all party committee set up and either a single selection or a small variety of choices submitted to parliament. If this had been done parliament would have selected a useful compromise, no one could have called the flag a Pearson pennant, and it would not have been subjected to the ridicule which is now being applied.
I should like to quote from an article written by Eric Nicol which appeared in the Saskatoon Star-Phoenix of August 17, 1964. He stated:
Mr. Pearson's design for a new Canadian flag- the one with three maple leaves rampant on a field of whiter wash-has been greeted by a variety of noises, mostly rude.
That's the trouble with "making up" a flag. It's too arbitrary for most stomachs. We want a flag to have a background of tradition, history, battlefields and glory. The only way the P.M. is going to sell his flag is by leading a charge with it across parliament hill, inviting volleys of shot from a dug-in battery of Old Sweats, and going down with the bullet-shredded banner still in his hands.
Then, if he likes, he can call an election.
I do not intend to read the whole article but I should like to read one or two more excerpts. Mr. Nicol continues:
If Mr. Pearson is saying "Let's run it up the flag pole and see if anybody salutes," I think his design will run a poor second to the packaging of soapflakes.
The last paragraph concludes as follows:
Today when Canadian soldiers go into action it is under the flag of the UN, and a very fine flag that is, too. Why we need a third flag, except to shine the spotlight on at Maple Leaf Gardens, is not clear.
I fear that Mr. Pearson is going to be stung by his blue-tailed fly. And only one jack is apt to be jolly: J. Diefenbaker.
Now that the Prime Minister has forced us all into the unfortunate situation of accepting his personal flag or none at all, the hon. Leader of the Opposition proposes a way out. He proposes a referral to the people. It is a sensible way for an emotional issue like a flag to be decided. For this is purely an emotional issue, this has been emphasized over and over again, and one not to be decided

by reason except as applied to the emotional overtones of the issue. The hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) was, I think, the last hon. member to emphasize this very clearly.
One of the government members attacking the Leader of the Opposition's amendment said that it was just a smokescreen, that one could just as reasonably settle the pension problem by a referendum. This is a stupid comment. Is the member too obtuse to recognize the difference? The Canada pension plan is not an emotional issue based on the preconceived and basic stereotypes of a person. A member of parliament, or anyone else for that matter, should be able to debate unemotionally, and apply intelligent discussion to arrive at a reasonable solution of a monetary and social problem like a pension. He ought to have, if he studies the matter, a better informed vote on the pension issue than most of his constituents. But the flag issue is not in that class. No amount of study will make an M.P. better informed than his constituents on a matter that has its only foundation in emotion. Here, no reasonable explanation will sway many of the people. In fact, the only appeal to reason that can be made would be the one that, rather than cause trouble one ought to accept the new distinctive flag. Not a very cogent reason, but one which is sure to affect those who do not have very strong opinions, and I am afraid there are not too many of them. Perhaps the Prime Minister knows this and is acting accordingly. But if there was a referendum, no accusations that this was a politically chosen flag would have validity as they do today. Surely the Canadian people have the right to a flag free from political stain. The only way they are likely to get it is by a referendum or by a unanimous decision from a parliamentary committee dealing with the matter, which seems to me the most reasonable way to attack the problem.
Then too, the people have a right to a better selection than the one which is suggested. The proposed flag is a bad selection for it does not have artistic appeal nor as it flies does it have what I, for want of a better term, will call the clarity or stand-out quality in the air that one recognizes in the red ensign, the union jack, the French tricolour and the American stars and stripes. As one hon. member pointed out this afternoon, if you go over to the west block and look at the commonwealth flags flying there you will see that they have this quality too. They are clear-cut and stand out well in the air.
Canadian Flag
To illustrate further what I mean, some weeks ago when the new flag began to flutter from car aerials in this area one week end I sailed through the Thousand islands. There the Canadian boats all flew the red ensign and the United States boats the stars and stripes. Against the background of the shimmering water and the deep green of the shores these flags stood out clearly. They had clarity. As we returned to Ottawa we saw again the three maple leaves flag. It was colourless and insipid compared with those v/e had just observed. It does not have clarity in the air. Half a mile away it fades completely into the background. One might almost say it camouflages itself.
I wondered as I looked at it why the government did not select, if they had to have a flag of this type, the A. Y. Jackson flag. In that flag the blue bars were placed at the top and bottom of the flag instead of at the ends, and the red maple leaves were placed in the centre. Consequently this flag flies much better. It can be seen because it stands out against the sky without the white break in the middle which destroys the design we are asked to accept. It certainly is a much better looking flag, and this we might expect since it was prepared by one who is recognized as one of the foremost artists that the dominion of Canada has produced.


Mr. Maiheson:: May I ask the hon. member if he would-


Mr. Cantelon:: Later.


Neil Alexander Matheson: -vote in favour of the A. Y. Jackson recommendation?


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: Later, please.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order.


Reginald (Reg) Cantelon: The flag is not an issue on which an election should be fought. To do so will arouse strong feelings between various regions of the country and create wounds which will be a long time healing.
Personally I much prefer the red ensign. We have had it as long as I can remember. It has grown to symbolize our traditions of fair play, our heritage of civil justice and our type of parliamentary government in which we all take our part. In Canada our flag has also meant freedom for many who have come to our shores from other countries with less happy governments. It has meant equality of opportunity for these people so that in the House of Commons the hon. member for Humboldt-Melfort-Tisdale (Mr. Rapp), the hon. member for Rosthern (Mr. Nasserden) and the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Kor-chinski) can sit on the Conservative benches
720S

