1964-07-03

NEW MEMBER INTRODUCED

[Stage Direction]
Mrs. Eloise Jones, member tor the electoral district of Saskatoon, introduced by Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker and Hon. Alvin Hamilton.

[Stage Direction]
Third report of standing committee on marine and fisheries-Mr. Granger.

Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: That the items listed in the main estimates and the supplementary estimates (A) for 1964-65 relating to the Department of External Affairs, presented to this house at the present session, be withdrawn from the committee of supply and be referred to the standing committee on external affairs, saving always the powers of the committee of supply in relation to the voting of public moneys.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture possibly I could direct this question to the Prime Minister. In view of the serious and worsening emergency in eastern agriculture, could the Prime Minister say what action, both emergency and permanent, the government intends to take? Under the circumstances will the government give consideration to having immediate action taken in this regard by the house?


Right Hon. L. B. Pearson (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I will be very glad to give consideration to my right hon. friend's suggestion and discuss it with the Minister of Agriculture, who will be in a position to make a statement early next week.



SASKATCHEWAN


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reynold Rapp (Humboldl-Melforl-Tisdale):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture. Reports coming from northern Saskatchewan, and in particular from the Melfort-Tisdale area, indicate that the crop situation there is deteriorating badly and that farmers are being forced to sell their livestock, as a result of which prices will be forced down. I should like to ask whether the Prime Minister could implement legislation similar to that of 1961 under which feed grain was stored in the province so that livestock coming to livestock yards was held back in order not to flood the market and depress the price.


Mr. Speaker:: Would the hon. member put this on the order paper.
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Leader of
the Opposition): Mr. Speaker, if I might, this is a very serious matter of immediate importance. As pointed out by the hon. gentleman, because of drought conditions farmers are being forced to sell their cattle and liquidate their herds. In consequence cattle prices have fallen very greatly. This is a matter of immediate importance, not to be dealt with next week or next month. Would the Prime Minister give consideration to the suggestion made by the hon. gentleman; because I am told that all over northern Saskatchewan liquidation of herds is taking place and farmers are finding themselves being forced to accept large reductions in price which would otherwise not be the case.


Lester Bowles Pearson: If I may be permitted to answer this question, Mr. Speaker, I expect to see the Minister of Agriculture tomorrow and I will be very glad to discuss this matter with him. I know the government will want to do everything that the situation requires.


Mr. Gilles Gregoire (Lapointe):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask a supplementary question?
In view of the fact that the situation is the same for the Quebec farmers with regard to

Inquiries of the Ministry agricultural products, could the Prime Minister give the same consideration to this problem in Quebec as in Saskatchewan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Of course, Mr. Speaker.


Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a related question of either the parliamentary secretary to the Minister of Agriculture or the acting minister. In view of the question I asked a week ago, has there been any contact by the new minister of agriculture in Saskatchewan with the Minister of Agriculture in Ottawa about this critical livestock situation?


Mr. B. S. Beer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I will have to take this question as notice and bring it to the attention of the minister. I am not aware of the answer.



LABOUR RELATIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Leon Balcer (Three Rivers):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can he inform the house as to the conclusions of his discussions with the presidents of both railways?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, some of my colleagues and I had a useful discussion yesterday with the presidents of Canadian National Railways and the Canadian Pacific Railway. I am confident that as a result it will be possible without delay for negotiations between the railway companies and the unions to be resumed, and I hope the resumption will result in a satisfactory arrangement.


Mr. R. N. Thompson (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister in view of his expected prolonged absence, and in view of the absence of the Minister of Transport and the Minister of Labour. Has the government taken any direct steps or has it been in direct contact with the 15 labour unions that are involved in this threatened railway strike, about which he has had meetings with the presidents of the two railways?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Yes, Mr. Speaker, there has been contact.
[Mr. Gregoire.l



COLUMBIA RIVER


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. W. Herridge (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I always enjoy doing this. Is the minister confident that the United States will fulfil its financial obligations in connection with the Columbia river treaty to permit ratification of the treaty, as arranged, on October 1?


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Stale for External Affairs: Mr. Speaker, just as Canada expects other nations to believe Canada would fulfil its treaty obligations, so too Canada, of course, fully expects that the United States will live up to its commitments.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Has the minister been informed of a statement by Mr. Udall, secretary of the interior, that there are difficulties in connection with raising the money, and that delay may occur owing to the necessity of placing a bill before congress to provide funds to build a connection with California before the money can be raised?


Mr. Martin (Essex East):: I may be wrong, but I think Mr. Udall made reference to raising some $650 million for the purpose of providing a vehicle for the transfer of power.
However, if Secretary Udall was referring to the money due Canada on October 1 pursuant to the arrangement made, I can only say that the raising of the money in the United States is expected to be successful. I have no reason for believing that the money which the United States is to pay on October 1 will not be paid.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: May I ask one more supplementary question. In view of the statements appearing in United States newspapers, statements appearing in the Canadian press and various reports, would the minister go into this question very carefully and give the house a full report of the situation up to date?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Well, there is no further report to be given. I think my hon. friend should have greater faith in the newspapers.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources on a subject that is somewhat related to earlier

questions. In view of the United States government's obvious intention to work toward a high voltage transmission line from the southern part of California to the Canadian border, ostensibly to take the downstream benefits of the Columbia in the first instance, then the Peace and finally the Yukon, what is the minister doing about pushing the study on a national transmission grid for Canada to make the power sources of the Peace and the Yukon, the largest undeveloped hydro power in North America, available to the power-short industries of Ontario?


Hon. Arthur Laing (Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources):: Mr. Speaker, we have already had a report on phase 1 of these studies. We are now proceeding to set up within Canada stage two studies which will be extensive, and we expect to be making an announcement with respect to the selection of an engineering firm to direct the work. It is our intention also to use as far as we possibly can the co-operation of the electrical industry in Canada in the studies with the engineering firm selected.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Reid Scott (Danforlh):: I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister confirm the rumour that Hon. Roland Michener has been offered and has accepted the post of high commissioner to one of the commonwealth countries? If so, can he tell us which country is involved?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No, I cannot confirm that rumour.



CANADIAN POSITION RESPECTING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. As a result of his conversations with the secretary general of NATO, can he advise the house whether the government has come to any decision with respect to either approval or disapproval of the multilateral force and, if so, whether Canada has any intention to participate in this force that is under organization within NATO?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the govern-
Inquiries of the Ministry ment's position with regard to participation in the multilateral force has not changed.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. May we have a clear indication of what the government's position is in this regard?


Paul Joseph James Martin: This position was outlined some days ago, I think, in the house. I reaffirmed the statement made by the Prime Minister some time ago that it was not Canada's present intention to participate.



REPORTED SECRET LANDING OF GREEK TROOPS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: I have just noted a change on the part of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, in that he now puts a great deal of trust in newspapers. I now ask him, has he looked into the reports in the press and on the radio regarding the alleged intrusion of a large number of Greek soldiers into Cyprus, and has he been able to secure the information that the press carried earlier?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman yesterday gave a figure of some 4,000. I could find no justification whatever for that figure. The information I already have obviously implies that there have been importations of arms and of bodies, and we have taken strong exception to this.


John George Diefenbaker: Possibly the minister, with his usual capacity for elucidation, might tell us how many bodies. Has the approximate number been ascertained?


An hon. Member:: Were they live bodies?


Paul Joseph James Martin: If I had the capacity for humour, which I do not, I would say that having determined the number of arms, one could determine the number of bodies.


John George Diefenbaker: This is now becoming a mathematical problem. How many arms does the minister say were imported into Cyprus in this way?


Paul Joseph James Martin: As this is a serious matter, I would say there have been importations of arms contrary to the security council resolution. It is also contrary to obligations under the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The most serious view is being taken of this.
4988	HOUSE OF
Inquiries of the Ministry


John George Diefenbaker: That serious view being taken, is the minister not going to let the house know approximately how many men actually came in under the circumstances?


Paul Joseph James Martin: Mr. Speaker, there can be no way of determining the exact number.


Mr. Heath Macquarrie (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, my question is supplementary to the one asked by the Leader of the Opposition of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister advise whether the United Nations forces were restrained by Cypriot police from observing the actual debarkation of what he calls the armed imports?


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I did not hear the full question.


Heath Nelson Macquarrie: Mr. Speaker, my question is related to reports from usually reliable newspapermen that the United Nations forces were actually restrained from observing at close range the debarkation of what have been described as armed imports.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, there have been suggestions from sources other than the public media that this was the case. However, the matter is now being reviewed by the United Nations authorities, and I expect that before too long, I will be in a position to say whether or not this has been confirmed.


Léon Balcer: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs?
As a representative from Quebec, a province that supplied most of the troops now at the service of United Nations on Cyprus, I should like to ask the minister if he would be good enough to indicate whether the number of Greek troops landed on Cyprus are counted by tens, hundreds or thousands?
I think that matter is causing concern in some quarters in the province of Quebec and also all across Canada.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex East: Mr. Speaker, I share the concern of the hon. member, but I could not give any figures, since I do not know exactly what they are; but I can give him the assurance that we are keeping a very close watch on the situation.


Léon Balcer: I think I gave a great deal of latitude to the minister when I asked him to


indicate whether the troops could be counted by tens, hundreds or thousands. Surely, the Department of External Affairs must know whether there are tens or hundreds of soldiers.


Mr.   Marlin@Essex Easl: That is not known. That is an answer I cannot give. However, I can say that it is not the figure mentioned yesterday by the Leader of the Opposition.



PARLIAMENT HILL


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. L. J. Pigeon (Jolielle-L'Assomplion-Monlcalm):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Justice. As mentioned on the C.B.C.'s French network, does the Minister of Justice intend to investigate the matter and to discipline, if necessary the R.C.M.P. officer who, on July 1, on parliament hill, told a photographer: "Don't you speak French to me"?


Hon. Guy Favreau (Minister of Juslice):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm gave me notice of his question and I read an article in the newspaper Le Droit of July 2 to that effect.
I will, of course, order an investigation, but I should like to point out that the article in question also added:
-the officers maintaining law and order did their best during the whole ceremony to answer in French questions asked by the large number of bilingual people who, following the official invitation, had come to celebrate Canada's national holiday.
In any case, I will order an investigation into this particular incident.


Gilles Grégoire: I would have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the Minister of Justice tell us who informed him that the members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police had answered in French inquiries made by French Canadian tourists who visited parliament hill on July 1?


Guy Favreau: I got this information from the newspaper Le Droit of Thursday, July 2, 1964.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask another supplementary question. Then, can the minister make a full inquiry in order to know how many members of the R.C.M.P. on parliament grounds are bilingual? He will see that there are not many.

{Text]



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

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Maurice Lamontagne (Secretary of State):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to a question put to me yesterday by the hon. member for Chicoutimi (Mr. Cote), I merely wish to refer him to section 2 of the Dominion Day Act, which may be found in chapter 88 of the 1952 Revised Statutes of Canada and reads as follows:

2. Throughout Canada, in each and every year, the 1st day of July, not being a Sunday, shall be a legal holiday, and shall be kept and observed as such, under the name of Dominion Day. R.S., c. 49, s. 2.

I must add that the hon. member for St. Maurice-Lafleche (Mr. Chretien) has already put on the order paper a bill to amend the present situation.



DOMINION-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS PROVINCIAL PARTICIPATION IN CURRENT ECONOMIC STUDY

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. Could he tell the house whether he has received an official or unofficial communication from the premier of Quebec concerning provincial participation in the inquiry into economic relations within confederation and, if so, is it the government's intention to accede to this request and call in participation of the other provinces as well?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I have received no such communication, official or unofficial.


Hon. Paul Martineau (Poniiac-Temisca-mingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a supplementary question. Does the right hon. Prime Minister still persist in refusing to ask the provinces to participate in this investigation?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, as I tried to point out yesterday, the inquiries are being made by officials of the federal government for that government, and when those inquiries are completed then the federal gov-
Inquiries of the Ministry emment will be in a position to decide how best to proceed further in this matter, and may decide to bring in the provinces for consultation.


John George Diefenbaker: As a supplementary question, would the Prime Minister say what are the instructions given to these civil servants? What is the ambit of their authority? Would he place on record the instructions given as to the course they are to follow and the subjects they are to consider; because there has been a great deal of uncertainty since the Prime Minister made his statement a week ago today?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very glad to give some thought to that and see if a further statement can be made.


Gilles Grégoire: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Could the right hon. Prime Minister ask the members of his inquiry commission on the civil service to submit their report to the members of the Laurendeau-Dunton commission so as to complete the work of this commission? [Text]



REQUEST FOR REPORT ON TRIP TO U.K. BY FINANCE MINISTER

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Paul Raymond Martineau: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Minister of Finance, whom I am sure we all welcome back to the house on his return from the United Kingdom. My question deals precisely with his trip to the United Kingdom where he had talks concerning trade problems. I wonder whether the minister would give the house a report on those talks, and particularly will he explain the technical difficulties which he said beset trade between the two countries, to which he referred in one of his talks, and which has been described as "cold comfort" by some of the British authorities?


Hon. Walter L. Gordon (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. friend for his kindly words, although I do not know about the references to cold comfort. The British government through its officials did complain some time ago about the application of our anti-dumping procedures and, I think it was last February, the Minister of Trade and Commerce undertook that we would make a study of their complaints. This we have done.

Inquiries of the Ministry
When I was in London I reported to various ministers of Her Majesty's government there and also to a number of industrialists, and during a course of a speech I made a statement. I said that we have concluded that these obstacles, or alleged obstacles, did not in themselves, in our view, constitute a major difficulty but that there were some justifiable grounds for complaints and we intended to do something about these.
I pointed that this would require legislation. I also pointed out that we were very anxious that in the process of correcting the difficulties in question we did not do something which would create new ones, and that this would take some time to work out. I said also that Canada had complaints about certain non-tariff barriers to trade as applied to us by certain other countries, and that we hoped this whole matter could be dealt with in the context of the negotiations leading to the Kennedy round.


Paul Raymond Martineau: Will the minister tell us what remedial legislation he plans?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: I will be glad to do so when the remedial legislation is ready for the house.


Mr. Heward Grafftey (Brome-Missisquoi):: Did the minister have talks with anyone in the United Kingdom relating to the possible adoption of the union jack as Canada's flag in the commonwealth?


Walter Lockhart Gordon: No. I thought that was a matter for discussion in this house.



FORMOSA


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. A. Olson (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Trade and Commerce. I should like to ask him whether he would care to report to the house respecting the discussions had yesterday with the trade mission from Formosa, and whether we can expect to come out of these discussions with some firm orders for wheat, flour and perhaps some other commodities.


Hon. Mitchell Sharp (Minister of Trade and Commerce):: Mr. Speaker, I had some useful discussions with the governor of the Bank of China, who came to my office along with the ambassador for China. We discussed in a general way the promotion of trade between Canada and China. Whether out of this will emerge firm orders I am not yet in a position to say, but I am hopeful.


Léon Balcer: A supplementary question. I should like to ask the minister whether he has received a request on the part of nationalist China to become an exhibitor at Expo '67, and whether he has accepted this request.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, when these Chinese gentlemen were with me yesterday they were very interested in exhibiting at Expo '67; but it it my understanding that they have not yet applied.



SOCIAL INSURANCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: wish to address a question to the Minister of Labour or, in his absence, to his parliamentary secretary or to the acting minister. In the light of the decision by the government of the province of Quebec to use the present social insurance numbers, subject however to a criticism that the present system presents problems when applied to the present or proposed pension plan, has the government any intention to modify the registration plan or to ask all the provinces to join in a discussion so as to establish a system which would be acceptable to all of them, since they are going to participate in the pension plan?


Hon. Judy V. LaMarsh (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: There is no present intention to make any modification to the system. It appears to be satisfactory to all provinces at the moment.



SHIPPING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Gerard Laprise (Chapleau):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources.
Does the minister intend to report to the house about the study made earlier in the week, in Toronto and in Montreal, as regards the water level in the great lakes and in Montreal's harbour?


Arthur Laing: I am certain that the discussions which took place would

not lend themselves to the making of a statement with respect to decisions. Out of these discussions will come, I hope, a reference to the international joint commission and, in addition, it is our hope within the next week or ten days to refer the matter of the levels of the lakes to the standing committee on mines, forests and waters with the intent that the facts, many of which will be of value to the I.J.C. later, may be made known to the public. We shall attempt to build up a quantity of evidence in respect to this problem which I think will be most beneficial to all concerned.


Gérard Laprise: As a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources whether he intends to go himself or send representatives to a similar conference that will be held on July 28 in Michigan?


Arthur Laing: Mr. Speaker, I have not received any invitation, nor have I heard of such a conference being held.


Herbert Wilfred Herridge: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask the minister whether he could explain why the chairman of the Canadian section of the international joint commission did not attend any of these important conferences.


Arthur Laing: I have no explanation, Mr. Speaker, unless he was otherwise occupied.



HOUSING


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Guy Marcoux (Quebec-Monlmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Postmaster General.
Can the minister tell the house whether he intends to ask Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation to change its policy regarding loans to builders in order to promote the "house fall parade" prepared by the national builders association across the country?


Hon. J. R. Nicholson (Postmaster General):: This matter is under consideration, Mr. Speaker.
3,	1964	4991
Inquiries of the Ministry LABOUR CONDITIONS



BRANTFORD, ONT.-DESIGNATION AS DEPRESSED AREA

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. A. D. Hales (Wellington South):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of Industry. In a list of 66 Ontario cities just published with regard to average income, the city of Brantford is well up the list in 32nd place, whereas the neighbouring city of Guelph is down to 36th place and Galt is in 41st place. Would the minister now consider removing Brantford from the list of depressed areas?


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Industry):: Mr. Speaker, some time ago it was announced that a review would be carried out this summer of the appropriateness of all the designated areas. This review has not yet been undertaken.