Canadian Flag
along with a sixth generation Irish Canadian like myself and a Dutch Canadian like the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Diefenbaker).
The peculiar genius of the British parliamentary system has long been the capacity to compromise. Like many other systems have done, our parliamentary system would have perished long ago without that capacity. Indeed, it was because they knew of the justice and equality that existed under that system that so many immigrants have come to Canada in the last hundred years, and still come today.
Our French Canadian friends have been indebted to that capacity to compromise, allied with justice and fair dealing too, because their rights and their equality have always been recognized in our constitution and in our government. All we have to do is to look at our history, at the terms of the Act of Union, the Quebec Act and the act of confederation, to recognize that that capacity for equality and respect for others is demonstrated in this country today.
Only the strong, secure in their own strength, are willing to compromise. I would hope that the leaders of all the political parties have the strength and that the first element of that compromise can be set up in the acceptance by all parties of the suggestion to submit this whole question to a committee of the house. Without this first step there can be no compromise. I should like to refer to an editorial in the Ottawa Journal of August 19 which is headed, "Concession No Surrender" and reads as follows:
Politicians, the public, the press and the pundits of broadcasting hinder a solution of the flag issue by emphasis on "breakdowns" In negotiations, "escapes" for the leaders and the importance of "face saving". It is preposterous to argue that a concession is a surrender, or that to suggest an alternative is to be a quitter. The country is the loser if an impasse on the issue continues and divisions become so deep they cannot be bridged. The leaders, themselves largely responsible, should be thinking more of country than of party and those who encourage them in bitter conflict serve their country ill.
Without compromise the nation will be divided. I do not want to be a member of the parliament which does that. Under these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I intend to vote for the amendment and the subamendment. I cannot vote for the resolution as it is today. It must be modified. It must be submitted to a committee for a compromise that can receive the approval of this house.


Mr. H. A. Moore (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, at this stage of the debate I do not wish to speak at any great length unless, of
[Mr. Cantelon.l
course, I get carried away. We have heard cries of "carried" from the other side on numerous occasions. I wonder if they are aware of what we are discussing here. I was of the opinion we were speaking on the subamendment and I am quite sure they do not want the subamendment carried. They must be thinking about the main motion.
Over and over again during the course of the debate we have heard that we were elected to take the burden of decision. I think the last person who said that was the leader of the Creditiste party. I accept that, Mr. Speaker, but I will not agree that we were elected to decide on a new flag in this manner. As members we were not even asked our opinion. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) brought forth a design with an accept it or else attitude. This we might accept in a dictatorship or a republic but certainly not in a democracy.
As far as the design is concerned, many people seem to forget one fact. We have a flag which many of us cherish, and along with most citizens of countries outside of Canada, we feel it is a truly distinctive flag. If we felt that we had no flag, then almost any design would be acceptable.


An hon. Member:: Dispense.


Some hon. Members:: Carried.


Harry Andrew Moore: Don't be in a hurry, you will get your chance. Surely the Prime Minister, with a better than average knowledge of psychology, could see that people will often accept gratefully something they have never had before, but will fight to the end to retain something they already cherish. To me, Mr. Speaker, the promise that the vote will now be free is commendable, but it has a bit of a hollow sound at this late date. We had this promise once before when it could have meant something, but it was withdrawn by the Prime Minister when he decided that course would help his cause. I believe I have said enough; I think you all have the message.
A referendum at this time would at least be one way of finding out how the people of Canada feel. It has been suggested that a committee might be another method. Why the insistence by the government that there must be a time limit on the debate on the findings of the committee? Certainly if the committee came up with a decision the members would accept it with very little debate. Perhaps I am of too suspicious a nature, Mr. Speaker, this attempt to limit free debate bothers me a bit; I do not like it. I should

like to make something clear right now: I do not look upon this proposed flag as a concession to the people of Quebec. I look upon it as a concession to the Prime Minister. Before coming to Ottawa in 1962 I had met very few Canadians from Quebec. Since then I have been impressed by their friendliness, their ingrained politeness and their moderation when controversial matters have arisen. Forgive me if I say there are one or two exceptions, perhaps. I would not presume to dictate to those Canadians what designs or emblems they should expect as a contribution to the make-up of our flag. I do reserve, however, the right to stress my own feelings in this regard and those of millions of other Canadians. We feel that those emblems which mean a great deal to us must be retained. This is why we are carrying on this debate. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, is that not reason enough?
I should like to read a paragraph from a letter I received. It is not from one of my constituents, but I think it covers a very important point and possibly shows the feelings of some people in Canada. I quote:
Friends and relatives who have been motoring from the eastern seaboard of the U.S. via Ontario and Manitoba told us last month that they had never seen so many red ensigns flying from every city, town, village, farm, barn and hamlet before. Other relatives who have just returned to Winnipeg from a motor trip to B.C. via Alberta, Saskatchewan, and of course, Manitoba, said that they had questioned many people on the way and where they stopped, and everyone was strongly in favour of the red ensign. All who did the questioning were young (thirtyish) university graduates with responsible positions and much common sense, so I feel their report carries some weight.
For those who would wipe the union jack or any other connection with Britain from our flag, I would say this-and I have no English or French blood in my veins but a mixture of three other races: To me, the union jack on our flag has no connection with imperialism, subjugation, slavery or any such thing. The very thought of this is ridiculous. It signifies only that our system of government is patterned after the British system which took possibly a thousand years to evolve. Our system of justice is also patterned after the British system. Is this not why millions of immigrants have come to Canada, because they realized they would receive the fair treatment here which that flag has come to symbolize? Otherwise, they could have gone to the south sea islands where, perhaps, the climate is better.
It is not possible for me to say how all my constituents feel on the flag issue. It is not 20220-456}
Canadian Flag
possible to talk to everyone in an area comprising many thousands of square miles, especially when we spend the recess in the House of Commons. Since the government has adopted the tactic of using controversial legislation as a club-they say, pass it or no recess -we are not likely to see much of our constituents. Unlike some of my colleagues, I am afraid I cannot say that every letter I have had has protested the maple leaf flag and favoured the red ensign. I can say truthfully that all but one have, and I have received well over 100 letters in that vein.
I feel that now I should read a few excerpts from these letters. I shall be brief and I have tried to choose those that deal with the amendment in question. This is the first one:
When I first went to school in Canada I was taught that the red ensign was the Canadian flag. It is one of the most beautiful flags in the world and has such a wonderful history behind it that I cannot understand the mentality of any true Canadian that wants to replace it. We do not need any other flag but it; it covers everything.
Please do everything to keep it. Nothing could replace it.
Here is another one:
I feel so strongly about the flag issue, I could scream.
Obviously, this one is from a lady.
It is only the thin edge of the wedge. If it passes, what next? The Queen? I feel Mr. Pearson is "playing politics" with the issue. I deplore such tactics. One does not just dump a flag and all it stands for-it is our very heritage. Fight for it.
This is the next letter I wish to quote:
Because I have very strong feelings regarding the flag issue I felt the best thing to do would be to express these ideas to you, as our member from Wetaskiwin. Please let us keep the flag we have grown to love and respect. Let us not just take a piece of cloth and put anything that may come to mind on it and fly it across our country and expect people to love and respect it.
We have grown up with our present flag. All the traditions and memories associated with this flag cannot be wiped out overnight and thrown aside. These memories and traditions that weave themselves into our country's life are very important to the morale and greatness of our country. If we must make it more distinctive, let us add to it, not take away.
This is a statement with which I agree.
The flag is for all our country, not parliament, so all the people should voice their feelings.
In other words, this lady is in agreement with having a plebiscite. I think that points out very well what some of my constituents feel. Here is a short excerpt from another letter:
It must be tiring to be battling away for ideals in the heat and humidity of an Ottawa summer, but it is proof that a large number of our M.P.'s

Canadian Flag
really and truly care for their lovely Canada and its future. Don't ever give up the fight.
It has been said, Mr. Speaker, that possibly the older people in Canada do not want to give up their flag but the young people are all for a change. During my last trip home I was interested in talking to a girl in grade five. She said that in her grade they had a vote on the flag question. In other words, a question was asked, do you favour maintaining the red ensign or do you favour the new maple leaf flag? This was the result of that vote, and it surprised even me. There were two who favoured the new flag and all the others in this school room were strongly in favour of retaining the red ensign. This gives you some idea of what some of the young people in my area feel.
I should like to make a short comment on the subamendment. In a spirit of compromise, we may have to modify the red ensign. If that is the case, it is covered by the second question. I believe this situation was explained very well by the hon. member for Perth (Mr. Monteith). This afternoon, while listening to the hon. member for Bonaventure (Mr. Be-chard) I heard him refer to the flags flying in front of the west block for the commonwealth conference on education. If I remember correctly he said that some of these delegates could not understand what the fight was all about. They had their distinctive flags and they could not see why we did not want one. In looking over those flags, I noticed that four of them, in addition to the flags of Britain and Canada, contained a union jack. I wonder what the peoples of those countries thought? Did they think that they did not have a distinctive flag? Did they also think they should get rid of the union jack?
If I remember correctly, he also mentioned that we should accept the symbols given to us by George V and Queen Victoria, in other words, the three maple leaves on one stem. It was my understanding that that was the reason for getting rid of the union jack and all other symbols-because they pertained to Britain; but here they are using this as an excuse and they want to adopt the symbols given to them by the British. I fail to follow this type of logic.
One of the reasons given for the choice of the maple leaves was that the army adopted them and used the insignia of the maple leaf. I, along with many thousands of Canadians, wore the fleur-de-lis proudly in my buttonhole for many years, as a boy scout. Is not this a possible reason for adopting the fleur-de-lis as a symbol. One argument seems as sensible as the other. If this gentleman is so

sure that all the ethnic groups want a new flag, and I think he said that, why is he so worried about a plebiscite? I think he is in for a surprise.
The three maple leaves are not too distinctive because I have seen many Esso flags flying over service stations, and under some weather conditions they are very similar. One constituent of mine suggested to me that we have a five cent stamp -with three maple leaves on it and now we are in danger of getting a five cent flag with the same three maple leaves on it.
Further, the one leaf design is not too distinctive either, and is not easily distinguishable from the Supertest pennant. In closing, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that both these companies have vast quantities of gasoline and therefore can afford to have a white flag and keep it well washed.


Mr. Lawrence Waison (Assiniboia):: Mr. Speaker, I find it a little difficult to rise and speak on the flag issue after listening to so many eloquent speeches during the last few days, but I am taking this opportunity to speak as the representative of Assiniboia constituency because the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) extended an invitation to all members of parliament to speak on this matter.
At noon today I went outside my office in the west block and noticed all the commonwealth flags in front of the building, and I can truthfully say I believe any Canadian or any member of the House of Commons would be afraid to stand up and say that we do not have a beautiful flag in the red ensign. At the beginning of my speech I would like to repeat a few words which the hon. member for Portage-Neepawa (Mr. Enns) used in his opening remarks the other day, when he said that a nation should be proud to unfurl its new flag and this should be a time of excitement and enthusiasm. I feel if we were to have a new flag unfurled at present this would not be a time of rejoicing after all the controversy there has been over the present flag.
I have with me a copy of the Leader-Post of Wednesday, August 19, which had a report dealing with the hon. member for Eglinton (Mr. Sharp) and the headline says, "Sharp urges P.C.'s to end Filibuster." I do not consider that by taking part in this debate I am filibustering, because I feel that the Conservative party today stands alone in trying to save the Canadian red ensign as our national flag.
A short while ago the Prime Minister said there were six important items that had to