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I raise this matter at this time because of the fact that the Prime Minister will be absent for some time. I would ask him whether complaints have been received from various organizations in Vancouver regarding the attempts being made by the C.B.C. to secure possession of 11 or 12 acres of the Kitsilano Indian reserve, formerly controlled by the R.C.A.F. This is a matter that I bring to his attention because Mr. Ouimet has stated that regardless of the feelings of the people there he intends to take over this property for the C.B.C. I ask the Prime Minister, will he have this matter looked into, to the end that one department of government will not be providing park land in Vancouver to the C.B.C. when other properties are available in the commercial area?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, this matter is already under consideration. I participated in discussions with the mayor of Vancouver on this matter. I am confident that an amicable solution will be reached, and I will be glad to see that a statement is made on the matter next week.


John George Diefenbaker: Can I take it from that, Mr. Speaker, that the government is not

Inquiries of the Ministry going to allow one department of government to transfer to another a property so necessary for park land purposes in Vancouver?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I said I thought a solution would be reached that would be agreeable to all concerned. I can assure my right hon. friend that no one department of government would be permitted to do what he suggests, nor does it desire to do it.



PENSIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a question to the Prime Minister. In view of the very firm statement that he made on Tuesday evening, as reported in Hansard at page 4907, that the debate on the flag resolutions will be continued until a decision is reached, could he not do better than he did yesterday in reply to a question of mine with respect to the Canada pension plan? Could he not give the house an equally firm assurance that debate on the Canada pension plan at its various stages will be continued at this session until a conclusion is reached?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm what I have already said, namely that the matter will be introduced and it will be proceeded with. I certainly hope and expect that a decision will be made before the end of this session.


Stanley Howard Knowles: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Why does the Prime Minister use one form of words with regard to the flag, making it very definite-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -yet leave it conditional with regard to the Canada pension plan?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, the reason I make the distinction is that the pension legislation will be a very long and complicated piece of legislation which will go to a committee, and I would hope that the committee would deal with it expeditiously and send it back to the house so the house can decide on it. Surely my hon. friend will realize that there is some difference between a resolution-a short and simple resolution, however important-and a long piece of legislation which is to go to a committee and on which the committee will hold hearings.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I think we had better discuss the timetabling of the Canada pension plan in the next overtime period.


Mr. Eric A. Winkler (Grey-Bruce):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. I am wondering whether the Prime Minister could not be somewhat more flexible than that in this regard, and before he leaves for the prime ministers' conference-give us some indication that the Canada pension plan could be proceeded with at the conclusion of the present legislative program; that is, in the course of the next week or possibly the next two weeks, at the conclusion of interim supply, shall we say. Could we not deal with it at that time and possibly get it into the hands of the committee?


Lester Bowles Pearson: The order of business has already been indicated to the house. I am sure my hon. friend would not wish me to continue chopping and changing that order of business.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It is not a question of chopping and changing. We are prepared to proceed with this matter, and if the Prime Minister has the legislation ready we are willing to discuss it.


An hon. Member:: It isn't ready.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Surely, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend must know that the legislation could not be introduced until the constitutional amendment has passed the parliament of Westminster; and that has not happened.


John George Diefenbaker: Now will the Prime Minister say whether the legislation in its appropriate form for presentation to parliament is ready, and awaits nothing more than the imperial parliament passing the constitutional amendment?


Lester Bowles Pearson: I can assure my right hon. friend that he will not have to wait five years for the legislation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, I seem to recall that ever since 1919 we have been waiting for promises to be carried out by the right hon. gentleman's party. However, let me ask him this. This pension legislation is important. Is this legislation ready or is it in some state of suspended animation, as are most of the legislative proposals?


Lester Bowles Pearson: Mr. Speaker, I can assure my right hon. friend that when the time comes to discuss the legislation it will be ready.


John George Diefenbaker: Which year?



NATIONAL DEFENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. Gordon Churchill (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Minister of National Defence whether nuclear missiles have been provided for the Honest John battery with the Canadian brigade in Europe.
Hon. Paul Hellyer (Minister of National
Defence): Mr. Speaker, I do not think they are operational yet but I expect they will be shortly.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A related question to the minister. Are negotiations proceeding with NATO authorities in relation to Canada's proposal to withdraw from a nuclear role?


Mr. Hellyer:: Mr. Speaker, I think the policy has been clearly set out in the white paper, which forecasts a reduction in Canada's nuclear commitment in the period ahead.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Would the minister mind answering my question? Are negotiations proceeding with NATO authorities in relation to Canada's proposal to withdraw from a nuclear role? It is a simple question; let us have a straightforward answer.


Paul Theodore Hellyer: There are constant negotiations proceeding involving many subjects, and I am sure my hon. friend is aware of them from his vast experience in government.


Gordon Minto Churchill: A supplementary question. Could I get a direct answer from the minister? Are negotiations proceeding with NATO for Canada to withdraw from a nuclear role in accordance with the promise made by the Prime Minister over a year ago?


Paul Theodore Hellyer: Mr. Speaker, there have been many discussions covering all of these subjects. This is just one of the subjects which were discussed with the secretary general. Discussions and negotiations are going on all the time, and I am sure my hon. friend will be pleased to know of any new developments when they are announced in the normal course.
Inquiries of the Ministry HOUSE OF COMMONS



PROVISION OF SIMULTANEOUS INTERPRETATION IN GALLERIES

[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. Maurice Cole (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Public Works. Could the minister inform the house whether it is anticipated that the public galleries will be equipped with a simultaneous interpretation service soon, so that our distinguished visitors will be able to listen to speeches in the language of their choice in our bilingual parliament?


Hon. J. P. Deschaleleis (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that this matter does not come under my jurisdiction. However, I shall endeavour to obtain the necessary information and I shall pass it on to him as soon as possible.



TRANSPORT


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Louis-Joseph Pigeon: Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. Since the boundary waters commission has completed its survey concerning the deepening of the Richelieu river, does the government intend to carry out shortly that important economic project?


Mr. Speaker:: Surely this is a question for the order paper.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Gordon Minto Churchill: I should like to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether he would arrange to have a day set aside in the house soon for a discussion of matters affecting his department, particularly after he gets adequate information with regard to the situation in Cyprus concerning which he seems to be somewhat ill informed.

Inquiries of the Ministry


Hon. Paul  Marlin@Secretary of Slate for External Affairs: Of course I do not wish to comment on the hon. gentleman's appreciation of my own shortcomings. The external affairs committee is to be set up next week and there will be the fullest opportunity for asking questions and giving information in a way which is not available under the procedure followed on orders of the day.
With regard to the other question of debate in the house, I will be glad to refer that matter to the leader of the house.



COMMONWEALTH CONFERENCE


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. H. Russell MacEwan (Pictou):: I have a question for the Prime Minister. In view of reports that at next week's prime ministers' conference a suggestion will be put forward to set up a commonwealth stand-by force, I wonder what the reaction of the right hon. gentleman will be to such a proposal, having regard to the plan to which he has already subscribed, namely the establishment of a United Nations stand-by force.


Lester Bowles Pearson: Any discussion of this matter at the commonwealth conference will, I think, be in the light of our obligation to the United Nations in regard to peace keeping. I know of no request that it should be discussed in any other context.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not know whether the Prime Minister intends to be here on Monday or not. Do I understand that he will not be here on Monday?


Lester Bowles Pearson: No.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, I might be allowed to say a word if the house will permit me. The Prime Minister will be leaving at the beginning of the week to attend the commonwealth prime ministers' conference in London. It is a great experience, and one which-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


John George Diefenbaker: I am interested to see that this subject is meeting with frivolity on the part of hon. members opposite. I thought it was a serious matter, but that group thinks otherwise.
I rise to express-and I wait now for the jeers which will come-the best wishes of myself and the house in general to the Prime Minister as he leaves our country.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to join in this expression of our very best wishes to the Prime Minister on this occasion.


Mr. A. B. Patterson (Fraser Valley):: It is
a source of satisfaction to know that the Prime Minister is to attend this very important conference. I am sure we all recognize the importance of this particular association. Therefore we join in the expressions of good will as he goes.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we are happy to join with other groups to wish a pleasant trip to the Prime Minister as well as a profitable discussion with other commonwealth countries.
We shall try to take advantage of his absence to give him a surprise on his return, so that when he comes back he will see on the peace tower in Ottawa the new flag with three maple leaves, the symbol of the Canadian fact. We hope that the Prime Minister will support this Canadian nationalism and this Canadian fact where he is going, that is among representatives of other commonwealth countries.


Lester Bowles Pearson: I am most grateful to the right hon. gentleman for his good wishes and to the representatives of the other parties who have associated themselves with those good wishes. The last commonwealth conference was attended by the right hon. gentleman who was then prime minister and is now Leader of the Opposition, and he is aware of the importance and the interest which attaches to these meetings.
While there are no subjects of specific and immediate import on the agenda, I think the matters to be discussed in London next week will be of far ranging significance. They will deal in particular with ways and means of bringing the commonwealth nations closer together, and especially we shall be considering developments in Africa. I hope that as a result of our discussions and as a result of the atmosphere in which these discussions are traditionally conducted this meeting will make its contribution, as others have done in the past, to the bringing closer together of this great multiracial association spanning all the continents, which has played and is destined to play a very important part in the world in the search for peace and security.



CANADIAN FLAG


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, July 2, consideration of the motion by Mr. Pearson:
That the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to establish officially as the flag of Canada a flag embodying the emblem proclaimed by His Majesty George V on November 21, 1921-three maple leaves joined on one stem -in the colors red and white then designated for Canada, the red leaves occupying a field of white between vertical sections of blue on the edges of the flag.
And the proposed amendment thereto of Mr. Diefenbaker.
Mr. J. E. Pascoe (Moose Jaw-Lake Centre):: Before I continue the remarks which were interrupted by the adjournment last night I want to welcome to this house the hon. member for Saskatoon (Mrs. Jones) who has just taken her seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


James Ernest Pascoe: We greet her as one of our colleagues, and we know she will be a fine representative of Saskatoon in parliament.
Before the house adjourned last night I had placed on record some-I emphasized the word "some"-of the views of the residents of the constituency of Moose Jaw-Lake Centre on this flag question. Of the hundreds of letters I have received on this subject over 90 per cent are in favour of the retention of the Canadian red ensign. Those constituents who did not definitely state an individual preference called for a vote on the question, thus supporting the request before us for a plebiscite. Not one of the letters or cards sent to me supported the proposed three maple leaves design.
As I stated in my earlier observations, I was amazed at the statement of the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) that we were here in parliament to make decisions regardless of what our constituents want. I am even more amazed now, after reading her statement in cold print. She has headlines in the morning press. "Don't pay attention to what your constituents want," she says.
This is not my concept of the duties of a member of parliament. I consider that we were elected to parliament to represent our constituents, and I am doing just that when I support the request for a plebiscite. I placed the views of my constituents on record, and I intend to be guided by them as I think a member of parliament should. These views 20220-317
Canadian Flag
from home emphasize the need for a plebiscite on the flag question.
Now I wish to refer to a few comments from people who are not residents of my constituency. These views from outside strengthen my request for a plebiscite. I have a page here from the Ottawa Journal of May 27, a whole page of letters to the editor.
I will not read them all, but I should like to refer to a few of them because they certainly support the views I am expressing on behalf of my constituents. I will refer to the headings and then read some excerpts. The first one certainly supports a plebiscite. It is headed "Committee" and reads in part as follows:
... I suggest a committee of expert heraldry and flag designers be formed to choose in their opinion the three or four best designs and the people of Canada given the right to vote for the flag of their choice. This would be the true democratic way.
Here is one headed "No Change". Another one is headed "Limp Symbol". That is the way this writer feels about the three maple leaves design. Here is an interesting one headed "Pied Piper", reading in part as follows:
Mr. Pearson is like the pied piper of old, piping the tune with the new flag as its theme, to lure the people away from thinking about his government's serious mistakes and inadequacies during the year he has been in office.
Here is another one headed "Spineless". I think that is a very good heading. It reads in part as follows:
There is perhaps no more spineless and craven personality in all Canada than the English speaking Canadian of British origin who is ashamed of his background.
Then there is another one headed "Surrender", reading in part as follows:
The national flag we are having forced on us is a red maple leaf on a white background. White is the colour of surrender.
Another is headed "Won't Change". Here
is another supporting our request for a plebiscite. It reads in part as follows:
A government that takes upon itself to choose a flag.


Mr. Macdonald:: I wonder whether the hon. member would permit a question.


James Ernest Pascoe: Not until I am through. I have only a few minutes left, and I do not want to waste my time now.
A government that takes upon itself to choose a flag without consulting the people that elected it will smear its reputation for generations to come.
Here is another headed "Political Expediency", reading in part as follows:

Canadian Flag
Are we to stand Idly by and make no attempt to reason with these men? Can they not be made to understand that a nation's flag transcends even political expediency?
These are a few of the letters to the editor of the Journal. They are not from my constituents, but I believe they represent the views of a great many Canadians and that they support our call for a plebiscite. There has also been a great deal of editorial comment in various newspapers. I think a few of these comments should be put on the record at one time and in one place so we can read them together. The Fredericton Gleaner comments:
Far from creating national unity, the Prime Minister's flag seems bound to create greater dissension than the ensign.
The Charlottetown Guardian:
Many Canadians will wonder why there should be urgency in deciding a matter of this kind, especially when there is so much other business of importance to be dealt with.
The Quebec Chronicle-Telegram:
But the question that is being asked all round, particularly in this part of the country, is why the sudden haste?
The Vancouver Province:
Bullheadedness on the new flag. Some of Mr. Pearson's supporters may call this political courage, but cooler heads must know it is blind stubbornness.
The Regina Leader-Post:
A useful purpose is to be served by discussion.
That is what we are doing now.
But that is as far as the matter should go at the present stage.
The Welland Tribune:
Ottawa is being flooded with opinions of many individuals and organizations. It would be well to allow time for these opinions of average citizens and representative organizations to be assessed before parliament is asked to make a decision. A national flag is a symbol which all citizens should be proud to respect.
The Kingston Whig-Standard, whose owner is a very prominent Liberal:
Mr. Pearson has issued a challenge to Canadians. He is betting on the weakness of parliament to sustain him in his decision to sell us out. This is a bitter day for Canada.
The Toronto Telegram:
Prime Minister Pearson has been dangerously reckless in daring the members of parliament to call for a vote of confidence on this emotionally charged issue. This is a form of blackmail.
The Saskatoon Star-Phoenix:
Mr. Pearson is prepared to make flag an issue on which his government would stand or fall. We think in this he has used questionable judgment. Mr. Pearson would be well advised to back out gracefully at this stage.

The Vancouver Province:
We suspect Mr. Pearson has done a little nose counting in the House of Commons. But he has not been able to count the noses of Canadians who are outraged at the thought of abandoning a flag sanctified by the lives and the blood of thousands of our countrymen in two great wars.
The Toronto Globe and Mail:
In his haste to give Canada a distinctive national flag Prime Minister Lester Pearson has set his government and the nation itself on a collision course. There is still time for him to alter it. But there is not very much time.
Here are a few editorial comments with direct emphasis on the need for a plebiscite.
I refer to them at this time to emphasize our request for a plebiscite on this question. The Sarnia Observer comments:
Because this is an emotional and highly personal issue we believe that the effective way to deal with the problem would be to call a plebiscite some time next year.
That is our suggestion, Mr. Speaker. The
Toronto Telegram comments:
The people of Canada should be allowed to decide whether or not they wish to live under the flag of their forebears or discard it in favour of a new emblem.
The Moncton Times:
There is only one sound solution: That is for there to be a national referendum embracing all voters. The selection of a new flag should be left to the people and the majority choice should be accepted.
Mr. S. J. B. Sugden, co-ordinating director of the committee of one million to defend the Canadian flag, comments:
One way we can be effective is to demand a plebiscite or national vote on the flag issue.
I think these editorial comments are very enlightening on the need for a plebiscite. I draw the attention of the house to this report in the Ottawa Citizen of June 29. It is a dispatch from Winnipeg headed "41 Per Cent Like Ensign, Poll Shows", and it reads as follows:
A flag poll at the eight day Red river exhibition here saw 41 per cent of 15,000 persons indicate a preference for the red ensign as Canada's national flag. The poll, sponsored by the Manitoba New Democratic party, showed 32 per cent of those polled favour a tri-maple leaf flag, 15 per cent a new flag with one maple leaf and 12 per cent a new flag with some other design.
Here is the point I want to emphasize:
Seventy four per cent of those polled favoured a national referendum on the flag.
Before concluding, Mr. Speaker, I have a proposal in regard to the flag debate which may find favour with you and with the house. You will recall that the original government

resolution proposed the three maple leaves design and the union jack. It was commonly referred to as the two flag resolution before Your Honour ruled that it should be divided into two parts for two separate votes.
My proposal is that before the final vote is taken on the first half of the resolution there should be a debate on the second half in regard to the union jack. I think the attitude of this house concerning the union jack should be made clear by debate before a final vote on the three maple leaves design. I offer this suggestion in the hope that it will be accepted by you and by this house.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The hon. member asserted the proposition that a red emblem on a white background is a flag of surrender. Does he therefore say that the Royal Navy and Royal Canadian Navy white ensigns are flags of surrender?


James Ernest Pascoe: If I have time.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: Will the hon. member permit a question?


James Ernest Pascoe: I did not make that suggestion. I just read the comments in an editorial.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: You read the comments but did not take responsibility for them as part of the whole speech?


James Ernest Pascoe: I made them part of the record.