be attended to by parliament before a summer recess. If my memory serves me correctly, we are now on the sixth piece of legislation, and therefore members of parliament are dwelling on the flag issue on their own time in lieu of a recess. This brings to my mind a cartoon I saw not so long ago in the London Free Press where it showed a member of parliament with a shackle around his leg, tied up outside one of the windows of the parliament buildings, and the caption at the top read, "Hello Voter, Hello Nation, I'm in Camp Concentration." It showed all the tourists going by with those big carriers on top of their cars, with a little pup trailer behind, all going over the hill and out to the lakes, while we were sitting here. I feel we are doing this on behalf of the citizens of Canada who feel that we should retain the Canadian red ensign.
One of my reasons for taking part in this debate is because 1 believe a plebiscite is necessary on the flag issue. I am one of those who feel that whatever flag is Canada's we must all be proud of it and be proud to fly it, whether it be the Canadian red ensign as it is today, or another design which is the choice of the people; but like most Canadians I do not like to be handed an ultimatum, as we were in the case of the maple leaf flag. Under these circumstances I feel it is absolutely necessary to have a plebiscite in order that people all across Canada can have a voice in this matter, and in a democracy such as we have in Canada we realize that the people will accept the decision of a plebiscite.
I have also felt for a long time that the whole flag question could have been settled in a manner by which it would never have reached the point of disunity that exists at present. Had the Prime Minister called the parties together and said, "We want a modification of our new flag; you make the decision as to the type, but this must be settled," I feel it could have been settled by a certain amount of compromising in all parties. I realize that this may have been achieved, partly, in the last few days. The only regret I have is that the move toward agreement was so late in starting; too much feeling may have been engendered, one way or the other. If the present government continues to feel we must accept the proposed flag, then I think the adoption of the subamendment providing for a plebiscite is the only course I could support, providing, as it does, a way in which the citizens of Canada can express their wishes and offering the only means by
Canadian Flag
which they will accept a change of flags in our lifetime.
I should like to draw the attention of the house now to a series of quotations, all of which have a bearing on this issue. First, from an article which appeared in the Toronto Star on May 20, 1964:
As the drinks were served and the newspapermen nibbled on sandwiches, Mr. Pearson brought out several flag designs on cardboards, selected one with a cluster of three maple leaves and two blue bands and placed it on the mantlepiece as his choice. He said he was prepared to have the government stand or fall on the maple leaf flag. The Prime Minister was careful however to make it clear that the flag on the mantle was his personal choice.
Then, as recorded at page 3164 of Hansard of May 12, 1964, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) stated:
When the time comes to submit the decision of the government in this matter to the House of Commons, I would hope every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictates, and that there would be no question of confidence or non-confidence in a party sense.
The Toronto Star of May 20, 1964, also had this to say:
One week later he stated he was prepared to have the government stand or fall on the maple leaf flag.
Then, only last week, we heard it had been agreed that there is to be a free vote in this house on the flag issue. If there is to be a free vote, the best indication how members of parliament are thinking on this subject would be for all of them to get up and express their opinions regardless of which political party they support. In this way we would have an expression of the feelings of all members before the house. I believe the majority of the people of Canada would feel that some sort of justice had been extended to the minority, whichever it might be. All members would have been allowed an opportunity to express themselves in a democratic way. I realize that majorities have rights in our country, too.
This afternoon the hon. member for Gren-ville-Dundas (Mrs. Wadds) referring to the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) said there would be some tears shed on one side or the other. I think that is true. But I am completely confident that if this matter were placed in the hands of the people of Canada they would accept a decision reached as a result of a plebiscite. I see an hon. member on the other side shaking his head; presumably he does not agree with me. But I say the only reason the present government is

Canadian Flag
against the amendment supporting a plebiscite is that they know, themselves, that the majority of the people do not want the new flag design, and they fear the result of such a plebiscite.
I have had several discussions with hon. members on the other side of the house who have spoken in favour of a distinctive flag which has nothing to do with the past. I see one such hon. member present in the house this evening. I asked him: Are you not proud of your name? And he should be. I asked him: Are you not proud of your parents, your grandparents; do you not feel there is some tie between yourself and the past? I will not put on record the reply he gave me. But I feel very strongly that we do have ties with our families and our grandparents and we also have these same ties with Canada and our motherland, regardless of whether we come from England, Ireland, Scotland or France or wherever it might be. I do not think there is a person alive who does not feel some loyalty for his mother country.
I am one of those who are not ashamed of Canada's past in any way. Nor am I ashamed of the future. And I have every hope and confidence that Canada's future will be bright. I may add that I believe the sooner the people of Canada get back to having a majority government and two major political parties the better, for the biggest part of our problems will then be solved.
I should like to say a word or two about the word "distinctive". "Distinctive", properly used, means "distinguishing". As applied to the red ensign, it means that the latter is readily distinguished as Canada's flag. As no other country flies the red ensign, and as it has become known all over the world for over half a century, it is Canada's distinctive flag. The union jack on it signifies that we are part of the commonwealth-which we are indeed, in spite of the wishful thinking of some segments of people in Canada.
The true meaning of a free vote in parliament is one in which the members are free to vote as they wish, but in which the life of the government is not at stake. To say, as the Prime Minister does, that the coming vote is a free vote but that the life of the government is at stake is therefore a misuse of the word "free" as applied to a vote in parliament. Again, I realize the Prime Minister has now modified that position and has stated that we are to have a vote in the House of Commons which, even if the motion were defeated, would not mean the fall of the government.

I can truthfully say I would regret very much going to the people in a general election in Canada on an issue such as the flag issue.
I have here an article which I believe all members of parliament received. It is called "Remembrance Day" and I should like to quote three paragraphs. It begins:
Canada was not built in a straightforward, cut and dried manner, but rather has suffered cuts and bruises in its growing up. We are not a new country without a flag. Many countries have taken centuries to accomplish what we have done in 97 years-strangely enough much of it is under the ensign. During these years of growth Canada has always tried to make the world {as her men are serving today in many parts of the globe) a better place for all of us in which to live...
What surely could be more uniting than when persons who have worked side by side-Indians, French, English, Negro, ethnic and Jew, to build this great country in one century; who fought, shed their blood and immortalized the bloody beaches, trenches and battle fields of the world so that we might have what we now have- this opportunity of debate and personal incentive and independence. All this so that the ensign might continue to fly with pride over this land.
Certainly after having paid the greatest price- death-is this in itself not enough to make the ensign official. Or was this, the greatest of human sacrifices, meaningless and wasted. The least we can do now is show our humble gratitude, reverence and respect. Let us leave the ensign alone and make it official.
If we as members must decide, let us have a choice by getting together on three or four preferred designs with the understanding that we must come up with a flag of which we can all be proud, and settle this issue like grown up men and women in a free country.
I have here an article-


Mr. Byrne:: Have you anything else?


Lawrence E. Watson: This article is from the Globe and Mail for August 12, 1964. I think this article is a comedy on the flag issue in Cyprus and it relates to the current issue in Canada. If I may I should like to quote part of this article. It is headed: "Canadians can't flee flag fuss", and is by Peter Buckley.
Any Canadian who hopes to escape the great flag controversy at home would be well advised to avoid Cyprus.
Flags in Cyprus approach the level of a national mania, second perhaps only to a day or two of shooting in the mountains.
In the Turkish sectors of the divided island, the question is straightforward. The only flag to be flown is the flag of Turkey-white crescent and star on a red background.
Well, almost straightforward. Since the flags sometimes fly for extended periods, the decisive red field tends to bleach in the sun to a pale pink.
Then it becomes difficult to tell the Turkish national flag from the flag of the red crescent society, the Moslem equivalent of the red cross, which flies a white flag with a red crescent over

its food dispensaries and other buildings in the Turkish sector. The weather tends to make that flag, too, look pinkish in time.
Then it goes on to speak about the Greek flag.
It is in the Greek Cypriot areas, however, that the confusion hits a fine peak.
There is the Greek-Greek flag, the Greek-Cypriot flag, and the flag of Cyprus.
The flag flown outside the Greek embassy here, for example, is a white cross on a blue field. In the centre of the cross is a gold crown. That, says the embassy, is the official flag of Greece.
If common sense were the sole guiding force, the official flag of Greece would be the most logical banner for Greek-Cypriots to wave in demonstration of their affection for mother Greece-the way the Turkish-Cypriots wave the flag of Turkey.
Instead, the Greek-Cypriots prefer the flag of the royal Greek navy. That flag is a series of blue and white stripes, with a blue and white cross in the corner-a design vaguely reminiscent of the stars and stripes.
For buildings of a public nature in Greek-controlled areas-historic monuments, police stations, government office buildings, and the occasional Greek Orthodox church-there is the genuine and official flag of Cyprus.
The situation being what it is, the official flag is among the rarest to be seen. Some Cypriots have been known to regard this as a blessing because the flag of Cyprus is the result of compromise.
The article continues but I should like to read only the last part.
Since the peaks so often look alike-and since the Greek and Turkish Cypriots themselves are scarcely distinguishable one from the other-a partisan climbing the hills for a day of rifle practice could become one of the rare battle casualties if there weren't a flag to guide him to the right camp.
The entire situation has been even further confused, of course, by the arrival of the United Nations.
Since the six national contingents in the UN force-Canada, Britain, Denmark, Finland, Ireland and Sweden-


Mr. Drouin:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. An hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I am very interested by what the hon. member tells us about the flags of Cyprus, Turkey and Greece, but I wonder whether he intends to add other questions to the referendum proposal now under study.
In my opinion, he should keep to the resolution, as he is supposed to do under standing orders.
Canadian Flag


Mr. Muir (Cape Breton North and Victoria):: Oh, you are so funny.


Lawrence E. Watson: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this article says:
The UN banner-


Vincent Drouin: Mr. Speaker, I ask for a ruling on the point of order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is asking for a ruling on the point he has raised. The only thing I can say is that I really do not think it is a point of order. I have been listening to the hon. member very closely and with interest, and it seems to me that this is part of his argument.


Lawrence E. Watson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, this article says:
The arrival of a new flag to replace the red ensign over the Canadian camps, if it ever occurs, will only add a small ripple to the sea of confusion here.
I went home over the week end and one of my constituents asked me how we expect the people in Cyprus to be able to settle their issues when we as members of the House of Commons cannot settle the flag issue. She felt we were asking for a pretty big job to be done by our troops and the rest of the members of the United Nations force in Cyprus.
I feel in respect of this issue that members on all sides should have respect for the feelings of others, and that it will be necessary for all races and parties to realize that this may mean a compromise. I am sure that all hon. members of parliament can and will rise to the situation. I say that this is not a time to find fault without good reason. This is a time when serious men should reason together.
When I was travelling through Winnipeg recently I was discussing the flag issue with several people. One gentleman said to me that the only flags of the new type he had seen flying in Winnipeg were being flown on United States tourist cars travelling in Canada. Apparently the people of the United States have purchased a great many of these flags-made in Japan, I am informed. They think the proper thing to do when visiting Canada is to buy a new maple leaf flag and fly it during their visit to Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.

Canadian Flag


Mr.   Walson@Assiniboia: I suggest to the hon. members down in the corner who are doing the clapping, that as a loyal Canadian, after we hold a plebiscite and find that the people of Canada favour the adoption of this new flag, I will honour it. I feel however that the people of Canada should make this decision.


Mr. Plourde:: Would the hon. member allow a question?


Lawrence E. Watson: Mr. Speaker, I feel that I have only a few minutes of my time left and, as I said before, I should like to hear all hon. members speak on this flag issue and invite the hon. member to make his speech later on.
An editorial appearing in the Toronto Telegram on Saturday August 22, states:
The Canadian ensign must not be lowered without the consent of the people.
I believe that is good reasoning and the proper way to settle this issue.
I am not going to read the whole editorial, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to read two or three excerpts under the heading "Too Big For Compromise". The first excerpt reads:
It is far too important to be settled by parliamentary compromise...
It has been said that a plebiscite would be divisive. This is nonsense. Nothing could have been more divisive than the Prime Minister's introduction of the issue as a matter of high priority.
The article then continues:
Perhaps Mr. Pearson fears the outcome of such a testing of public opinion. Letters and petitions expressing determination to retain the ensign have been impressive.
There is no reason why this obstructive and divisive bill should not be shelved pending a reference to the people. There is no urgency. Most Canadians outside Quebec appear to be quite satisfied with the flag we have now. In Quebec the matter is of little importance as there they fly the Laurentian flag with its white cross and fleur-de-lis.
Until Mr. Pearson softens his stand, the opposition is justified in continuing a modified filibuster.
Again they have used the word "filibuster", with which I disagree. The article then continues:
As distasteful as such devices are in parliament, no other method seems practical in the face of Mr. Pearson's stubbornness.
The way out of the parliamentary impasse is clear: a plebiscite to end the long debate and to allow parliament to get on with more important legislation.
Mr. Speaker, an editorial appeared in the Toronto Globe and Mail of June 2, 1964 under