Mr. H. E. Gray (Essex West):: In participating in this debate in a week which has seen the 97 th anniversary of confederation, an anniversary marking the beginning of our history as a nation, one cannot fail to be conscious of the fact that those who now speak are taking part in an event which in future years may well be looked upon as among the more significant in this history. This government's proposal to parliament for a national flag for Canada is but one part of the evolutionary process that began with confederation and continued with the imperial conference of 1926 and the statute of Westminster in 1931. In fact it might be said that this proposal is basically a reflection of the status that has been ours completely, at least since 1931, a status which many today feel should now be clearly evidenced by the symbols we use to identify our nationhood.
As a younger member of this house, Mr. Speaker, I consider that the opportunity to participate in these debates is perhaps one of the greatest honours and privileges that can come to any Canadian. I am deeply conscious of the responsibilities that must fall upon 20220-3174
Canadian Flag
everyone who is given this opportunity. One of these responsibilities is the duty to make decisions on matters of national importance, a duty which none of us have any real right to cast aside or shirk because we find there are strong differences of public opinion on the question. It is true that members must give very serious consideration to the views of all those who may call upon them as their representatives to oppose this proposal. However, members must also consider no less seriously the views of those who call upon them, also as their representatives, to support it. Being asked to make decisions on matters of national importance upon which there is not already any complete agreement amongst the people is the very essence of our parliamentary system. This system, to paraphrase the words of Edmund Burke, demands of members elected by the people that they bring to parliament not only their industry, not only their efforts on behalf of their constituents, but also their judgment which they must be prepared to exercise in the national interest.
If we are not really willing to take our responsibility to make a decision as members of parliament and as a parliament on this question, how can we refuse those who may insist on a referendum on the Canada pension plan or a national health plan? These are also issues of great national importance that touch the lives of all persons in Canada in a direct way that even something as important as a national flag can never do. Those favouring the referendum have not given any compelling reason as yet, and I do not believe they can, as to why this procedure should be suitable and, in fact, is needed for this flag proposal and at the same time should not be used for other matters of national concern.
Those opposing this government's flag proposal have spoken often of tradition, of its importance, of its value for our present day existence. They say, quite wrongly I think, that in making this proposal our traditions, our heritage, particularly those parts coming from Britain, are being cast aside. Yet at the same time, by moving this amendment calling for a referendum they are urging in fact that we cast aside the concept that lies at the very core of our British political traditions. I refer to the basic concept that members of parliament, once elected by the people, have a duty to make decisions on matters upon which there is no unanimity of public opinion. The official opposition is, in fact, asking us to cast aside that part of our British tradition that says the making of decisions on matters of public

Canadian Flag
importance by referendum is not a part of our political institutions, political institutions which have evolved over the centuries, first in Britain and later here in our own country. In rejecting this tradition they would follow one that is still essentially foreign to us, that of the republican system in the United States, in some parts of which the referendum is an accepted part of the process of government.
I was very impressed with the words spoken over 20 years ago by the present Leader of the Opposition when he opposed the plebiscite in 1942 and asked that the parliament of Canada be allowed to decide the issue. Surely those words are no less applicable today.
It has been suggested also that a referendum or plebiscite on the flag issue would enhance national unity. The experience of this country with the plebiscite of 1942 would indicate that it would do exactly the opposite, emphasizing possible divisions between sectors of our country and in fact creating them where they might not have existed before.
The tradition of our parliamentary system against deciding issues by referendum is reflected and followed by the approach taken by various national organizations. I, and I think most people in this house and in the country, have been very impressed by the wonderful work of the Canadian Legion for physical fitness and in looking after the interests of veterans of all our wars. But I have also been impressed by the fact that the Legion did not take a referendum amongst all its members before substituting the maple leaf for the union jack on its own badge. Instead, this decision was made by the elected delegates of the membership in convention assembled, even though many individual legionnaires, I understand, were strongly opposed to this move. Nor was a referendum of all its members taken to see whether they approved its current official stand on the red ensign. Instead this policy, which I respect, was again adopted by a vote of the delegates assembled in convention, and again even though it is apparent that not all its members support this stand.
I say this since men like Colonel Keiller MacKay, a co-founder of the Legion, support the proposed maple leaf flag. In so far as I am aware, none of the organizations that are urging the adoption of the red ensign or a national referendum on the flag issue have themselves held a referendum among their members to gain prior approval of their position.
Tradition has often been referred to in this debate. Various opposition members have

wrongly suggested that in adopting the maple leaf flag we will be adopting a flag bearing a symbol without any tradition. The maple leaf is also a central part of our Canadian tradition. The speeches of the Prime Minister and the hon. member for Leeds among others, illustrate this very well. If it is important to have our traditions reflected in our flag, then let us choose a symbol which is part of this tradition but which will enable us to have a flag which cannot be mistaken for that of any other country. Perhaps most important of all, it should be a symbol which all Canadians, no matter what their origin may be, can hold equally as their own.
The three maple leaves conjoined on a single stem, I suggest to this house, is in fact such a symbol. The maple leaf is rooted deep in Canadian tradition. It has been used by the people living on this northerly half of the North American continent to distinguish themselves from others in the human spectrum, to identify themselves as something different-as "Canadians"-since the visit of the Prince of Wales in 1860, eight years before confederation.
The maple leaf has been the symbol that Canadians have been using to identify themselves to friend and foe alike in the battles in two world wars and since then in the peace keeping operations of the United Nations in the far corners of the world. There is no other symbol that is as readily understood as saying "I stand for Canada", by people both within our country and around the world as clearly and as unmistakably as the maple leaf.
Traditions of Britain, especially those involving our political institutions, traditions of France and of other countries as well, all form part of our heritage and therefore of our own traditions, but they form part of our heritage as Canadians. They have all been shaped and altered by the buffeting winds of Canadian conditions and events. The three maple leaves on one stem are clearly a key part of our tradition, and a national flag for Canada based on this symbol will reflect this tradition and therefore all our heritage, but it will do so in a way that is distinctively Canadian.
I know there are those who are troubled over the prospect of a Canadian flag which does not bear in some part the union jack. I respect these views and the sincerity with which they are held, but let it not be forgotten that this government has also proposed that parliament declare that the union

jack may be flown as a symbol of Canada's links with crown and commonwealth.
I feel that approval by parliament of a national flag based on an emblem which all Canadians can hold equally as their own, no matter what their origin or ancestry, will be a major step toward creating a greater degree of national unity. It will be a major step toward creating a spirit of positive Canadianism that up until now has not been sufficiently developed in all aspects of our national life; a spirit of Canadianism such that a citizen of our country, whether he speaks English or French or both these languages, will consider himself first and foremost a Canadian and will also be considered as such by all his fellow citizens no matter what his ancestry might be.
I am proud to be able to participate in an event which may stand out in our national history. I know that in doing so it is not my wish, or the wish of those on this side of the house who support this proposal, to destroy or take anything away. Instead, we want to raise higher on the foundations of the past, the already imposing structure of Canadian nationhood, and take a step which I am convinced will soon result in a stronger and more united Canada. We are the inheritors and guardians of our country's past but we cannot be its captives, for we have equally important responsibilities to build our country's present and its future.
I am told that the grave of each Canadian who fell in battle in two world wars is marked with the maple leaf. We, the living, have given them this symbol so the world would know the country and ideals for which they died. Mr. Speaker, we the living, for ourselves and for those who will come after, can do no less than to adopt this same symbol and these ideals for this country today and for the ages.


Hon. A. J. MacLean (Queens):: Mr. Speaker, I have noticed that several hon. members who spoke in this debate during the past few hours, including the last speaker, have quoted Edmund Burke. I too intend to quote him and to point out that in 1769 he said:
There is, however, a limit at which forebearance ceases to be a virtue.
I use that as an introduction to what I have to say, not because I wish to take part in this debate from any rancour or bitterness, nor is it my intention to cause offence to any member of this house or to any group in Canada regardless of the views they hold. Although I may not agree with their views I
Canadian Flag
will defend their rights to express them. I ask only for myself and for the people for whom I speak that same right, not only in this debate but in the flag under which we are expected to live.
I believe in all sincerity that this statement of Edmund Burke has application to the present situation. I believe in all sincerity this point has now been reached in Canada. I believe that we English speaking Canadians-and I do not speak for all English speaking Canadians, but in this regard I speak for a very large number of them- have been guilty of a disservice to our country and we have been unfair to our French speaking Canadian compatriots because we have been too silent for too long. We have been too long suffering in the face of attacks on many of the things that most of us hold dear, and I have come to believe that we have remained silent in an attempt to prevent giving offence to our fellow countrymen of French extraction.
We have followed this course because we refused to believe that the great majority of French speaking Canadians are truly represented by the loud and often hysterical voices of extremists. However, the voices of moderation and reasonableness in French Canada have been largely ignored, at least in the news media of English speaking Canada. It is the Rene Levesques and the other extremists who are the delight of the C.B.C. and of those in the newspaper business whose stock in trade it is to sell newspapers with headlines screaming of intolerance.
By our silence we have implied approval of extremists who would divide us, and we have discouraged those of temperate attitude who would unite the country. On this question there are many people from all parts of Canada and many voices from Quebec- though largely ignored so far as news media are concerned-who recognize the reasonable rights of English speaking Canadians. They realize that English speaking Canadians have symbols that they hold dear, but these voices have been largely submerged by other more extreme views, leaving the impression in English speaking Canada that nothing brings satisfaction to French speaking Canada except that which will cause pain and anxiety to English speaking Canada.
This is a most unfortunate situation, and I for one do not believe for one moment that this is the true voice of French speaking Canada. It has been made to appear that the demand of French Canada is not to have in our flag a greater representation of the things

Canadian Flag
it holds dear, but the impression has been created that French speaking Canadians want one thing and one thing only, the removal of the union jack and other symbols, whether of French or British origin, from our flag.
That has caused a polarization, a reaction as natural as day following night. When that has been put forward as the official attitude of French speaking Canadians there has naturally been a reaction and the unfortunate thing is that there is polarization of opinion around the proposal of the government on the one hand, because it excludes the union jack from our national flag, and on the other hand there has been a rallying around the red ensign because it is something around which to rally and is the status quo. I think the wrong approach has been taken in the handling of this whole matter.
I support this amendment, of course. I rise to support the amendment to the resolution, not because it is the ideal thing but because it would be an improvement on the proposal of the government if the house would accept it.
I consider that I have a duty to put on the record and bring to the attention of the government not only my own views on this matter but also the views of the vast majority of the people I represent, because I am informed that these are views of large numbers of my constituents. In my constituency at the present time the people are occupied with celebrating the 100th anniversary of the first meeting of the fathers of confederation in Charlottetown, which led up to confederation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: I am proud to represent the constituency in which that first meeting took place. The people of my constituency are, at the same time, worried that there is evidence of tendencies which will not assist national unity at a time when we are reaching the 100th anniversary of a very important date. Large numbers of my constituents-almost all of them-feel strongly that the union jack should be retained in any Canadian national flag. Most of them would support the red ensign. Most of them would agree with Mackenzie King's point of view which is expressed in an article which I read just recently written by Mr. James McCook and appearing in the Ottawa Journal, Mr. McCook says:
Just alter the last war this reporter went through Belgium and Holland with Mr. King and in the evenings, after the honours of the day had been done him at meetings large and small,

he used to tell us that if Canadians could see the respect given the red ensign in Europe they would have no doubt about what their flag should be.
Most of the deep trouble we are now in as a nation over this very important and potentially divisive problem is due to political deception and deceit. No party in this house is free from guilt in this connection. I am one who believes that you can never arrive at honest and correct conclusions if you do not at least attempt to start with valid premises. As I said, no party is free from political deceit in this matter, and it is a sad commentary on this state of affairs that at the present time the strength of the various parties in this house is roughly in direct proportion to their guilt in this matter.
I hope this is only coincidental. Both major parties bear more responsibility in this connection than do the others, because they are national parties and seek support in all parts of Canada. Both major parties have passed resolutions within their ranks supporting a distinctive flag, and I sincerely believe that the only reason these resolutions could have passed at the annual meetings of either of the major parties is that the word "distinctive" is deceitful in itself, because it means different things to different people, depending on what part of the country they come from.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: In English speaking Canada we believe that we now have a distinctive flag. The order in council that established it says so. The prime minister of the day, Mr. Mackenzie King, believed so. The order in council says in part:
-and that it shall be appropriate to fly the Canadian red ensign within or without Canada wherever place or occasion may make it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
That is one end of the spectrum of the various interpretations of the word "distinctive". At the other end of the spectrum is the view that a distinctive Canadian flag means anything as long as it has not on it the union jack or any other symbols of European countries from which we derive our origins, regardless of what groups may be involved.


Mr. Moreau:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


John Angus MacLean: When I am finished. I do not propose to allow myself to be interrupted at this time. The Prime Minister has said that he insists upon parliament dealing with this matter at this time because he

was given a mandate by the Canadian people in the last election campaign; because the establishment of a distinctive flag within two years of assuming office was one of the planks of their platform.
Nothing could be more unreal than that contention. I am certain that in many parts of Canada the people voted for the present government in spite of that item in their platform and not on account of it. Never on any occasion, to my knowledge, did the Prime Minister stand up and say what he meant by a distinctive Canadian flag. I am as certain as I am that I am standing here that there are constituencies in Canada that would have taken a very strong line had the Prime Minister done this. If he had stood up in public with the design which the government proposes and said "If I become prime minister this will be the flag, and there will be no reference to the union jack or other symbols on it", I am sure that many of his supporters now in the House of Commons would not have been elected.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: In other parts of Canada, if the Liberal candidates had stood up and proclaimed this they would not even have been nominated by their party. In addition to this, the flag issue was a minor issue in that campaign; it was interwoven with many other isues. The government does not know whether it was elected partly on account of the flag or partly in spite of it. In point of fact, only 42 per cent of the Canadian people saw fit to vote for this government, and the majority of our people decided not to do so.
Has the government a mandate? No. If proof is required I could refer to letters I have received from people in my constituency who have been traditionally Liberal and all their lives have supported the Liberal party. Their views on this matter would convince any reasonable man that the government has not a mandate in this connection. I should like to quote briefly from one letter. The reference is to the Prime Minister:
An election now, with feelings hot about the flag, would see many diehard Liberals voting away from his party.
That is referring to the Prime Minister. The letter continues:
He undoubtedly will be replaced and put out to pasture. Goodness knows, he has done enough harm already.
That is the reaction that this flag question has stirred up in my riding. In addition, Mr. Speaker, can it be contended, for example,
Canadian Flag
that the premier of Newfoundland worked hard to bring this government to power because it was going to eliminate the union jack and other symbols from our national flag? Of course not. Mr. Speaker, back on May 15-I remember the date because it happens to be my birthday-the Prime Minister gave this house a great, long list of important legislation which we should deal with before a summer recess. There was no mention of the flag debate at that time. On May 12, prior to that, when there was still no indication when the flag issue would come up, the Prime Minister said that members of the house would be allowed to vote according to their conscience. The following week, on May 19, it was a question of confidence in the government, and he indicated that an unfavourable vote would bring on an election. On May 26 he said that the resolution would be on the order paper the next day, I believe it was.
Now, what happened in the interval to change this attitude? The only thing that happened of which we know was that the Prime Minister went to Winnipeg and addressed the Canadian Legion. I do not know what he expected the result of that address would be. I would draw no conclusions, but it does remind me of something which happened on December 29, 1170 when another petulant person in power said, because he was miffed, "Will nobody rid me of this insolent priest?" So four retainers galloped off to Canterbury and murdered Thomas a Becket.
The situation here could be explained by somebody saying: "Will nobody rid me of these insolent Royal Canadian Legionnaires?" So somebody came up with this resolution, to stuff it down the throats of Canadians who stand for all they believe in and what they wish to have in their flag without trying to exclude the things anybody else believes in.
Even if the government had a mandate and a majority-and it has neither-to pass far reaching legislation, this is no ordinary legislation. A flag should be as permanent as a country itself. No parliament can bind future parliaments, so that if this parliament by a simple majority can decree what is to be our national flag, each future parliament in turn can replace that flag with one of its choice. What a dismal precedent; what a dismal and divisive prospect this holds out for us.
Democratic government as we understand it presupposes an understanding by those