the heading "Collision Course". I do not intend to read the whole editorial, but it does point out four errors the Prime Minister made. No. 1 was made when he promised a Winnipeg audience of foreign-language newspaper editors that a Liberal government would produce a distinctive Canadian flag within two years.
The second error was committed when the Prime Minister announced even before he had made a final decision on a design that he would take the House of Commons vote on his proposed flag as one of confidence.
His third error was committed when he told the Commons that it would have a full-scale debate on the flag, with this issue taking absolute precedence over everything else on the agenda.
Error number four occurred when the Prime Minister presented the Commons with a resolution endorsing not one Canadian flag but two. Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on but I feel there is little point in putting a good deal more on the record that has already been printed in Hansard.
Mr. Speaker, I have another article which appeared in the Ottawa Citizen on Thursday, June 18, 1964 under the by-line of John Walker, of the Southam news service. This article refers to the survival of the maple leaf. Mention is made in the article of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson), and it states:
John Matheson.. .who advised Prime Minister Pearson on the adoption of the central three maple leaf symbol in the new flag, told the house Wednesday :
"Some people say this flag is a concession to the French Canadians. But they are part of us, part of Canada...
Every member of a family should be respected. The distress of one is the distress of all.
It is not a concession to do what is just and kind-''
Mr. Speaker, as we all know, and as has been pointed out many times, the maple tree actually grows in only about 5 or 6 per cent of the area of Canada. I would have no personal objection to the adoption of a flag embodying a maple leaf design as a compromise to the red ensign, if a parliamentary committee could come to a majority decision, or if it were clearly shown by a plebiscite that this was the choice of the people. I do feel with all sincerity and respect for hon. members from the province of Quebec, and others who feel we should get rid of the union jack on the red ensign, that that is not a majority view. I do not agree with that idea but feel that the union jack should be retained. I

know other hon. members feel the coat of arms, or the entire red ensign, should be replaced by a flag with a maple leaf design. We are grown-up men and women and should be able to sit down and settle this issue in a businesslike manner so that we can then carry on with important business of parliament. I am sure if we follow this course everyone will be satisfied, provided this is done in a democratic way.


Stuart A. Fleming: Mr. Speaker, when it became apparent early in this session that the government intended to proceed with the introduction of a resolution that would lead to the identification of a flag as the distinctive flag of Canada, whether it was the Pearson flag or whether it was some other choice it was not unreasonable then for members of the house in every party to expect that the government, before introducing the resolution, would have first shown some indication that it was prepared to assess the feelings of members of the house and the people at large. But the government did not do this.
It has become apparent from what was said earlier today by a supporter of the government that the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) consulted only a very few of his own colleagues and supporters. This of course is the very reason why we have been for some time, are now and probably will be for some time to come engaged in a debate on the resolution and the amendments thereto. For if it is our function here, as apparently the government expects it shall be, to designate a national symbol to represent Canada in the eyes of its own people and in the eyes of people throughout the world, and that we shall either confirm the symbol we have or find a new one, then it is only fair and equitable to every shade of opinion and to each member of the house that there should have first been a consultation and ascertainment of what would be both desirable and acceptable. But that has not been done and there is no sign it is going to be done.
What we in the Conservative party have been endeavouring to do and are endeavouring to do now is to provide the government and its supporters with an opportunity to reconsider their position, to consider whether they are following the best and wisest course, the unifying course for Canada in this issue. I do not think there is any doubt that the course the government has embarked upon has been entirely unwise and that it has failed in its purpose if that purpose was to provide a symbol with some element of national iden-
Canadian Flag
tity around which we could unite and which would draw us together.
I think the government has made a very great error in assuming that there was a tremendous desire for such an, extraordinary and total change in the flag of Canada. Perhaps it is true. Certainly there has been discussion for many years in many parts of Canada to the effect that we should in some way make the flag of Canada more distinctive from the point of view of our Canadian-ism, our history and traditions. I did not feel this was a necessary thing to do but I know there are Canadians who did, and who do.
If the government had decided that this feeling was really strong and if it had been prepared to respond to this feeling with some form of action that would have determined how deep rooted the feeling was, how great the desire was and what symbol of unity in the form of a flag would have proved most acceptable to the majority of people, then we should not have been able to fault the government for having moved in this direction. But we can and we do for the simple reason that if there was validity in what the government felt, it destroyed the validity of its position by the manner in which it acted because it did not ask the people of Canada to express their opinion before it brought a design for a flag into the house. It imposed a design, and not even a design of the whole of the party in power. It sought to impose on the house and on its own supporters a design of a small group. We do not know how many, but from what we heard from a government supporter today we are led to suspect that they must have represented a very small proportion of the total of government supporters. Instead of bringing before the house as a symbol of national unity a flag embodying the elements of unity, we have had thrust upon the house a symbol of division and we are still trying to live with it.
This criticism can fairly be made, and I only make it because I believe it is a justifiable and justified criticism. But there is a way out for the government. I think the Prime Minister recognized last Friday that his position was no longer acceptable and no longer in the interests of Canadian unity when he took the step of indicating that when the vote comes it will be a free vote. But what is the purpose of a free vote on a symbol that the people do not want? There is no purpose in it whatever.
I am not suggesting I can say to the house that the majority of the people do not want this symbol, but I suspect that is true. A great

Canadian Flag
many of my friends in the house also suspect it is true and I believe there are members on the government side who suspect it is true. Consequently, if there is this suspicion in the house now to any substantial extent, then steps must be taken to eliminate the possibility of a dreadful mistake if we impose this flag on Canada; because if we do, the emotions of the people of Canada and their relationships with one another will be torn asunder, particularly so far as the racial groupings in the nation are concerned. If it leads to a division, then any move to accept this flag is a fatal move in the life of Canada. If not fatal, the wound will run deep and blood will flow long and the nation will take a long time to recover its strength afterward. This must not happen.
There is no necessity for a flag to be imposed. If there is any danger that one is about to be imposed, we have a way out. We can simply provide the people with an opportunity to express their opinions about the ensign, the flag which has represented Canada and by which Canada has been known throughout most of its history, if not always in its present form then in evolution to the present form. As a native born Canadian whose ancestors have been here for several generations, although not for as many generations as the ancestors of others in the house, this flag is to me the flag of Canada, because of the place of my birth, the environment in which I grew up and the traditions to which I am unquestionably attached. There is no doubt in my mind about this. But I realize there are others who do not have this feeling as strongly as I do and if they are in the majority they should be provided with the opportunity to demonstrate that fact. If they are not in the majority, if the majority of Canadians still wish to retain the national flag under which they have lived their lives and served the nation in peace and in war, then they should be provided an opportunity to indicate that fact.
After all, there has been a great deal of talk, Mr. Speaker, about service on foreign battlefields under the red ensign. It is not just those who served Canada in the armed forces in world war I, world war II or any other international engagement in which this country has taken part, who have served Canada under that flag. Every soul who has lived his life in Canada, raised his family in Canada, served his country in any capacity, however great or small, has served it under that flag. His attachment to that symbol, to that flag, is equally strong. Therefore, sir, it should be discovered, first, how strongly this desire runs in the nation for a change and
[Mr. Fleming (Okanagan-Revelstoke) .1
whether, in fact, a change at this time would be or could be a unifying factor or whether it would be more likely a dividing factor. There is the justification for a plebiscite.
If the plebiscite is rejected-and there are those who feel it is a cumbersome method, would take too long or cost too much-then there is the parliamentary committee. A plebiscite could preserve the unity of the nation on this question. However, if a parliamentary committee were decided upon, the members of this house from all parties could gather in the less fervid atmosphere of a committee, away from the pressures of debate on this floor, away from the attentions of the press and public, to examine the possibilities of the various courses that could be followed. They could endeavour to discover what the people of Canada are thinking. If necessary, that committee could travel from coast to coast holding hearings and calling the people before them to give evidence. If this is necessary, then let us do that. Somehow or other, there must be consultation. There must be some more effective means found of ascertaining what this action we are expected to take will mean in terms of our national harmony, of our national existence.
It need not prove that I am right when I indicate my attachment to the ensign. It may not prove that the government is right. However, there may be some common ground between the two positions that would be acceptable to all Canadians. If the government persists in going ahead on the course it is following, it will never know until it is too late. After this house endorses this resolution establishing the proposed flag as the flag of Canada, then that is the end of the matter. This becomes the flag of Canada whether or not the people want it, whether they are prepared to live with it or not, whether it divides the nation or not. I do not believe it is up to us to take that gamble. This is no ordinary piece of legislation that we have been asked to pass. If there is a change of government there will be no opportunity to pass amending legislation in connection with the flag, as we would if this were an ordinary piece of legislation which a succeeding government might find unsatisfactory to it-unless, of course, we are going to adopt party flags, and have rotational flags that change every time the government changes. This would be about as ridiculous as the situation we are facing now, when we are presented with a flag design that does not meet with the wishes of the majority of

the people in their desire for a national symbol.
This debate has been going on for some time, and as I say it will likely go on a good deal longer unless the government recognizes that there is no necessity to thrust this proposed design down the throats of the members of this parliament. There is no necessity to take that gamble. There is not necessity to risk a mistake. The government can take action that will either confirm or deny the validity of its position. Equally, it could prove to the opposition whether or not it has been following a valid course in the eyes of the people. In my judgment, the course upon which we are now set leaves no alternative to us but to put forward every argument that we can, those of us who feel as I do, that this motion should not come to a vote; that this motion is a mistake and the ensign still represents the flag desired by the majority; that if a change were desirable, the majority would still prefer a flag which evolved from the ensign and which retained some of the elements of it. Since we feel this way, we cannot allow the government to secure the adoption of the resolution which may have far reaching and damaging effects on the structure and the harmony of the nation.
I come back to my original suggestion, sir. The thing that is so difficult to understand is that this issue, of all issues, should have given rise to so much antagonism and bitterness in this house, that there should be suggestions that those of us who have a certain affinity for the ensign are colonially minded or that the proponents of the three maple leaf design should eliminate all our Canadian heritage and tradition, and that this sort of thing should become the daily currency of discussion in this house and in the exchange of ideas between Canadians. It is a tragedy that this should have happened, because I am sure no member in this house who discussed this matter two years ago would have assumed that when this question came to the floor of this house for debate there would be anything but a substantial degree of unanimity amongst members, regardless of party. They would have assumed there would be no partisan division, no major fragmentation of the nation. There would be some basis worked out carefully, after consultation, and there would be common ground both in the house and in the nation.
This has not been done. This debate is evidence of that, and it would never have taken place if that had been done. This is the charge we are making against the government. No
Canadian Flag
effort was made to create an atmosphere, either in the house or in the country, conducive to the acceptance of this distinctive national flag which would, in fact, represent the Canadian nation to all its people and to all the people in the world wherever that flag was flown.
So, sir, I would ask the government and its supporters to realize that there is an opportunity to change the course of this divisive debate. There is a means by which unity can be found on this question, but it is now in the hands of the government members to decide, in consultation with their leaders and in particular with the Prime Minister, whether that course is to be followed or not.


Mr. J. H. Horner (Acadia):: Mr. Speaker, we are stalled on a flag debate of the government's choosing and, as the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Watson) pointed out, we are taking up our recess to defend the right of each Canadian to have some say in what flag he shall adopt as the symbol for his country.
From time to time we have asked the government to introduce legislation which its members cried for in 1963. They said at that time legislation was necessary arising out of the royal commissions on transportations and on magazines, and they forced an election because they thought this legislation was not coming forth. For the past two months we on this side have been asking them to bring on this legislation. We will deal with it and in due course pass it, as we have done already in some instances. But today we are bogged down on a resolution introduced by a very stubborn government which is bent on ramming the three maple leaf design down the throats of members of this house and of all Canadians.
The three maple leaf design is the design of the Prime Minister, and perhaps of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson). I do not know just what part the latter played in it, although on this particular issue the newspapers give him credit for being the man behind the man. Now we hear some talk that there is to be a free vote and that the trained seals over there-