Canadian Flag
in power of the rights of minorities. The notion that a ruler has the moral right to do anything that he has the technical power to do is the philosophy of a despot. A flag should have in it symbols which will lift the pride and inspire the patriotism of all groups who live under it, especially those who feel strongly about the symbols they hold dear. It should be a unifying force, not a divisive one. This is no age for anyone to issue a sort of ukase, forcing down the throats of the Canadian people the personal choice of any man or small group of men. Such action will split this country from sea to sea, not unite it. It is not important to me whether the split is down the middle, to one side or to the other; it is the split itself which Canada cannot stand at this time.
There are many Canadians in French speaking Canada as well as in English speaking Canada who recognize that the most important thing Canada needs at this time is unity, and there should be a unifying force in the symbols under which we live. Excellent suggestions have been made that it should be a matter of compromise. For example, there is the very attractive approach to this question of the flag suggested by Mr. Jean Dubuc, 730 Talus, Ste Foy, Quebec; another from Paul E. Marcoux, 9054 St. Hubert street, Montreal 11, Quebec, and another from Mr. J. D. Davidson, of Debert, Nova Scotia, all of them recognizing that there is a need for symbols in a flag which will represent the various groups that make up this Canada of ours and give each group a reason to have pride when that flag is flying.
It is my sincere belief that minority groups have rights in this matter, but this is not to say that minorities alone have rights and that the majority has none. I believe that minority groups have a right to have the symbols they love and cherish represented in our flag. But just as emphatically I believe that no group has the right to dictate to any other group what that group cannot have in its flag. I think this applies whether the groups concerned are majorities or minorities.
I am a member of a very large group of Canadians who passionately believe that the symbols of our origin should be retained in any flag chosen to fly over us. France has given us much; but I am a Canadian of other than French extraction so I do not believe it is my right even to suggest to French speaking Canadians what they should have to represent them in their flag, much less to 
suggest what they cannot have to represent them in their flag. I am speaking, of course, of the national flag.
I will, however, speak for the people I do represent. These people come from many racial groups-Scottish, English, Irish. There are also many Acadian French. Then there are lesser numbers of Germans, Dutch, Danes, and even smaller numbers from other nationalities, including Chinese, Lebanese, etc., plus a few native Indians. No priority is attached to the list except in terms of numbers. With the exception of the last named all these people, or if not they their ancestors, as the case applies, came to live under the union jack out of choice. If I am asked whether I include the Acadian French, I do; because at the capitulation at the fortress of Louisburg when Prince Edward Island was covered, the terms of the capitulation provided were that French settlers in Prince Edward Island should have the right to be repatriated to France in ships sailing under cartel free from molestation by either of the combating sides.
The ancestors of the Acadians I represent chose to stay and live under British rule. They made great contributions in all fields, in the professions and in government. For example, at the present time the mayor of Charlottetown is of Acadian extraction, as is also the minister of welfare and labour, to cite only two. The flag which these people have chosen to live under is known all over the world as the flag of freedom. Everywhere the union jack is flown it has left legacies of values which we all cherish regardless of our racial background; freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press and freedom to elect a legislature in a fully democratic way.
Now, it is fair to ask: If the government has taken the wrong approach to this matter, what is the right approach? My belief is that the right approach is to assess in some democratic way the wishes of the various groups in Canada as to what symbols they want to have to represent them in their national flag. This could have been done by members of parliament had they been given the right to freely express the opinions of their constituents in a free vote. Or it could have been done by a committee composed of members of all parties represented in this house. But the door has been closed on that. There is, of course, the possibility of a plebiscite such as this amendment proposes, and there are other ways. One would be a federal-provincial conference at which the provincial

governments could assist the federal parliament by expressing the views of the people they govern as to what they would like to see in a flag.
I do not maintain that the provinces would have the right to select a national flag. I suggest such a meeting only as a source of valid information. The Prime Minister says why call on the provinces? The provinces have developed provincial flags of their own without reference to the federal government. That is true, but I am sure the provinces in selecting those flags ascertained the wishes of the people in the various parts of those provinces and had those wishes reflected in the flags which were chosen.
Another way of proceeding would be to call a national conference on this matter, at which various organizations would have the right to make representations as a means of channeling up to the government the real wishes of the country in regard to this matter. After all, a flag is a thing of the heart. There are millions of Canadians who want the union jack retained in the flag in some way. At the present time many of them who would not otherwise do so support the red ensign simply as a reaction to the demand of the government that the union jack be removed from the flag. But these are reasonable people. They would be willing to compromise. It is true they want the union jack, but many of them would not care if it were in lengthwise or sideways or even edgewise, as long as it was there. They put great stock upon the union jack. They know it to be a flag of freedom, a flag of Christendom. They feel that any move, especially by a minority government, to deprive them of it would be an infringement of their rights even though the government estimated it had the power to do so.
Prime ministers come and go, but the flag should be a permanent thing. Only last Saturday one of my constituents in conversation with me summed up the attitude of many of my constituents by saying "We are approaching a deadlock on this matter, but there is a a perfectly simple solution. Leave the flag alone and change the Prime Minister."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: Then, when the wishes of the various groups in this country as to the symbols they hold dear have been appraised and measured, a committee of all parties in the house, including representatives from the Senate, could work on a design for a flag incorporating those symbols. Such a committee should have with it to assist it a 20220-318
Canadian Flag
group of advisers, a panel of heraldic experts. One such who comes to my mind is Dr. Conrad Swan, a Canadian who has achieved preeminence in this field. I suggest the assistance of this panel of experts because the final design of a national flag is a very intricate thing, not simply as a pennant but because of the many and various uses to which it has to be put. A flag should be suitable for all these variations.
We are now considering a resolution which would proclaim this particular pattern as the national flag. There is no indication what result this would have on not only the Canadian red ensign but on the Canadian blue ensign which is flown by all government ships. There is no indication what will become of the air force flag of Canada, a beautiful flag which has come to be loved especially by those who have served in the Royal Canadian Air Force; and almost a quarter of a million people served in that force during the second world war alone.


Gilles Grégoire: That is repetition.


John Angus MacLean: That may be true, but I have a right to repeat this on behalf of the constituents I represent.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Angus MacLean: I have no objection to the maple leaf as a symbol to be included in a Canadian flag. It has been used as a trademark of Canada, usually in conjunction with some other symbols, for many years. But to me a maple leaf by itself is not adequate for a flag, whether there be three leaves or one.


An hon. Member:: What do you want?


John Angus MacLean: I will tell the hon. member; just give me time. I believe a flag should not be a pictorial representation of the flora or fauna of any particular geographic region. It should stand for something much more significant than that. I have no objection to the maple leaf being used in addition to the symbols we hold dear. The three crosses in the union jack represent, for example, England, Scotland and Ireland. They also represent the Christian heritage which we all pretend, at least, to support. The union jack was arrived at by a reasonable process of compromise. Had the flag of either Scotland or England been imposed on the other, there would not have been such a relatively easy blending of two nations which were at each other's throats for centuries.


An hon. Member:: What about Ireland?

Canadian Flag


John Angus MacLean: We of Anglo-Saxon,
Scottish and Irish origin put great stock in this because these crosses go back to the days of the crusades, the time when the west was threatened by a growing wave of Mohammedanism. At the time of the French revolution France discarded Christian symbols from its flag, but in the dark days of 1940, 1941 and 1942, when France had been overrun and was represented only by the free French expatriots, they returned to a Christian symbol in the form of the cross of Lorraine.


Gilles Grégoire: That was not the flag of the French, and you know it.


John Angus MacLean: The hon. member will have many opportunities to take part in this debate and correct any errors he believes I have made.


Gilles Grégoire: I am correcting one now.


John Angus MacLean: I must say that now, when our way of life is threatened and our very civilization is in jeopardy from those who would engulf us, to see the symbols of Christendom struck from our masthead would give those forces nothing but cheer.
I am astonished at so many of those who look on themselves as champions of Christendom but who are dupes in such a process. Those who would submerge us in this world struggle for men's minds know full well that a rootless people cannot survive. Edmund Burke again has said that people will not look forward to posterity who never look backward to their ancestors. The way of subversion is to bring into disrepute by any means the system of government; respect for law and order; to erode the values by which we live; destroy the symbols of our history, weaken our resolve to defend the principles for which we stand. Once these things are accomplished the rest of the course is easy for those who would subvert us.
Unfortunately there has been let loose in this land in recent times a trend to intolerance which gives ready will to use the opposite race as a scapegoat for all the ills that any single group feels are theirs. It is so simple to blame it on the English or blame it on the French when in actual fact this is not the cause of the trouble at all.
The intemperate demands of one segment against the whole, this vicious, ever-accelerating frenzy in which the maximum demands of yesterday become the minimum demands of today, can lead nowhere but to destruction. The ignorance of our history in some parts of Canada is pathetic, and I am not

speaking of any particular racial group now. I saw recently that among high school graduates there were only 10 per cent, I believe, who knew who was the first prime minister of Canada, and they did not know who any of the others were.
What disturbs me is that we have these unfavourable trends which are becoming accentuated and which will divide our country. I say sincerely and without recrimination that as far as I can see the government's approach to this problem is to feed this crocodile well in the hope that it will eat them last.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member, but his time has expired.


Some hon. Members:: Continue.


John Angus MacLean: Mr. Speaker, I believe sincerely, like millions of other English speaking Canadians, that our compatriots in French Canada are not represented truly-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Does the hon. member have the consent of other hon. members to continue?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John Angus MacLean: I understood I had agreement, Mr. Speaker, and that is why I proceeded. I am nearly finished. I want to make one personal observation at this point. I wish to say that I have the highest regard for French speaking Canadians. I have associated with them closely. I have lived with them for years. For two years I had the honour to command a little R.A.F. unit overseas which was made up of officers from New Zealand, Australia and Canada. I was proud that the Canadian representation in that unit were all French Canadians except myself. We worked together with the greatest and closest harmony. There has been no loss of the mutual regard we had for each other, with the result that even to this day we exchange our children in the summertime so that our children will have the opportunity to learn something of the opposite language and to see that people of the opposite race in Canada do not have horns.
I know the Prime Minister is not present at the moment but the Secretary of State is here, and there is something I should like to say. I say it in no sense, believe me, of any party taking political advantage of anyone. But I plead with the Prime Minister at this time to reconsider, to back away from this course of action, because I am sure it will

have a divisive effect on Canada and cause wounds that will not be healed for many years.


An hon. Member:: That is what you are doing now.


John Angus MacLean: That is not what I am doing now. My proposal is that all racial groups in Canada, especially the two founding races, have symbols in our flag of which we can each be proud. I contend that neither race has the right to say what the other cannot have on the flag. In effect that is what is being said to us at the present time, and we resent it. I should like at this point to substantiate what I have said by reading a brief letter addressed to me. It reads as follows:
W/C. The Hon. J. A. MacLean, D.F.C.,
House of Commons,
Ottawa, Ont.
Dear Sir:
There has been a great deal of controversy recently concerning the proposed distinctive national flag and our association feels that we should make known to you our preferences in this regard. The united services officers club of Charlottetown includes in its membership nearly all of the officers of the armed forces resident in Prince Edward Island-
I might interject that it includes all retired officers as well as presently serving officers.
-and it seems to us that, as leaders of Canada's military forces in war and peace our opinion should be of assistance to you in resolving this difficult problem.
A special general meeting of all members of the club was held the evening of May 29 in the club rooms and the following motion was passed: That we are opposed to any Canadian flag which does not incorporate the union jack.
May we respectively solicit your support in this respect?
Yours truly,
Ian G. Kerry President of U.S.O.C.
May I say that this is not some minor club. It has among its membership nearly all the leading citizens of Prince Edward Island by virtue of the fact that they have held commissions in the services at one time or another. I ask the Prime Minister to put patriotism ahead of party, or whatever the motivation is in this case. Give time for consideration. This is a great issue. It is not fair to parliament or to the Canadian people to expect it to be resolved in a headlong rush at a time when we are all under tensions and frustrations and when another look at this matter would be of great advantage.
Canadian Flag
The Prime Minister should realize that Canada is not a monolith that has to conform to the specifications of any one man or any one group. Canada is a mosaic contributed to by all the various groups. Only the day before yesterday this was so well depicted by the very fine program on the front lawn initiated by the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration. I congratulate him on it. There you had a representation of the contribution of all the ethnic groups and the various cultures that go to make Canada into one worth while mosaic.
I will not go into it now, but I would refer the Secretary of State to the fact that problems of this very type arose in South Africa in the 1920's. The government of the day there started out with exactly the same technique, but they had the good sense to retreat from it and not to divide the house on the matter on second reading of their legislation. Eventually committees were established and a compromise was reached in which all parties and all the people represented in that parliament could at least acquiesce.
This is the only way, Mr. Speaker, that we can work toward unity in this country. If you want evidence in support of that fact I would say that in spite of the difficulties experienced by the whites in South Africa, who were so disturbed about this matter in the twenties, they are now more united than they have ever been before. I say that if the Prime Minister is a man, and I believe he is, he will not divide the country on this issue. If he is a statesman, I believe that he will not even divide this parliament on this issue.


Mr. C. A. Gauthier (Roberval):: Mr. Speaker, in rising in this debate on the amendment moved by the Conservatives to have the matter of the flag settled through a referendum, I must admit that one thing amazed me. While I listened to certain Canadians, certain English speaking representatives, one after the other-especially those from the Conservative group, although there were some from the New Democratic party and even from the Thompsonists-I noted that members of that little group which is somewhat like the Tory spirit brooding over parliament to sow discord, in a quite desperate effort, wept their last tears in an incoherent language, always the same, mourning the loss of the red ensign.

Canadian Flag
Mr. Speaker, do you honestly think a man could lose what he never had? Is it even possible to regret what you have never owned?
Indeed, in 1945, our troops could never be told from British troops. Other countries could not single out our troops who were always at the line of Are in all British wars. Canada having no identification flag, her government decided, in September 1945, since they could not succeed in making one of their own, to borrow the ensign from the British merchant marine.
Is it because the United Kingdom considered our Canadian troops merely as mercenaries of the proud Albion? Were our troops considered as mere merchandise that could be sold to a country at war? True Canadians are still puzzled in regard to the spirit which inspired this selection. Since then questions are constantly being asked that give rise to much controversy. For lack of a sounder argument we were told that the situation was temporary.
However, Mr. Speaker, we find that what was to be temporary is taking a permanent character, and our men continue to fight for liberty, under the auspices of mercantilism.
However, it was indeed mentioned in the house that such loan was only temporary. Hence I am surprised to hear this group clamouring to appropriate an object which had only been loaned. In life I was always taught that other people's property had to be returned; this property may have been very useful to us since many French Canadians today have gone to meet their Maker, after having been good servants during their lifetime.
In my opinion the red ensign now deserves to be returned to its owners.
The government offers us the design of a new distinctive flag, of a really Canadian flag, in the true sense of the word. This government has certainly not selected this design lightly. We ourselves presented a distinctive design, but we bowed before the opinion of the majority, and, in order not to delay any longer the debate on the various designs, in the interest of the country, we have foregone our own selection so that the design proposed by the government would be unanimously endorsed.
Now that the debate on the design has come to a close, the official opposition demands a referendum on the acceptance of this same design, and pretends that the people have not been consulted.

Stop making us laugh with your ridiculous buffooneries which mean nothing, but still the country has to pay for such unheard of childish debates.
The Canadian people have requested a distinctive flag for a hundred years. Indeed, in 1945, in order to satisfy the desires of the people, the government decided to borrow the ensign of the British merchant marine, pending the time it would be in a position to decide on its own design.
To ask a popular consultation is precisely the Conservative way of sending into oblivion a proposal which that party was never honest enough to present to the Canadian people, when 98 per cent of the province of Quebec and almost 80 per cent of the people in Canada as a whole instructed us, at the last election, to give Canada a distinctive flag.
In such a case would we be going back to our constituents to get permission they already gave us? This is sheer nonsense. In my opinion, to ask for a referendum on a question when 100 per cent of my electors gave me a clear and precise mandate would be evidence of obvious inefficiency.
What are the motives of a group of Anglo-Saxons and a few new Canadians who do not understand yet the meaning of the words "Canadian-bi-ethnical", who have not understood yet that it is time to get out of mythological colonialism and have not realized that Canada is now an adult country?
Perhaps we will never know, it is probably because they remained in Canada without really belonging here.
They are somewhat like the husband who could never leave his mother for his wife. The story goes on to say that he finally divorced.
I do not even dare to think that any group among them could take action to kill right off a measure of such importance to Canada, because they would show the whole world that they are traitors to their country.
I was listening the other day to the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) who was saying how the government of the day had held a plebiscite concerning conscription in 1942. He added that that plebiscite had done justice to Canada. I will not discuss that question which the hon. member for Qu'Appelle fully outlined, because 76 per cent of Quebeckers voted against conscription.
This means that the 1942 conscription did not do justice, as mentioned by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle. Indeed, a plebiscite

or referendum, just like the popular vote, is very much influenced, not to say more by all the political factors.
However, with regard to the comparison made in the house by the hon. member for Qu'Appelle, I maintain that the present question is not at all the same as the situation which existed in 1942. In fact, in 1942 the government of the day had explicitly promised, with the evident purpose of being elected, not to impose conscription. After being elected, it remembered that finance had its rights and that it was stronger than governments. Reneging on their most solemn election promises, this government, admitting defeat before the giants of finance, had no alternative but to go once more to the people asking to be freed from its undertaking.
Indeed, the people had not voted for the military and the government which was elected in 1942 was not committed to impose conscription. On the contrary, its terms of reference being quite clear, it had to promise the people not to launch this country into the blazing furnace of war.
That is why a referendum was called for at the time. Whereas today this government made the flag one of the main planks of its platform in the last election.
We, of the Ralliement Creditiste promised our voters to support without reserve any government which would have the courage of presenting a distinctive flag to the house. We now have this distinctive flag design, for which we were elected. What else do we want, Mr. Speaker?
Our party is in favour of immediate and concrete decisions. We are not a group of puppets, but a group determined to do something for Canada, if it is not too late.
We say that now is the time for Canada to have its own flag, and not a borrowed one.
We are proud to see that 75 per cent of the members, Anglo-Saxon, Canadian or new Canadian, are prepared to support the proposed flag. I say to the house that this may be the first indication that we are really on the way toward achieving Canadian unity.
It may be argued that there are still some opponents in the house. This only proves the rule. We should not take offence at that fact, because there will always be some opponents, even if it is only to preserve the seed of colonialism planted in Canada 300 years ago. We should not give them more importance than they deserve.
Canadian Flag
Similarly, we, from Quebec, hear with some satisfaction the loud protests of a small group.
In fact, for years Quebeckers have been accused of being separatists, of wanting to destroy confederation and now with the introduction of a really distinctive flag, the true enemies of Canadian unity come out of the shadows. Now the country will know who does not want any understanding in Canada. And you can imagine that it is not French Canadians.
What a scandal to have thus shown their petty secular game. You can see those who have always remained riveted to one-way traditions, without ever officially considering the two ethnic groups making up Canada.
That is why I was very sorry to hear a new Canadian who claimed the other day that he was speaking on behalf of his group. Poor fellow. As a latecomer, he still has a lot, not to say everything to learn, since he has not yet grasped the meaning of the democratic system in Canada. Imbued with the socialism of countries behind the iron curtain, they are unable to understand the democratic freedoms, because in a democratic country they live without realizing it, like socialists, like integrationists.
I fear there are still too many of those new Canadians, and even some Anglo-Saxons, who are unable to take their adult life seriously. It would be time for them to examine their conscience.
Speaking on the amendment, the hon. member for Victoria, Ont. (Mr. Lamb) expressed the fear that each province might have its own flag.
Earlier an hon. member stated that the new flag might favour especially the French Canadians, which is totally incorrect since, at the present time, many more Anglo-Saxons than French Canadians are in favour of that flag which pleases me greatly. It indicates that this flag design will foster unity in Canada and that we are fighting for the recognition of the two great ethnic groups in our country.
Someone said earlier that in his province French Canadians faced no problems. I quite believe it; it is forbidden to speak French on the labour market. Look at what goes on in those provinces and you will see that the English and the new Canadians do not dare to try to understand the difficulties experienced by those French Canadians who want to keep their language. And then they come to us and tell us matter of factly: We have no

Canadian Flag
problems with French Canadians in our province. Of course not because they have been integrated for 50 or 60 years; we have seen it in the case of the Acadians who have become integrated. The French Canadian does not want to become integrated and I wonder if that will be understood some day.
I suggest to some people in those English speaking provinces to reflect briefly at night on the situation of that ethnic group. We have a Canada made up of two ethnic groups, and I wonder if the new Canadians will finally understand that country because when French Canadians are obliged to attend English schools, to use English at work and before the courts, where everything is done in English, they tell us: We do not have any problem with French Canadians in our province. Of course not, because they are patient, much more patient than some groups which today are up in arms because there is talk of adopting a national flag for the whole of Canada.
It will be necessary to search our souls, to come back to our senses and to ask ourselves what is a Canadian, a true Canadian? A true Canadian, as I said a little earlier, is somewhat like a husband. He must leave his mother, his father, in short his native land.
If we want to build a Canada worthy of every Canadian, whatever his origin may be, as long as you keep on creating here mother-country images, you will not be true Canadians. And that might be because you never had the opportunity to make sacrifices to deserve this Canadianism. We shall have to dispel those images and get down to work, because there has been enough talk about such myths. It is high time to think like the true Canadians that you are and that you should all be in this house.
Frankly, I am shocked to see those groups hanging on doggedly to the red ensign, which they admire because it was loaned to us, because it served our purpose and it was all we had. However, we should decide to give it back. It is all very well to be patient, and I think England has been very patient, but today she must be given back what belongs to her. Today we have a government that had the courage to offer a flag to the nation. Although we do not agree that it is 100 per cent representative of Canada, we abide by the decision and say: this is our flag and we shall fully support it.


Mr. Webb:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question. With

regard to those of us who have spoken for the retention of the red ensign in this debate, the hon. member has said that we do not understand their position and he cannot understand our taking a position in favour of the retention of the red ensign. He has also said he is for the unification of all parts of Canada. I would like to ask him if he ascribes to the views of the leader of his party, who said when making a statement not too long ago:
Real Caouette, the deputy leader of the Social Credit party, admitted that he admired Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini for their political qualities. Mr. Caouette said also that he had refused to fight in the second world war because "...I didn't think Canada had given me anything worth fighting for".


Mr. Langlois:: I	rise	on a	question	of
privilege-


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I want to finish my question. Does the hon. member not agree that the very principles he is putting forth are those used by the dictators	in	this world	to conquer
other countries?


Raymond Langlois: I	rise	on a	question	of
privilege, Mr. Speaker-


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: I	am very glad that,	at
last, that voice should make itself heard. I am asked why we blame supporters of the red ensign. I thought I had made myself clear, but they still do not understand.
I maintain that we have no right to take what belongs to somebody else. We may borrow it, but we cannot keep it for ourselves. It would be an insult to Great Britain to keep her merchant marine flag as we are doing now. I feel it is a mere question of justice to hand it back to her, since today we are being offered a distinctive and exclusively Canadian flag. We do not want the red ensign, but we want a symbol to represent us, something truly Canadian. It seems to me everyone should understand that.
As far as Hitler and Mussolini are concerned, I want to point out to the hon. member that he is absolutely out of order. I think the hon. member is only trying to call attention to himself. If he had only read the whole statement of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), when he spoke about Hitler and Mussolini, he would have understood but in my opinion, he will never understand. He should have read the complete text instead of taking two or three sentences out of it-because you know that you can have somebody hung for two or three words

taken out of context. I will go even further and say that in the better days of Mussolini, priests made us kneel down and pray for his victory. And today we would condemn him because he made a mistake? Mr. Speaker, if we were to condemn every person in this house who has made a mistake, there would not be a single member left.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I appreciate that the hon. member for Roberval is trying to reply to the question put to him by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac (Mr. Webb), but since the discussion between the two hon. gentlemen is not related to the resolution under consideration, I would suggest that he limit his remarks to the subject of the present debate.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you allowed the question and I thought that I was entitled to reply. Since I have to give a complete answer, I wonder if you would permit me to finish.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I say to the hon. member that his reply is quite adequate in my opinion. Consequently, I would suggest that he does not pursue the discussion any further.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, you are a better judge than I am. I felt that my reply was incomplete but you do not think so. That is not too bad.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I certainly will not tolerate being called in any circumstance a "follower of Mussolini and Hitler", especially if it is the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac who does the name-calling. May I say that that is usually known as a dirty blow, a punch below the belt. To my mind, there is but one way to protect oneself from such attacks and such name-calling tactics, and I advise the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac to look up the dictionary for the meaning of the words "distinctive flag", which really mean distinctive in the first instance.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that other members do not resort to such name-calling tactics as I feel that there is not a single member of this house who deserves such treatment, not even the member who indulged in this practice.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, there are possibly two main reasons why I hope my remarks will be somewhat
Canadian Flag
brief today. One is the fact that there has already been considerable debate on this issue, and many times it has become rather acrimonious. The second reason is that nothing that has been said in this house these past days will be likely to change anyone's opinion particularly. I think that possibly each and every member has studied the matter for himself or herself and arrived at the point where he or she knows what the decision will be as far as they are concerned. Therefore there may not be too much to be accomplished by lengthy debate.
Thinking back over the last few weeks it is easy to remember all of the questions which have been asked relating to the flag issue; the intention of the government with respect to the introduction of the resolution, the nature of the designs they were going to advocate, and the objective as far as its place on the agenda of the house was concerned. Therefore I think that even though the debate has possibly been of short duration as far as the formal debate is concerned, it has already occupied a considerable part of the attention of the house.
I appreciated very much the interesting remarks made by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean) this morning. I would say that I agree with him. I think the implication of his remarks was to the effect that the silence on the part of many with respect to certain trends in Canada today has given undue encouragement to extremists who do not appreciate the feelings and the convictions of Canadians from coast to coast. When hon. members rise in this house and insinuate that those who are opposing this particular resolution and the adoption of a new flag are not true Canadians and prefer to remain in a state of colonial immaturity, I think it indicates a complete lack of understanding of the basic concepts of Canadianism. The purpose of the resolution before us, no matter what may be said to the contrary, is to change our national symbol.
I was somewhat disappointed by the words the other day of the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) when he said in concluding his remarks-I have already indicated that I have the highest regard for the hon. member and usually a great deal of respect for his judgment-that Canada has not got a national flag. Then he went on to give some quotations to substantiate that assertion. I do not believe that that is entirely so. Perhaps technically we can say that Canada does not have a flag, but in reality Canada does have a flag, and has had a flag always. And no

Canadian Flag
matter what sneering interventions are made from my left-we are getting used to those here-that is a fact. The world recognizes that fact, for we know that wherever Canadians dwell and are represented the Canadian red ensign is recognized as the Canadian flag. It flies from national buildings, from our embassies, and, as I have said, wherever there is Canadian representation. Therefore to all intents and purposes Canada has had a flag and does have a flag.
Furthermore, if Canada does not have a flag, why is it that national organizations have taught our children the significance of the red ensign or the union jack? I received a letter from a scholar the other day, and he pointed out that in the various organizations to which school children belong they have been taught the significance of this flag. Therefore, if Canada does not have a flag, why is it that our young people have been reared with the idea in mind that we do have a flag and have been taught what it stands for? I am sure that those who have accepted Canadian citizenship in this country have recognized that we have a flag. It has been used at ceremonies and has been recognized and acknowledged as the Canadian flag.
I say again that this resolution is not to adopt a distinctive flag but to change our national flag. The question is asked: Where do Canadians stand on this question? We know where some stand. There are others who believe that we have to get rid of what to them are the objectionable features which they see as symbols of colonialism.


Mr, Langlois:: Agreed.


Alexander Bell Patterson: I hear hon. members to my left say "Agreed". Well, we know where they stand. They are speaking for the radical, fanatical element in Canada and we know what to expect from them. Nevertheless there are those who believe, on the other hand, that we should retain at any cost the present symbols which are indicative of our rich heritage, whether it be French or English or that of any other nation.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: United Canada loyalists.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Keep it up. I should think your stock is dropping considerably in the province of Quebec; so keep it up.


Charles-Arthur Gauthier: And yours.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Well, we will see after the next election, no doubt. As I was saying, where do Canadians stand on this particular

issue? I do not think there has been any attempt to ascertain what is the consensus across the country. Therefore, before we move in the direction of changing our national symbol, I think there should be some understanding as to what the Canadian people as a whole want. Whatever it is, I think we have the right to know.
What is the procedure which has thus far been followed in achieving this objective of changing our national symbol? We have been referred many times to the matter of the Liberal election promises, and some have suggested that the government were elected on the basis of this particular promise. I do not think that is absolutely true. There is no doubt that this promise was included in their platform, but nevertheless I do not think they can say that they were elected on the basis of their promise to provide a distinctive national flag for Canada. As pointed out by the hon. member for Queens (Mr. MacLean), there is perhaps a difference of opinion as to what "distinctive" means. The order in council to which he refers does refer to the Canadian ensign as a distinctive national flag. Others would take it that it means something entirely different and that it does not show anything of our heritage. It does not show anything of our racial origin but is something strictly and absolutely indicative of Canada today. Therefore, that is the beginning of this particular issue, the Liberals having made this particular promise in the election campaign.
On April 17 the Prime Minister, in reply to a question which was asked of him, stated that the Liberals had promised that within two years Canada would have a distinctive national flag, and he said that the government had been in office for one year. I think anyone who is absolutely honest would have to say that the Prime Minister meant to leave the impression that there was not any undue haste to bring this particular matter before parliament. I do not think we should draw any other inference.
Then shortly after that we find there is a distinct change. I should like to refer to an editorial in one of my local papers, the Fraser Valley Record for May 22 last, and I will just read about two paragraphs from it:
While, like the Royal Canadian Legion, we see no need to change Canada's flag, the red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the field, the objective viewpoint of a friendly observer below our border is of timely interest...
"Mr. Pearson has been in no hurry to redeem his party's pledge to adopt a new flag. Caution is the word, and properly so.

A country's flag, no matter how aesthetically offensive it may be to some people, is something more than a design. It embodies, as can no other symbol, a nation's past, present and future even when, in Canada, it has never been officially adopted. It flies in the hearts of a nation."
Perhaps I should clarify that particular statement. It is a quotation from a newspaper published in Portland, Oregon. It says the Prime Minister is wise in taking his time because of the implications of this problem.
It was not too long after this that the whole situation changed. As we know, the Prime Minister introduced his resolution and the situation developed from there on. What happened to change the Prime Minister's intention so suddenly in this regard? This began as a matter which appeared to be of not too great urgency. It developed into one of urgent priority. I wonder who the right hon. gentleman's advisers were? I wonder where the pressure came from. I wonder what made him change his mind so rapidly and so abruptly.
We all remember the lengthy list of legislative items which he himself presented to us for consideration. Again, it was the Prime Minister himself who indicated his belief that these items should be disposed of as expeditiously as possible. I will not read that particular list; it is a lengthy one. Nevertheless, we found that suddenly the whole thing was reversed and an entirely new item of business appeared, one which was to take priority over practically everything else.
Anyway, the flag resolution was introduced. The Prime Minister said there was to be a free vote. What do we mean by a free vote? Everybody knows what a free vote is. It is a vote which gives every member an opportunity to present an opinion dictated by his conscience, without any serious repercussions attaching to the result of the diversion. We accepted that statement in good faith. We believed the Prime Minister meant what he said. But it seems he did not, because not too long afterwards he made it clear that though everybody, even Liberal members, could vote according to their consciences-they would not be read out of the party

the government intended to treat the matter as a question of confidence and, if it was repeated, there would be another general election. I suggest this is a complete repudiation of the principle of a free vote.
What came next? The right hon. gentleman came into the house and challenged the opposition to bring in a want of confidence motion based on the flag issue. My only com-
Canadian Flag
ment is this: The Prime Minister for some reason reduced this issue from one which should have been maintained on a high level of debate to a political football by threatening members of this house and the people in general that they would have to face another protracted and expensive election campaign unless they agreed to the proposal he was making. The objective of this resolution may be distasteful to many but the procedures which are being followed are infuriating Canadians right across this nation.
I do not intend to make any personal attack on the Prime Minister. We have looked upon him as a diplomat and as a statesman. He has been recognized as such around the world.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Mr.   Pailerson@: I am just going to say this- I think members opposite must be applauding what I am about to say now: I believe the image of the Prime Minister as a statesman and a diplomat will be badly besmirched because of the way in which this political issue is being handled. That is the opinion of a good many people. I believe this debate should continue for the present so that the pros and cons may be clearly set forth in this chamber. I believe every member should have the opportunity to present his views and the views of his constituents in this regard, whether they be for or against the motion. But, having said that, I believe that after there has been sufficient debate on this matter to bring out all the relevant facts there should be agreement to take no final decision but to allow time for reflection both by members of this house and by the Canadian people.
We ought to get along with the other matters the Prime Minister has mentioned. I do not think we can brag about what has been accomplished this session. We have made some progress, but I do not think we have made sufficient progress. In this connection I should like to read the first and the last paragraphs of an editorial which appeared in the Globe and Mail of June 29:
Rarely in Canadian history has parliament presented such an unattractive picture of itself to the people who elect it, the people who pay for it, the people whose public business it is supposed to transact.
The voters are not amused, the voters are not at all impressed, with what they see in Ottawa. It is in the knowledge of this public distaste and disillusion-
This refers to the results of a proposal the Prime Minister made.

Canadian Flag
-that the various house leaders, when they meet today, should find some method to get parliament back on the rails.
As I said, I believe there should be every opportunity given for members to present their views on this subject, both for and against. Then, in my opinion, the matter should be shelved and we should proceed to consider other items of business. Later, perhaps in the fall, the Prime Minister could give serious thought to the suggestion of a referendum. This is, of course, the subject of the amendment, but I wish to point out that it is not original in any way because my hon. friend from Cariboo (Mr. Leboe) spoke as follows on February 27, as reported in Hansard on page 315:
I should like to make a few remarks about this business of a national flag. We really get into deep water when we start talking about a national flag, I realize that. I think the solution lies in having a committee set up which will choose perhaps four or five designs out of the some 2,500 or 2,900 designs that have been submitted, and put these on a ballot. They should include the red ensign, and should be put to a referendum of the people, with a transferable vote so that each individual would choose the first, second, third, fourth and fifth in the order he preferred and, by the process of elimination, we will then have over 50 per cent of the people voting in favour of a particular flag. That will take all of us off the hook and put the responsibility where it belongs, on the shoulders of the people.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the amendment introduced by the official opposition represents nothing new because my colleague, the hon. member for Cariboo (Mr. Leboe), suggested the same thing as early as February 27. If we are to have a new flag, Mr. Speaker, let us have one of which Canadians can be proud and not one about which the best thing that can be said is that nobody else has it.
I suggest there are scores and hundreds- I could go higher than that-there are multitudes of people in this nation who want a new flag but they do not want the one that is the choice of the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson). They agree that we should have something else, but with regard to the one he has put forward they wonder why in the world he chose it and submitted it for the consideration of cabinet and then to the House of Commons. That applies to Liberals as well as to a lot of other people. They just do not like it.
I am going to conclude by making the plea once again that, no matter where we stand on this issue, we should have ample opportunity to present our views and arguments, that there should then be a cooling off period or time for reflection, after which we can then

come back and make a decision that will be intelligent and in the interests of the unity of this great nation of which we are all proud to form a part.


Mr. Stanley Haidasz (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, at this historic time in our history I should like to take the opportunity as the elected representative of the cosmopolitan constituency of Parkdale to plead with hon. members to seize this challenge and unique opportunity to ensure the unity of Canada by showing a better understanding of our parliamentary procedures and by also demonstrating their good will to co-operate and show Canada that we here are responsible in the exercise of our duties.
Many speeches have been made in this chamber on this issue. Some of them, I am sorry to say, were not very praiseworthy. Some speakers preceding me have even demeaned the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of this country or his intentions as far as the Canadian flag resolution is concerned. Let me remind these hon. members that we are proceeding in this debate according to our parliamentary rules, that the Canadian flag resolution of the government was put on the order paper on May 28 and that members of parliament have had time to read, study and reflect upon the resolution since May 28. It was not debated immediately. It was only on June 15 that the Prime Minister introduced the resolution with his historic speech and since June 15 we have had ample time to express our opinions on the government's resolution concerning a distinctive Canadian flag.
It is the Prime Minister, I am happy to say, who has proven his Canadian patriotism and his courage by his decisions and by the speeches he has made in this chamber and throughout our country in order to strengthen Canadian confederation and therefore our national unity. Since the Prime Minister's historic address in the House of Commons on December 17, 1962, when he declared that confederation was our declaration of faith in the destiny of a united Canada, he has rallied Canadians to the cause of renewing our efforts and rededicating ourselves to our greatest national cause, our national purpose, a strong and united Canada.
This government's enviable record of important bills and other proposed legislation now on the order paper demonstrates the sincerity and determination of the Prime Minister's goal which he described on April 23, 1963, to the Canadian nation in his first television address after taking office, that

although our task in the second session of Canada's twenty sixth parliament is indeed complex, "it is time to excite the daring, to test the strong and to give new promise to the timid". He went on to say:
It will indeed be a time of direction and of decision, when our efforts are sustained, our purpose clear, and our faith high.
The Canadian government's decision in the flag resolution we are now debating is exciting, it is daring and it is testing many timid people. The beautiful design proposed by the government, consisting of three red maple leaves joined on one stem across a white background with blue vertical borders, has its historic and heraldic significance. I regret to say that many members of this chamber refuse to understand that there are elements of history and elements of heraldic significance in the design proposed by the Canadian government.
The historic element in this flag dates back to May 26, 1868, when Queen Victoria issued a royal warrant establishing the great seal of Canada and the arms of the provinces of Ontario and Quebec. This seal, a sprig of three maple leaves, appeared twice. For Ontario the emblem granted was three gold maple leaves on a green background and for Quebec the emblem was three green maple leaves on a gold background. Later, Mr. Speaker, King George V also gave Canada other emblems and symbols of which we are proud.
I am certain that the proposed design, Mr. Speaker, has the support of the majority of Canadians. This majority is reflected also by majority support for this resolution as members of the House of Commons take their stand one after the other.
Many of my constituents have expressed their support of this distinctive Canadian flag. Every day young Canadians are enthusiastically expressing their acceptance and admiration of the maple leaf flag. Canadians of all backgrounds and origins have voiced their support for the new flag.
For the information of many hon. members who have requested it, and especially for the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk), may I say first of all that if they would take the trouble to read the reports of the ethnic press in Canada they would learn that the Estonian newspaper Meie Elu indicates that Estonians want to see Canada as a completely sovereign country with her own symbols, a flag and an anthem. The German weekly Der Courier states that it is hoped there will be a ma-
Canadian Flag
jority who will accept the government's design. The Ukrainian weekly, New Pathway, stated that Canada should have her own distinctive flag, and the design is certainly the right one. The Ukrainian Voice states that no damage would be done if the new flag were not adopted at present.
Beside this evidence from the ethnic press throughout Canada, there are also ethnic organizations which have expressed their support for the Canadian flag as proposed by this government. Last year a delegation of the young Slavic alliance came to a hearing of the royal commission on biculturalism and bilingualism. They also voiced their support for the new, distinctive Canadian flag. The national executive of the Canadian Polish congress representing over 400,000 Canadians of Polish origin in this country came out strongly in a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag.
This overwhelming evidence, Mr. Speaker, for a new Canadian flag proved also that a plebiscite on this matter is needless. As was so ably argued and proven by so many members in this house, a referendum or plebiscite is not in keeping with our British parliamentary system. A plebiscite on the subject would not serve national unity. We members of parliament were sent here to make decisions, to legislate and to carry out the mandate of the Canadian electorate. Canada must have her own and distinctive flag because Canadians want to rally round a symbol to pursue their national purpose across this country. I am sure we all want a flag that can qualify as a truly national flag. The maple leaf design of the Canadian government is a truly national flag, representing our historic past, representing our exciting present. I am sure it will also represent the glorious future of Canada.
In accepting a new Canadian flag, Mr. Speaker, we will accept also the union jack as proof of our loyalty to the monarch of Canada and our very close association with the British commonwealth of nations. We respect the union jack and we respect also the red ensign. We will respect a new, distinctive Canadian flag. I am sure that as responsible members of parliament we will respect the maple leaf flag if it is approved by parliament and that we shall do so, not only for ourselves, but for our beloved children and for Canada, our home and native land.