Douglas Mason Fisher: Oh, oh.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: A noted writer who is also a member of this house does not like those words "trained seals". He is entitled to his opinion, but hon. members opposite have been very active in this debate by simply sitting in their seats and making a lot of noise when they thought it was appropriate. However, very few of them have

Canadian Flag
risen to defend their Prime Minister and to say why Canadians should accept his design.
The Prime Minister has said he will give them a free vote, but I do not quite see a bunch of swallows flying forth flapping their wings freely. As recorded in Hansard of May 12 the Prime Minister said that when the time came to submit the government's decision on this matter to the House of Commons he hoped every member of the house would vote as his conscience dictated, and that there would be no question of confidence or non-confidence in a party sense.
Later, on about May 20, he stated he was prepared to have his government stand or fall on the flag issue. He considered the problem in the interval and realized that he had better whip the boys into line. Maybe a few of them told him about their problems with their constituents, and from May 20, almost for three months, he has had them toeing the mark. Now he has turned them loose, hoping we would think they could go back to their original thoughts on the flag. They were sold a bill of goods on May 20. They accepted a bill of goods on May 20, and therefore the announcement of a free vote at this time means very little because they cannot go back on the words they have spoken to their constituents during the last few months.
We in the opposition have a duty to perform. At the very outset we realized a flag debate would be one in which very many people would have numerous ideas to put forward with regard to Canada's flag. Now we have heard from people all across Canada on the proposed design of the Prime Minister, and it was our duty to show the opposition that was evident in the country with regard to this design. We have done just that and we may continue to do just that.
We also hear some talk that the government is prepared to accept the one maple leaf design put forward by the New Democratic party, but we do not know whether this is a fact or not.


An hon. Member:: Would you accept it?


John (Jack) Henry Horner: Many things enter into making a choice. It depends on what colour it is. There would be great similarity between one red maple leaf on a white background, and the red cross. I think it is our duty to know what the issues are. This business of picking up by way of the grapevine that the government is prepared to accept one maple leaf is not good enough. We are all grown men and women and should be able to realize that the opposition in the

country to the three maple leaves makes a compromise necessary.
There are many divided countries in the world. This afternoon one member mentioned Cyprus. British Guiana is another country in which there is strife. There is also strife in the Middle East, and considerable strife in our neighbouring country to the south, but if the cards are on the table surely we as grown men and women should be able to compromise, to sit down in a committee of 10 or 11-it does not matter how many-to go into it with the sole purpose of coming out with a solution, and be prepared to compromise. Surely in such a committee we could arrive at a suitable flag, whether it has one maple leaf or three, whether it has the union jack or not. Surely we have reached the stage in this debate where we know a compromise is necessary.
I always thought the Prime Minister was a great diplomat, and I have been told that diplomacy is the art of compromise. I only hope some of that diplomacy could rub off in this house so that we could take action toward a compromise. The committee in 1945 which studied this flag question had something like 2,400 designs presented to it and I believe the members of that committee really considered this problem and worked on it. They tried to reach a decision which all Canada would accept and honour. Some 25 members approved the recommendations of the committee and one was opposed. I think this represented a tremendous effort on the part of that committee to reach a solution. Perhaps the same could be accomplished at the present time.
This should have been taken into account by the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) before he put forward his three maple leaf design and said: Accept this, or else. This issue has been talked about for so many years in Canada that it should have been realized, particularly by those on the government side, that if the committee to which I have referred could not reach a conclusion, the matter ought now to be placed in the form of a referendum and sent to the people for decision. I am not saying this should be done immediately. But it might be done whenever the next election is held. There would be no significant extra cost about asking Canadian citizens to make two X's on ballot forms, one in relation to the election and the other with regard to their flag preference. This would constitute a relatively simple solution to this problem and I think it is the solution which all Canadians would accept. In addition, it

would not take nearly so much of the time of this house to ratify the result of such a plebiscite. An amendment and a subamendment have been moved. In the subamendment, four suggestions have been put forward. I think a flag is something which should embody our tradition and history, a symbol which all Canadians are prepared to accept. If it is evident that any major portion of our country is not prepared to accept the symbol put forward by the government, or by parliament, we should have enough common sense not to press the suggestion.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear.


John (Jack) Henry Horner: I am glad an hon. member on the other side agrees with me. We should be prepared to bring forward a design which will be generally accepted and which will unite the country-a flag which every Canadian will be proud to honour.
Not long ago I met an old schoolteacher of mine, and while renewing acquaintance he told me he had been teaching for three years in Europe. While I was not his favourite pupil in school-we had our disagreements in those days-I found we got along fairly well, meeting outside in the hurly-burly of life. I told him what we were engaged in at the moment -the flag debate in parliament and he told me he had travelled all across Europe during the summer recess. He had visited all the points of interest to Canadians; he had seen the crosses on many of the war graves over there. And he said to me: The red ensign is accepted as the Canadian symbol in Europe. I might add that this teacher is neither French nor English in origin. He told me he shuddered to think that any government was
Canadian Flag prepared, so callously, to wipe out the past and do away with the symbol of freedom for which these men fought and died. His parting words were: Do not let that government bring in this three maple leaf flag without first submitting it to the people-without first getting unanimous support from the people, because the symbol of a country without the people behind it means very little. These are the words he spoke to me recently and I cannot help but remember them and put them before the house.
Surely we must be prepared as legislators to bring in a flag which means something to everybody-a flag which can be recognized and honoured by everybody. We are grown men and women and are able to sit down in a committee and discuss this matter. And if a solution cannot be found in a committee, then surely it could be reached along the lines suggested by the hon. member for Regina City (Mr. More). In any event, the committee could decide on a list of questions to be inserted in a plebiscite and the people could then choose which flag they wish to honour in the years ahead.
I am sure Canadians do not want a flag which was picked by one man, rammed down the throat of parliament by a government which in this connection has little regard for freedom of thought and freedom of speech. Fear of being deprived of a recess was held over our heads; we were told that if we did not pass this motion we would have no recess. I am proud of being a member of the party which puts duty first and a recess last.
May I call it 10.30?
At 10.30 p.m. the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.

Tuesday, August 25, 1964