Gilles Grégoire: May I ask a question of the hon. member? I have heard him mention

Canadian Flag
"Canadian unity". Some Conservative members have used these words "Canadian unity". May I know what the hon. member's definition is of this word "unity"?


Stanley Haidasz: In response to the hon. member who asked this question I may say that, to me, unity means one national purpose designed to achieve the best life for all of us in Canada. Unity also means harmonious relationships between all the people in Canada, harmonious relationships between all the provincial governments in Canada. Unity, Mr. Speaker, also means unity of action in order that we may play a proud role in the international field.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, I conclude, that for the hon. member unity means only unity of purpose and not of races or groups?


An hon. Member:: Why don't you make
your own speech?


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this important debate I believe history is being made today in this honourable chamber. I cannot say that I agree altogether with the remarks of the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) when he stated that it was an exciting debate. Indeed this morning when asked by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) about the resolution on the flag, the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) referred to it as a simple resolution. Far from being a simple resolution, I am sure it is a resolution that requires the utmost soul-searching for every member in this house.
Little did I realize that the day would come when I would have to rise in my place in this chamber and defend the Canadian red ensign as Canada's national flag. I have long looked upon it as Canada's national flag, just as thousands of other Canadians have. Here we have before us a resolution asking parliament to replace it with another flag. The day before yesterday, Mr. Speaker, many members of this house as well as thousands of Canadians had an opportunity of witnessing a display of pageantry on the lawn in front of the parliament buildings. This was as fine a display as has ever been held on the hill. This program was relayed to millions of Canadians by means of television so that they, too, would be able to fill their hearts with pride. The 66 Canadian red ensigns fluttering in the breeze made a most impressive appearance. I am likewise sure that my good friends from Quebec must have had their hearts filled with pride by this program.

Two days ago we celebrated Canada's 97th birthday. Birthdays are times when we look back over the past years. They give us a chance to realize those things which we in this country have done or have left undone. July 3 is a day on which Canadians like to fly the flag. 1 should like to quote from an editorial that appeared in the Telegram of June 30:
Tomorrow-July 1-is a day for flags. It is Dominion day. It is a day when we honour the men who explored our challenging country, who cleared the land, who tapped its mineral riches and who fought with words and swords to keep it independent.
These ancestors deserve honour, as do the men of today who are striving to make Canada a happy place for people who come from less favoured lands.
Tomorrow is a day on which the Canadian ensign should be flown proudly and bravely. It is a good flag; it has served the nation well and the people of Canada have served it well.
The next paragraph is out of context, but I shall read it as it is:
On the eve of Dominion day the Prime Minister has shown signs he will not press in parliament for the rejection of our national emblem-at least not before the summer recess. It is a wise decision.
I checked on this article with the editor of the Toronto Telegram and he said, "Yes, it is wrong. That paragraph is out of place now, but it was written by an editor who contacted the Prime Minister on his way from a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, the day before July 1, and he was given to believe that this resolution would not be put before the house before the summer recess."


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think we are supposed to be discussing the amendment concerning a referendum on the flag issue, but since this morning every speaker in the house has spoken about everything else but the referendum. I think the Chair should now make a ruling stipulating that the subject of debate is on the question of whether we should have a referendum or plebiscite, or not.


Mr. Winch:: Your colleague was the worst offender in the house.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. The Chair has already ruled on this question three or four days ago, and members will be permitted to speak on the main motion as well as on the amendment.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal your decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I think the hon. member has no right to appeal

a decision which was made three or four days ago.
,[Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I think that under the rules we are allowed to appeal a ruling when we feel that it was improperly made. That is precisely what we are witnessing today; the discussion is on everything but what we should be discussing.
Therefore, we appeal your ruling; in my opinion, the matter to be discussed is that of a plebiscite or referendum, nothing else. I appeal your ruling on that matter.
I Text]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I should point out to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that the Chair at the moment is not making any ruling but only reciting a ruling made three or four days ago. If there was any objection then on the part of the hon. member to that ruling, the objection should have been taken at that time. I feel the hon. member is not quite in order in appealing a rule which is now some days old.


Gilles Grégoire: I appeal the ruling. Mr. Speaker, I appeal that ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: What decision is the hon. member for Lapointe appealing?


Gilles Grégoire: With regard to the ruling made three or four days ago and to the one you made today, namely that we can discuss any subject, I understand that the rules are strict but that as long as nobody appealed that decision, there was no problem. Today we appeal that ruling because the rules have been broken, since they require that we discuss the amendment and nothing else. The rules require that we talk about the subject matter indicated in the amendment, namely a referendum or a plebiscite. Since members talk about all kinds of subjects, are allowed to go from one subject to another, which is against the rules, I appeal your ruling.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should point out to the hon. member for Lapointe that the greatest authority for rules in this chamber is the rules which are made by this chamber itself. A few days ago when this question was brought up there was a ruling from the Chair, a ruling to which the house
Canadian Flag
gave its consent and agreement, a ruling that in the debate on the amendment a debate would be considered also on the main motion.
The Chair, at the moment, is not making a ruling. The Chair at the moment is only reciting a ruling made a few days ago, to which the house at that time agreed. I would again suggest to the hon. member that at this particular time he could not appeal a ruling which has not been made at this time. The Chair at this moment is making no ruling but is reciting a ruling which the house accepted a few days ago. I do feel that the hon. member is quite out of order.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal against two things. First of all, I appeal against the ruling made by the Chair four or five days ago, as you said. But, at that time, the house was unable to express its views, because it was not called upon to vote on the matter. Second, I appeal against your ruling to prevent me from appealing today.
I think, therefore, that the house should be asked to come to a decision on the matter, namely whether all kinds of subjects will be dealt with so that this debate will drag on interminably, or whether it will be restricted to the subject of the amendment. I call for a vote on this question. I want the house to come to a decision on the matter, because otherwise the debate will last indefinitely, perhaps two months.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should point out again to the hon. member for Lapointe that he is now asking the house to declare itself on a ruling that has already been declared upon.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: When the ruling was made by the Speaker a few days ago no objection was taken to it by the house, and since no objection was taken to it I would consider that there had been concurrence and that the house had agreed that the debate which is now taking place would consist of any references which might necessarily be made to the main motion and also to the amendment itself.
That ruling was made a few days ago, and I feel the hon. member has no right today to appeal a decision made by the Speaker and accepted by the house a few days ago. [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, we do not accept the ruling made three or four days ago,

Canadian Flag
and in the light of what is happening today, we find that everybody is talking about everything and that is why, as standing orders permit such an appeal, we are appealing against the ruling, which you are in the process of making, and even if that ruling is to the effect that there can be no appeal.
tText]


Mr. Byrne:: Mr. Speaker, I submit that there is no matter for decision at this time except for you to rule that the hon. member has no point of order. There is no point of order at this time and therefore there can be no appeal.


Gilles Grégoire: Does Your Honour rule that I have no point of order?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I am
stating to the hon. member for Lapointe that it is not for me to make a ruling on a matter which the house has already accepted. A few days ago the house accepted that the debate which is now taking place would consist of references to the main motion as well as to the amendment. That decision having been taken by the house I therefore declare the hon. member for Lapointe out of order, and I recognize the hon. member for Wellington South.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I appeal against Your Honour's ruling, namely that my objection is out of order.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for your ruling. I would simply like-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. You stated that my objection was out of order. I appeal your ruling on that point, because I maintain that my request was in order, since the previous speaker has not talked about the question relevant to this debate. Therefore I appeal your decision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must point out to the hon. member for Lapointe again that he cannot appeal a ruling which has not been made. I have made no ruling at this particular time. All I have done is quote to him the decision of the house of a few days ago, and since I am making no new ruling therefore there is nothing for the hon. member to appeal.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, you have just ruled me out of order and I maintain that

I am in order in asking you to restrain hon. members to the specific subject, and on that point I appeal your decision. I think you made a ruling a few moments ago and I appeal your decision.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate your ruling, and I would like to say-


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There is an appeal against your ruling. I do not think another member is entitled to take the floor on the question we were dealing with previously, as long as that problem has not been dealt with by the house. That is why I ask for a vote on this.


Stanley Howard Knowles: On the point of order that the hon. member for Lapointe is raising, is it not a fact that the very point he is trying to raise has already been raised during the course of this same debate with respect to this very same amendment. Was a ruling not made some days ago-maybe some weeks ago-based on citation 201 of Beauchesne's fourth edition, that when an amendment has been moved the debate is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the main motion? If any appeal was to be made, that appeal should have been made three or four days, or two or three weeks ago, when that ruling was given. No appeal was made at that time, and it seems to me we are still operating under the ruling given by the Chair when this matter was raised some time ago.


Alfred Dryden Hales: If I may proceed, Mr. Speaker- [Translation]


Gilles Grégoire: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I feel the point brought up by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is very well taken. However, circumstances having changed, a member has the right to ask the Speaker for a new ruling.
Circumstances have changed in this way: first, the debate has been interrupted since that time; second, a new atmosphere prevails in this house. Although there is a standing order which says that you cannot make repetitions of the same subjects during the same debate, many repetitions have been made during this one.
Considering the change in the atmosphere, new attitude, the repetitions and interruptions, I rise again to ask for a ruling which would compel hon. members to restrict their

remarks to the subject under consideration, that is the amendment of the Leader of the Opposition calling for a referendum.
Now, you have ruled that my point of order is ill-founded. Consequently, I appeal from your ruling and request that the matter be put to a vote. You cannot prevent us from asking for such a vote because, if you do, you will be denying us the right to express our opinion on that issue.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. I must again point out to the hon. member that the soundest rules and regulations which this house can follow are the rules and regulations made by the house itself. Earlier in this debate it was decided by the house-


Gilles Grégoire: By the Chair.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: -it was
decided by the Chair, and accepted by the house, that the debate would include comments on the main motion as well as comments on the amendment. This was accepted by the house at the time. No objection was raised.


Gilles Grégoire: We raise objection now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I take the view that the objection now raised by the hon. member is out of order. I declare that the hon. member is out of order, and I recognize the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales).


Gilles Grégoire: You have made a ruling now, Mr. Speaker, and I appeal the ruling you have just made.


Mr. Baldwin:: There is no appeal.


Horace Andrew (Bud) Olson: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, or the alleged point of order the hon. member for Lapointe is trying to raise, first of all citation 201 of Beauchesne, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has pointed out, is very clear. I think it was on the basis of this citation that the Speaker made a ruling a few days ago, and the house concurred in or agreed with the ruling that was made. This citation says, very simply, in the last part:
In that case the debate that follows-
This is after an amendment has been moved:
-is not restricted to the amendment, but includes the motives of the amendment and of the motion, both matters being under the consideration of the house as alternative propositions.
In addition to that, even confining one's remarks to the rule of relevancy in speaking
Canadian Flag
to the amendment that has been moved, which asks that there be a referendum or a plebiscite to determine the question upon which the motion before us is based, surely the hon. member has the right to present arguments over the whole field of whether or not it is desirable to have a referendum on the flag issue. I have not heard the hon. member say anything that would not lead me to believe he was presenting an argument on the flag issue and that perhaps it ought to be referred to the Canadian people. Therefore the hon. member for Lapointe is not only out of order in trying to appeal a decision that was made several days ago by the Speaker of this house, but in addition to that he is out of order in questioning the relevancy of the remarks that have been made by the hon. member who had the floor.


Eric Alfred Winkler: That is not unusual.


Gerald William Baldwin: Mr. Speaker, I want to deal directly with the appeal the hon. member for Lapointe has attempted to make. Having been properly instructed that there can be no appeal from a decision made by the Chair, a decision which the house has in fact accepted-because when there is no appeal the decision of the Chair becomes the decision of the house and has been acted upon by the house, and the speeches of hon. members since that time have ranged far and wide over the whole resolution and this has become an order of the house-the hon. member now attempts, as I understand it, by a subterfuge to do indirectly what he is prohibited from doing directly. There was an order of the Chair some time ago in this connection and, Your Honour having ruled that the hon. member is out of order in raising objection to that ruling, the hon. member now says Your Honour has created a peg upon which he can hang a further appeal.
My position, very simply, in this regard is that the hon. member is just attempting to do indirectly what he cannot do directly; he is attempting to obtain an opinion from the house by dividing the house on the main issue, because in effect it goes back to the root of the question as to whether or not the decision made by the Chair initially was the right decision. I submit that his last point of order, which Your Honour held was not a point of order, is no more appealable than is the original decision of the Chair given several days ago.


Reynold Rapp: And he has no right to speak.


Gilles Grégoire: Then, Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding standing order

Canadian Flag
34, paragraph 2, which reads as follows, in French:

(2) Mr. Speaker or the chairman, after having called the attention of the house, or of the committee, to the conduct of a member who persists in irrelevance, or repetition, may direct him to discontinue his speech.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I maintain that the hon. member who had the floor keeps on repeating things that have already been said. Therefore I ask that you enjoin him to stop talking.


Raymond Langlois: Mr. Speaker, if I may add my comments to this point of order; at page 107 of Beauchesne, with reference to standing order 34, it is said:
Any member addressing the house, if called to order either by Mr. Speaker or on a point raised by another member, shall sit down while the point is being stated, after which he may explain. Mr. Speaker may permit debate on the point of order before giving his decision, but such debate must be strictly relevant to the point of order taken.
I think that is the point the hon. member for Lapointe is raising at the moment; he is giving his specific argument on the point of order.


Mr. Nasserden:: Mr. Speaker, on the point of order, I believe the question raised by the hon. member for Lapointe is out of order for two reasons: First, if what he has proposed were followed, it would provide an inequity among members of the house, because a different rule would apply to those who have already spoken and those who have still to speak in this debate. The final remarks the hon. member made a few minutes ago amount to closure. I refer to the hon. member's words to the effect that a member should be instructed to take his seat and desist from debate.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Mr. Speaker, with regard to standing order 34, paragraph 2, to which the hon. member for Lapointe drew the attention of the house, I would say this. The hon. member speaks about irrelevance, which point has already been dealt with by the earlier ruling. With regard to the word "repetition", the experience I have had here indicates that this applies when a member is repeating himself. On that basis-


Gilles Grégoire: No, it is not that.


Gordon Minto Churchill: -it would be repetition were he to repeat his own argument over and over again.


Gilles Grégoire: No.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Then a decision might be reached in that regard. I do not think the hon. member for Lapointe is on very sound grounds for his argument this afternoon, and I trust that the argument he puts forward will be rejected.


Mr.   Bailen@Acting Speaker: The hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales).


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, may we have
your ruling on standing order 34?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: I should point out again to the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) that the decision of the house given a few days ago was that the debate on the flag resolution would include comments on the main motion as well as any comments which may be made on the amendment itself. At that time a ruling was made by the Chair and the house concurred. At the moment the Chair is not making any ruling but is reciting the ruling made a few days ago at a time when there was no objection taken.
I take the view that there is no ruling being made now and therefore there is no ruling to appeal. If the hon. member for Lapointe disagrees with the ruling which was made a few days ago, that was the time he should have made his appeal; but I feel he is now out of order in appealing the decision which was made a number of days ago. I still feel the hon. member is out of order and I would suggest to him that perhaps this argument has gone far enough and that we might well recognize the hon. member for Wellington South.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Mr. Speaker, thank you for the clarification and I can assure you that my remarks will be kept within the bounds of the main motion and the amendment, as decided by the Chair and by this house a few days ago. I would simply like to say that the hon. member for Lapointe (Mr. Gregoire) is the last one in this house who should start raising points about wandering beyond the resolution or the subject under debate, repetition and so on, because we all know whereof he stands in this connection.


Gilles Grégoire: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
After the disagreeable remarks of the hon. member for I do not know what riding, I must say that his repetitions will get us nowhere, while mine may lead to something or to an

understanding of certain problems which exist and which have not been understood so far.


Alfred Dryden Hales: Well, Mr. Speaker, those remarks do not concern me because I am the member for Wellington South.
I should like to refer to an editorial in the Toronto Telegram, a paragraph which says this:
On the eve of Dominion day our Prime Minister has shown signs that he will not press in parliament for the rejection of our national emblem-at least not before the summer recess.
It is a wise decision.
That was written by an editor who had been speaking with the Prime Minister, I understand, on the way from a cabinet meeting on Tuesday morning, June 30. That same night shortly after 8 p.m. the Prime Minister rose in his place and said this, as reported at page 4907 of Hansard:
In any event, when the matters I have mentioned are dealt with, we shall return to the flag resolutions and the debate on those resolutions would be continued until a decision is reached on them.
So, Mr. Speaker, in the interval between that Tuesday morning and that same evening the Prime Minister reverses his decision, to the point where editorial writers cannot keep up with his change of mind.
As I was saying before, the past year has been a year in which members of this house and the fortunate citizens of this country of Canada have wondered whether this country could find the unity to endure, or would it fall into separate parts only to be gobbled up by the great republic to the south? We have spent a year searching our national soul, and it is time to cement our ties with confederation. Amputation is not the answer; the several parts could certainly not survive. It is time to search for answers which will keep the family together, however quarrelsome-all families quarrel at some time or other. But instead of promoting national unity the Prime Minister continues to press the issue for a distinctive Canadian flag.
Mackenzie King in his wisdom knew better than to promote the idea of a distinctive Canadian flag. He did, however, proclaim the Canadian red ensign as the official flag to be flown from all federal buildings either within or without Canada. Our soldiers fought under it and died under it; and at the risk of it being said that I am repetitious I should like to refer to the words of the distinguished commander, General Crerar, of the first Canadian army when he returned to Ottawa at the
Canadian Flag
close of the second world war and was graciously honoured by then prime minister Mackenzie King. When riding with Mackenzie King on the western driveway from the main entrance of these buildings, the following is reported to have occurred: "Pointing to the red ensign on the flagpole of this building Mackenzie King turned to him and said: 'And that, general, is another problem which your Canadian army has solved for Canada-the matter of our national flag' ".
Generally speaking, Canadians have appeared to be very happy to go along with the Canadian red ensign. But no, the Prime Minister, for political expediency and to fulfil a political promise, has pressed the issue of a national flag. I ask, Mr. Speaker, who is it who has pressed for this new flag? The people in my riding seem to be quite content with the red ensign, and I should like to put on record a few quotations which would substantiate just what I have said. The members of the council of the county of Wellington passed a resolution. I have received a letter which reads as follows:
At their recent session, the council of the corporation of the county of Wellington passed a resolution recommending the adoption of the Canadian red ensign as the national flag of the Dominion of Canada.
This resolution was circulated to all the county councils in Ontario and I am told that over 50 per cent of them endorsed the resolution and showed their approval.
I think it might be worth while putting on record one or two observations made by constituents of mine, residents of the city of Guelph. An inquiring reporter of the Guelph Mercury took a tour of the main streets of the city and asked several people what they thought of the new flag, its design and its colours, and I should like to read a few of the replies. I will not mention the constituents by name although their names are given in this report. The first one said:
"War ravished countries would put something like this out when they are trying to save paint"... She felt the new flag was very conservative and that because the English element is our strongpoint, the British flag should be kept flying.
Another said:
"If Canada should have a new flag...it should at least have a definite Canadian identification and not maple leaves. Maple trees grow, among other places, both in Missouri and Yugoslavia. Moreover, why should the leaves be red? And they are of poor design".
A local medical doctor replied that he definitely did not like the new flag. The report continues:

Canadian Flag
He said from a heraldic angle it is incorrect. The blue bars should be horizontal and not vertical. He said that the unity that Canadians look for will not be achieved by producing a flag of this type.
"Ethnic groups coming to Canada were happy to accept Canada as they found her. There was no arrangement whereby they understood the flag would be changed. This act of expediency will not, in my opinion, lead to greater unity. If, at a later date, Quebec becomes independent, Canada will have gained nothing from this act, but will be left with a flag depicting three wilting maple leaves and a white surrender background."
As a Canadian citizen he acknowledged the need for a new flag but thought the decision had materialized too rapidly to take into consideration the feelings of the people.
I could read many more, but I think that will be enough. They are opinions from an average city in the province of Ontario where one third of the population of Canada resides. The Prime Minister claims he has pressed the issue of a new flag at this time in order to promote national unity. To me this seems nothing more than a big joke. He has succeeded only in creating disunity.
Here is another clipping. It is taken from the Guelph Mercury of June 8 and the heading reads: "Get Yer Program Here!" This is how it reads:
The great flag flap at a glance:
a.	Press says P.M. has decided on flag with three red maple leaves on white, with blue bars at either side.
b.	Government hasn't decided on any design: P.M.
a.	There'll be a free vote, with party wraps off: P.M.
b.	If "free" vote is against design, government will quit: P.M.
a.	Flag to have three red maple leaves on white, with blue bands, P.M. announces.
b.	Will also keep union jack.
a.	Government to stand or fall on flag vote.
b.	Government doesn't want election; P.C. filibuster could bring it on.
a.	The flag debate has priority.
b.	Other business comes first.
That describes the type of muddle in which we find ourselves at the present time. I cannot help accusing this government and the Prime Minister of partisan propaganda of the worst sort. He is attempting to use his power and the prestige of his office as Prime Minister to supplant an authorized national flag with a design which has neither the full support of his own party nor of the House of Commons and the people of Canada as a whole. By his arbitrary action, Mr. Speaker, I submit that the Prime Minister of this country is setting faction against faction,
[Mr. Hales.1
party against party and, I am fearful, region against region. This is the unhappy state to which the Prime Minister has reduced us and the people of Canada.
There has never been a prime minister since confederation who has caused so much strife, bitterness, disunity and confusion. I for one, and I am sure every member of this house must share this view and resent the Prime Minister's tactics in holding a club over the heads of members by saying: "No holiday or recess until you have passed my flag resolution; accept my new flag design or there will be an election". The right hon. gentleman must know that the people of Canada do not want an election at this time after two elections in a little more than three years. No one wants an election at this particular time. But this is the situation which confronts us. In these circumstances he proceeds to ram this new flag down the throats of Canadians. I should like to read in this connection an article which appeared in the Guelph Mercury. It says, referring to the Prime Minister:
He seems bent on bulldozing a new flag through the Commons in a frame of truculence worthy of C.D. Howe during the pipe line debate in 1956. Mr. Diefenbaker is not just playing politics when he warns that the flag question may add to national disunity rather than exert the unifying force Mr. Pearson told the Canadian Legion it would bring.
This is the way in which this once great diplomat and statesman has handled such a delicate question. Is this the way democracy should function? The dictatorial manner of handling this flag issue will long be remembered by the people of Canada. The Liberal government muzzled this parliament at the time of the pipe line debate but I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that the people of Canada are not going to be muzzled on this flag issue. The Prime Minister even took it into his own hands to fly his flag out on the front lawn on parliament hill. Four weeks ago, to the day, I rose in my place to propose a course of action under standing order No. 26. To adjourn this house so as to consider a matter of urgent national importance-not to debate the flag issue, because that was to be debated the following Monday, but to debate a question of principle, namely whether the No. 1 Canadian citizen, the Prime Minister of this country, should ignore, circumvent and sidestep a piece of legislation, a law, an order in council which was passed on September 5, 1945 and which definitely states that no flag should be flown from

government property or on occasions or places until such time as the house should approve a new flag.
What did the Prime Minister do? Not only did he fly the flag between five o'clock and eight o'clock but at the request of some hon. members on my left he flew it from one o'clock to two o'clock in order that they might see it before catching the four o'clock train home. Why did the Prime Minister take the unprecedented action of flying his design in this way on parliament hill before the flag design had received approval from this house or from the Senate, let alone from the people of Canada? In my view his action in this regard was both arrogant and unlawful.
What about the clever manoeuver of printing a postage stamp with a replica of the new flag design on it weeks before that flag was introduced into this house? It was a clever manoeuver on the part of the government; a means by which this emblem was circulated throughout Canada. They flew a kite, and what a kite it was. What about the press party at 24 Sussex street where flag designs were shown to those present before they were shown to members of this house? Is this the way to select a flag to present to the people of Canada? I should like to read in this connection from the Toronto Star of May 20:
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 mantelpiece 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 clear that the flag on the mantel was his personal choice.
Is this the way to introduce a new flag into Canada? We are being asked to vote for the Pearson flag, a Liberal flag, a political design? Yes, political, because it was used in the last two by-elections as part of the Liberal propaganda. This is no way to introduce a new flag. How much more sensible and more democratic it would have been to have set up a non-partisan committee of this house charged with the responsibility of submitting to parliament a design for a new national flag, not one introduced by a political party but one chosen by parliament.
What do we have? We have a flag which appears to have been proposed by the government in the same light hearted manner as the original Canadian pension plan was conceived, in the absence of careful thought
Canadian Flag
or the expert advice which is available to any government. Yes, if ever a serious matter was badly handled, this is it. It is thrust upon us. We are being put under pressure. We are told to accept it or else. We are pushed back into the corner with our hands tied behind our backs and unable to fight. I ask hon. members, is this the fair and democratic way? We are being railroaded into acceptance solely for the purpose of political aggrandizement.
What is the best way out of this Pearson muddle? That is the question we have to ask ourselves. What is the best way out of this muddle? I wish the Prime Minister were in his seat so that I could speak to him as person to person. I beg him, in the name of all that is good, for the sake of unity and to save this country from being split right down the middle, to withdraw this resolution and let the house proceed with important legislation. If he does not wish to do this, then I ask him and his supporters to follow the suggestion outlined in the amendment to the motion. I do not think it would do any harm to read the amendment once again. It is in these words:
As the proposal to change Canada's national flag will affect the unity and destiny of Canada now and for years to come, the government be authorized to take such steps as may be necessary to conduct a plebiscite prior to any other action being taken by the House of Commons, in order that all Canadians may be given their rightful opportunity to declare their choice concerning a national flag.
That is the amendment before the house. I realize that there are arguments for and against holding a plebiscite. The other day the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) gave some excellent reasons in favour of a plebiscite. He has done a lot of research on this matter and he presented good reasons why a plebiscite should be held in the case of an emotional issue of this nature. Plebiscites are often held at the municipal level in many communities when emotional issues are involved. The people of these communities appreciate the right to express their opinions through a plebiscite. I am quite sure they do not claim that the elected members of these municipal councils are derelict in their duty when they decide to hold a plebiscite. There are many examples of plebiscites on the municipal level.
I realize that as elected members of the house we are expected to vote not only as members for the ridings we represent but as members representing the whole of Canada.

Canadian Flag


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Alfred Dryden Hales: We all seem to be in agreement on this. The point is that we are here to vote as representatives of our own ridings and also as representatives of the whole of Canada. So far as the issue of a new flag is concerned and the viewpoint of my riding, I am prepared to vote against the new flag and support the Canadian red ensign. My decision was reached by consultation with many constituents. Out of every 100 letters I have received, 90 were in favour of retaining the red ensign and 10 in favour of a new flag but not necessarily the flag submitted by the government. The newspaper poll in my riding showed 66 per cent in favour of the Canadian red ensign. My other reasons, of course, involve my own personal choice or decision on the matter.
I think it should be of interest to the house to realize what the outcome was of a poll taken by 29 newspapers across Canada. Only two newspapers recorded a majority in support of a new distinctive flag. As of June
5	last these were the results. On the prairies
6	newspapers took part, gathering 9,968 votes, with 65 per cent supporting the red ensign. In Ontario and Quebec 14 newspapers participated, with a total of 53,424 votes recorded, 52 per cent being in favour of the red ensign. In the maritimes 5 newspapers took part with 1,466 votes being cast and 69.09 per cent being in favour of the red ensign. That was the picture across Canada on June 5.
Yesterday the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) spoke in this debate and she brought up the question of voting according to the wishes of the constituency she represents. She gave us the impression that she had spoken to a good many people in her riding and that the maple leaf flag appeared to be the choice there. I did not believe that could be the case in that riding. I thought it rather strange and I made it my business to find out from the riding.
The Cobourg Sentinel-Star, the largest newspaper in Northumberland county, conducted a poll of its readers and published the results on May 27. The poll showed 24 in favour of the Canadian red ensign, 6 opposed to the red ensign and 5 undecided. In the opinion of Mr. Foster Russell, the publisher and editor of this journal, public opinion in Northumberland county is 65 to 70 per cent in favour of the red ensign. Yet the hon. lady said she felt the people there were in favour of the maple leaf flag. I think this is one of the greatest arguments there

can be that a referendum or plebiscite should be held in view of such a divergence of opinion. I was surprised when she said in her speech yesterday, as found on page 4949 of Hansard:
-I think we, as members of parliament, should look at this whole question regardless of our personal feelings in the matter, regardless even of what we think the majority of our constituents want.
I cannot imagine a member of parliament rising in his place and not voting the way the majority of his constituents want him to vote. I could perhaps understand the point if the design had been submitted by a committee but I think a different light is thrown on the matter altogether when the design has been approved and submitted by a political party. However, I give the hon. lady credit for rising in her place and speaking in this debate. I should like to hear from other members across the way. Could we not hear from the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Honey), the hon. member for Brantford (Mr. Brown), the hon. member for Renfrew South (Mr. Greene)? I see he is with us today. I know he has many other irons in the fire these days but maybe he will find the time to speak in the flag debate. What about the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Francis)? I see him in his place. We are both members of the public accounts committee and are good friends, I should like to hear him speak in the flag debate. Then there is the member for my neighbouring riding of Wentworth and my other neighbour, the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Harley). What about the hon. member for Hastings South (Mr. Temple)? I should like these gentlemen to rise and speak in this debate.
Have we heard from any of the front bench members on the other side? Have any of the cabinet ministers spoken in this debate? Why have they not risen in their places and given us their views? They should tell us now why they want this resolution and why they are supporting it. Let them rise in their places. I should like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Gordon), the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Hellyer), the Minister of Northern Affairs and National Resources (Mr. Laing) and the Postmaster General (Mr. Nicholson) to rise and tell us their views. We should like to hear from them.
I would say, Mr. Speaker, that there are rumours going around Canada, rumours that do not do any good whatever. They are rumours that should be hushed. We hear rumours to the effect the flag is being pushed

as a result of pressure from Quebec. These are things we hear. Is it to win votes in Quebec? We want to get answers to these questions. This loose talk is very harmful to Canada. It would be much better if these men would rise in their places now and set these rumours at rest.
However, I give the hon. lady full credit for rising in her place and speaking on this subject. I am at a loss to know why she would not be in favour of a plebiscite in view of the great conflict of opinion in her own riding. I dare say if some of these other members spoke and voted according to the opinion of their constituents they would have to vote, not with their party but with us.


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


Alfred Dryden Hales: Yes.


John Maxwell Roxburgh: What about the hon. member for Three Rivers (Mr. Balcer), the hon. member for Joliette-L'Assomption-Montcalm (Mr. Pigeon), and some of these people?


Alfred Dryden Hales: They will have their turn, and no doubt they will take their turn. I think the hon. member for Norfolk (Mr. Roxburgh) might express his views as well. We agree on some things, but there are times when I do not agree with him. I do not agree with the great paradox we find when he is urging people to grow tobacco and his minister is spending money telling people not to use it.
I must proceed or my time will be exhausted. Mr. Abbott-and this might be repetitious-when he spoke in this house on the matter of holding a plebiscite on conscription in 1942, a very honourable member of the Liberal party, had this to say:
It seems to me no useful purpose is going to be served by an interminable debate in this house or outside it as to the desirability or otherwise of this plebiscite. We are going to have it-
He talks like a real Liberal.
-and in spite of what some people may say it is a thoroughly democratic procedure. I spoke a moment ago about responsibility and I suggest that the people of the country as a whole now have an opportunity to assume their responsiblity, to turn out and vote and show each other and the rest of the world, if you will, that democracy can be made to work even in wartime.
They took a plebiscite in wartime, so surely we can take time in peacetime to let the people speak. There is no excuse in that regard. We cannot ignore the many minority groups that have such strong views on this new flag for Canada. What right has a minority government, and I remind you a
Canadian Flag
minority government is what you are, to railroad this flag through this house, ignoring the rights of those who feel very deeply on this matter? If this flag is pushed through now without hearing from them the rift will grow greater and greater.
It would be very simple and inexpensive to hold a plebiscite. It could be held at the time of the next federal election at little expense. You would simply walk in to vote, be given a ballot with the names of the candidates on it and you would be given another slip of paper with three or four flag designs in colour and you would simply mark an X opposite the one you preferred. I believe the method adopted in the province of Alberta, which is referred to as the transferable vote, could be adopted whereby you mark your choices first, second and third. There would be no problem in that regard. I know each Canadian would say, "I will be loyal to the flag which the majority of Canadians choose."
In conclusion, I review briefly what I have said. I suggest to the Prime Minister that if he is bound to bring in a new flag he should start over again with a clean sheet. He should set up a non-partisan committee to represent Canada and introduce a new design for parliamentary approval, not a government design. If he does not want to do that, he should withdraw the resolution that is before the house now. This is the last day of debate, at the moment. He should allow the members to reassess the whole issue during a summer recess. Let us go home to our constituencies; let us think about this very serious matter. Let it simmer a bit and then come back and decide where we go from there.
If these courses are not possible, then give the people of Canada an opportunity to express their views by means of a plebiscite. Surely out of these three suggestions the Prime Minister will find one that is acceptable, because he must understand the great damage that is being done to the country at this time. I hope he will choose the easiest course, and that is to pull this resolution off the order paper until next fall. Failing all this, surely a compromise is possible. A compromise can save this nation. A compromise is worth while. Let us do all we can to seek a compromise. I agree that the Canadian red ensign as it stands might not be entirely acceptable to everybody in Canada. I fully realize this. I think it is acceptable to the majority, but I may be wrong.

Canadian Flag
Surely the two great founding races of Canada can sit down and draft a flag design that will be acceptable to both. Each group will have to give up a little, this is certain. Each of these two great races is going to have to give and take a little in order to save this great nation. Surely a compromise can be reached in some way. In conclusion, I beg the Prime Minister and his government not to press the present design of a distinctive Canadian flag upon this house and the people of Canada.


Mr. Barry Mather (New Westminster):: should like to say a few words in support of the amendment which is before us and for the conducting of a referendum or plebiscite on this flag issue. At the outset, sir, I would like to say that unlike most of those who have spoken to date in favour of the referendum and in support of the red ensign, I personally am not of that number. I support the proposed maple leaf design. I hope to vote for that maple leaf flag design in a plebiscite in which other Canadians who oppose it may express their democratic right.
I am supporting this amendment and I intend to vote for it, if and when it comes to a vote. I hope that will be soon so that we can get on with the plebiscite and have this decision made. I should like to commend the Prime Minister of this country upon the introduction of this maple leaf flag design. I think he has done well. However, I do not agree with his methods in trying to establish it as the flag of Canada.
I do not think that he or his government, or this parliament, has any mandate from the people of Canada to change the flag. So far as I know the nation is still uncommitted on that very important question. Therefore I feel that the amendment calling for a poll of the people on the flag is the very essence of democracy, and I support it.
I do not intend to spend much time in advancing my arguments in favour of the maple leaf design. I will simply say that I think Canada should have a flag which, when flown abroad, is distinguishable from all other countries' flags and which, when flown at home, will be an emblem which in time will function towards unifying the national community so that we can make Canada take a larger and better place in world affairs.
I should like to say a few words specifically in relation to the proposal for a plebiscite. In that regard I propose to discuss some of the arguments which have been advanced thus far against holding a plebiscite. One of these arguments is that it is not in the Cana-

dian or British tradition for us to take a plebiscite or referendum on such a question. Well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number of things in this country which were traditional in the past and which we have changed. There was the tradition held until not so many years ago that women should not have a vote. This is one tradition we got away from and it is good that we broke with it.
I do not put any particular weight on tradition for tradition's sake. A tradition should be studied to see what merit it has. If it is a good tradition, if it is realistic in the light of modern circumstances, then I believe we should retain it. If it is not then, like the traditions we have changed in the past, we should modify or do away with it. Therefore, I do not put any great faith or force in the argument of those opposed to having a plebiscite on the flag on the basis that it is not a British or Canadian tradition.
Another argument against the holding of a referendum on the flag is advanced, namely that it would serve to create acrimony from one end of the country to the other. No doubt there are strong feelings in the country, as there are in this house, on the matter of the flag. There are bound to be, but I personally have more faith in the Canadian people and in their common sense than to go along with those who argue that we cannot afford to put this matter up to the people. I think we can well afford to do that, and in the long run there will be no hard feelings such as will be created if we 265 members in this house take it upon ourselves to decide the opinions of 19 million people.
I think we should go ahead and let the people of Canada have a poll on this very basic general question of the flag, which is not a matter of business, or economics, or anything we can put down in black and white and argue in a mathematical fashion. Whatever kind of flag we favour, we should agree that a flag is a matter of spiritual emotion to all of us, that it is something on which everybody in Canada has the right to express his or her opinion, and I hope they are given that privilege.
It is said, Mr. Speaker, that the holding of a plebiscite is something that is very rarely done, that it is a difficult matter, and that it has many troublesome factors involved in it. More particularly it is said it is not usually done in British commonwealth countries. In this connection I would like to quote from the "Encyclopedia of Parliament", by Wilding, at page 486, in regard to referendums:
The machinery of the referendum has been used in a number of commonwealth countries-but not

In the United Kingdom-to obtain for the government a direct decision from the electorate on a specific subject involving legislation, and parliamentary voters are entitled to express their opinion by voting for or against the government's proposition. The referendum has been used in Canada and New Zealand on the question of prohibition, and in Australia to introduce amendments to the constitution. A referendum was also held in Southern Rhodesia in 1953 which decided that the colony would form a federation with Northern Rhodesia and Nyasaland.
From that we can see it is not an unusual thing in British commonwealth procedure to take a matter such as a flag or other major problem to the people and let them decide it themselves.
The idea of the plebiscite or referendum, or polling of the people, comes down to us from very ancient times. There is an old, old saying that goes something like this, "On minor matters the few decide; on great affairs the many." I think we should keep that in mind, that over many centuries many great problems, such as a flag issue, have been settled by putting the question directly to the people directly affected.
There is nothing difficult or particularly onerous about holding a plebiscite. I have in mind the instructions for the holding of a referendum prepared by the returning referendum official in 1942, explaining in detail how a plebiscite should be conducted, where, and who should be employed. It has been done, and can be done again.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote very briefly from a British statesman of some note, the late Sir Austen Chamberlain, giving his opinion on the virtues of referen-dums and plebiscites. He said:
I have often wondered that we have never adopted the principle of the referendum as practised in Switzerland, and also in many parts of the United States of America. It is the only way in which the decision of great national questions can be separated from all the complicated issues of party government. At a general election the voter is influenced partly by his desire to see his own party in office, and partly by his views on a number of special questions, many of them purely local or even personal.
If, in the case of a new policy, not necessarily political, it were possible to eliminate all side issues, we might have a national verdict which all sections would accept, and which would be given without reference to the perennial struggle between the "Outs" and the "Ins" which is at present the chief occupation of political life.
I think those words are very appropriate at this time and I am very happy to have the opportunity of putting them on record in support of my arguments favouring the holding of a national referendum.
In conclusion, I hope this amendment will pass and that a plebiscite will be taken. If
Canadian Flag
this is not done, then I may say I, and some other members, are conducting plebiscites in our constituencies by mailing ballots to our constituents asking whether they favour the red ensign or the maple leaf. I have received some three to four thousand replies, and much to my regret the people voting to date are showing a preference for the red ensign on a ratio of about three to two.
My views on this amendment are not those of the majority of my party, but I hasten to add that we in the New Democratic party shall have a free vote in the house on this flag issue. I would like to see that free vote extended to all members in the house and to all people in Canada.


Mr. M. L. Klein (Cartier):: Mr. Speaker, much has been said in this house in connection with this debate and there is not too much I would want to add, except to add to some of the statements that were made by the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz).
I too represent a constituency that is comprised of representatives of almost every ethnic group in this country. They are vitally interested in the issues which we choose to term the flag debate. The ethnic groups favour a distinctive Canadian flag with symbols, or a symbol which will bring national unity to Canada; because they have lived through the ravages of nationalism. The ethnic groups that came to Canada ran away from nationalism, and they are saying that Canada needs a nationality and not sectional nationalisms. In short, they hope that the founding races will find themselves.
The present resolution has been termed, perhaps, "Pearson's pennant" and it has been stated-as has just been stated by the hon. member for Wellington South (Mr. Hales)- that Pearson is trying to ram his flag down the throat of parliament and the Canadian people. The hon. member says that we have no right to do this, because we are a minority government. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a minority government cannot railroad anything, because a minority government requires the support of members on the other side of this house in order to pass a resolution of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Milton L. Klein: And I have no doubt that even members of the same party as the hon. member for Wellington South will be voting in favour of this resolution.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: You haven't got a mandate.

Canadian Flag


Milton L. Klein: If we were to give this resolution a subtitle, in my view we would not call it "Pearson's pennant" but rather "Pearson's penchant for peace".


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Come out our way.


Milton L. Klein: The hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz) stated that the ethnic groups respect the red ensign-and this is true. I must say that I was impressed by the colourful display we had on parliament hill with the red ensign. But we must in my view face the facts of life; and the facts of life are these, that in addition to the ethnic groups there are thousands of people in this country, perhaps millions, to whom the symbols of the red ensign represent defeat and humiliation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh.


Milton L. Klein: I am not saying they are right, and I am not saying they are wrong; I am not taking issue with them. But the fact remains that there are thousands, or millions, of people in this country who consider that the symbols of the red ensign represent to them defeat, humiliation and domination.


Mr. Lamberi:: What does Mr. St. Laurent say in that regard?


Milton L. Klein: If they say that the symbols of the red ensign have certain connotations at one end of this country, and other connotations at other ends of the country; that in other sections of Canada the connotations are victory and domination-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: No.


Milton L. Klein: These are the facts of life. Some members have said that this resolution is appeasement to Quebec. May I point out one thing in this connection, namely that no member from Quebec, nor any editorial in any newspaper in Quebec, has set forth that it would like included in the new distinctive flag the fleur-de-lis or any other symbol of French Canada. French Canada wants a distinctive Canadian flag in order to be able to rally around some common denominator with the rest of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Have you ever heard of maple leaves out west?


Donald Stovel Macdonald: We have a few silly asses around the west.


Milton L. Klein: I believe that we not only need a distinctive Canadian flag but we have to revise our history books in this country and

we have to stop fighting the battle of the plains of Abraham. Every successive generation keeps on fighting the battle of the plains of Abraham, and this is contributing to disunity in this country.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: You are fighting it right now.


Milton L. Klein: The history books should be factual, relating to what happened; but they should not dramatize and embellish the glories of a military commander. Mr. Speaker, I want to say just one more thing. The one issue upon which the entire house agreed-at least, in the time that I have been here-was the address to the Queen requesting the amendment to provide for survivors and disability benefits. In other words, every section of the house declared that it is a humiliating experience to have to go to another country in order to amend Canada's own constitution. If it is a humiliating experience-and this was agreed upon-to have to go to another country to amend our own constitution, is this not the greatest point in favour of having a distinctive Canadian flag? If the parliament of Great Britain to whom the amendment is addressed-I know that in practice they never refuse such amendments, but in theory they could refuse this amendment-refused this amendment there would be resentment throughout the length and breadth of this country. So, Mr. Speaker, I say in conclusion-


Almonte Douglas Alkenbrack: So you are still fighting that battle.


Milton L. Klein: -let us stop talking in this country only about the things we are ready to die for. Let us talk about the things we are ready to live for in a great and united Canada.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe Easi):: Mr. Speaker, we have before us today a very divisive issue in this resolution on the flag. It is a two-pronged resolution. It was intended as a one-vote resolution; but following the skills of those of other days in calling sinners to repentance, the resolution was split. Le Devoir carried an editorial on May 28 in which they accused the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) of running with the hares and hunting with the hounds; or, in principle, of dividing Canada. You must ask yourself what madness prompted the Prime Minister to sponsor his own flag, revealed to others before it was even revealed to parliament, and then in the most dictatorial

manner he held our noses and poured the castor oil into our mouths without our having even the opportunity of freedom of choice. The Globe and Mail of June 16 had this to say about this mess:
A bitter wrangle between the defenders of the red ensign and the crusaders for a new maple leaf flag has raged across English speaking Canada and shows no sign of abating. In French speaking Canada there is dissatisfaction verging on disgust at Mr. Pearson's attempt to compromise by retaining the union jack as a flag to be flown on royal and commonwealth occasions. Whatever the outcome of these disputes now, it seems inevitable that large sections of the population will be left aggrieved and rebellious.
This is the unhappy state to which Mr. Pearson has reduced us, and it would be very natural if the opposition parties in the House of Commons sought to drive the lesson home as they debate the flag issue this week. They have every reason to be resentful of Mr. Pearson's tactics in threatening them with an election unless they accept the design he has chosen, and plenty of ammunition with which to discredit him.
This is the Prime Minister who a few years ago was a diplomat of some stature. He has made the flag issue a personal issue, regardless of all other pressing social and economic ills of this nation and regardless of other election promises which were far more important. Yet he presses the flag issue, even though it was not an election promise.
The Prime Minister stated on May 15 in this house that there were 38 pieces of legislation which must be passed before a summer recess. There was no mention of the flag whatever. What changed his mind, Mr. Speaker? He stirred up a lot of strife and emotion in parliament, but that does not matter much because we are paid to take it. But what about the emotions he has stirred up from the Atlantic to the Pacific across the land? If you do not think this is so, Mr. Speaker, just look at the editorials. Canada cannot afford this. I wonder whether the Prime Minister has become emotional on his own resolution when he says that this flag goes through without a free vote or we have an election. I wonder whether this is subtle closure, Mr. Speaker. He wants to bring in this flag with little or no regard for history or tradition.
I should like to put on record what the Midland Free Press has to say about this. This is a semi-weekly publication and has won many awards for its editorial page. In an editorial it says:
It is argued that the favourite among the new designs-the three red maple leaves on a white background and two blue bars at the hoist and the fly-will promote unity in a divided land.
We seriously question this contention and we believe a description of the symbolism of the red 20220-319
Canadian Flag
ensign and of the presently favoured design will illustrate the point.
The proposed new flag does not have much to offer in this regard. Its heraldic significance is shallow. The two blue bars represent the seas on our eastern and western coasts. The significance of the white background in the centre escapes us. The three red maple leaves are emblematic of a tree that grows in Canada, but they also are found in other lands as well.
Now let's look at the elements embodied in the Canadian red ensign.
In the upper left hand quadrant is a union of the crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick-patron saints respectively of England, Ireland and Scotland, it is true. The three ancient saints, however, were not nationals of the lands of the British Isles. They were chosen because of their great deeds and high ideals. St. George was a Macedonian, the patron saint of chivalry. St. Andrew, a Jew, was one of Christ's apostles who was martyred for his faith. St. Patrick was a missionary who spread among the Irish the civilization learned in France.
The peoples of Britain consist of a melting pot of Britons, Angles, Saxons, Piets, Scots, Romans and French. This part of our flag then links us with our ancient forefathers in the islands and mainlands of Europe.
Later on I shall make some reference to what a previous prime minister, Mr. St. Laurent, said on this very point. The editorial continues:
It is said that a flag should be emblematic of its people. The shield from our coat of arms, contained in the fly of the ensign, would seem to do a pretty fair job in this regard. Emblazoned in the five parts of the shield are the three lions of England derived from the standard of William of Normandy; the lion rampant of Scotland; the harp of Ireland; the fleur-de-lis of France; and the three red maple leaves.
Both symbols-the union of crosses in the upper quadrant and the great shield-were not originally chosen for nationalistic reasons. They were selected because they symbolized "unity by agreement and the abandonment of narrow nationalism in favour of the brotherhood of man. The red background denotes a position of honour.
As a spokesman said, "The ensign is a flag with great depth of meaning capable of representing our complex idealism, our varied traditions and cultures, things a new design could not possibly match".
We agree. And if we exchange the ensign for a proposed new flag of much lesser consequence, it seems to us we will be swapping our birthright for a mess of pottage.
Do we really want, Mr. Speaker, to get rid of those symbols?
The Packet and Times for Monday, June 8 last, offers some sage advice; it is a paper whose editorials have been quoted all across Canada.
In his proposed design for a new Canadian flag, Mr. Pearson is attempting to avoid any conflict between English speaking and French speaking sections of the country, by omitting any British or French symbol whatever. In doing so, of course, he has produced a flag which represents nothing

Canadian Flag
whatever, and so has robbed the flag of the very function for which it is intended. For surely a flag has no meaning or value whatsoever, unless it be to represent heraldically the spirit of a nation, and so be an inspiration and source of pride to its citizens. A flag selected only because of its bland austerity and freedom from anything calculated to stir strong feeling, can hardly be valued for its inspirational qualities.
The whole issue of Canada's flag has blown up into ridiculous proportions, and has split still further a country already in need of all the unifying elements it can find. There is a dismaying tendency to value the symbol at the expense of the reality; it is Canada that is truly important, not the design of the flag it chooses to fly. In the bitter bickering over that design, some sense of proportion must be maintained. It is utter folly to speak, as some have done, of breaking up confederation if this or that design is not chosen.
Yet once the relative importance of the issue has been established, it is quite right that something should be said about the value of retaining in the national flag the symbols of this country's origins. The two great facts of our national existence are, first, our British heritage, which gave us our language, our laws, our form of government and indeed, all the principles and values which guide our way of life; and second, the empire of new France which was joined with British North America in full and equal partnership. Surely any flag purporting to represent this country must reflect this dual origin of all the institutions and outlooks which are uniquely Canadian, and which impart a distinctly Canadian character to people and nation. It is the measure of the total inadequacy of Mr. Pearson's proposed flag that its symbolism reflects not a trace of this rich and unique national heritage.
The objection to the existing Canadian flag, based on the red ensign, is that it does not sufficiently indicate the French partnership in this great nation. Surely this is capable of easy remedy, perhaps by the replacement of the existing Canadian coat of arms in the fly by large fleur-de-lis, singly or in a group, to share pride of place with the union jack on the traditional red background. Something of the kind could certainly be evolved which would be both heraldically correct and visually attractive, as well as truly indicative of this country's national origins.
A real Canadian ensign, so evolved, would perpetuate both a traditional design under which this country has grown and prospered and under which its troops have fought in two world wars, and reflect the long history of a unique racial partnership. Such origins are to be perpetuated proudly, not buried in the bland anonymity of a piece of white bunting. A flag is intended to stir emotion, not dampen it. Only an amended red ensign can truly reflect this nation's pride in its past and its aspirations for the future.
This sets out some compelling reasons why symbols of the past should be retained. I intend now to quote one of the great prime ministers of this land, a man who was in power longer than any other prime minister in the British commonwealth, Mr. Mackenzie King. This is what he said:
The new Canadian flag should certainly contain the union jack. It would be unthinkable to have a
[Mr. Rynard.l
flag for this dominion which did not contain the union jack.
This was said by Right Hon. W. L. Mackenzie King in a statement to the Canadian Legion in 1945. I also wish to quote what was said by prime minister Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent in the House of Commons in 1949. He said this:
The union jack is a symbol which represents much that is best in the heritage of all those who derive their tradition and their culture from western Europe.
I wish to say that part of my family ties are with western Europe. The quotation goes on:
The crosses that are part of the union jack represent much of what we in Canada, from whatever race we spring, all honour as precious and good in our heritage...I do not believe that any of us in this country regard the union jack as being a symbol of conquest or subjugation. It is under the union jack that the institutions of this Canadian nation have grown and developed and have brought us to the point where now the dominion is and has been an autonomous state subject in no phase of its domestic or its external affairs to any authority other than this Canadian parliament.
I should like to comment on a reference which was made by one of the previous speakers to the British North America Act. Let me say that the British North America Act was drawn up by Canadians, not by English people. It was drawn up at Charlottetown and in Quebec.
I have talked to several Canadians of French origin from Quebec and they have told me the flag is a waning issue for them. It is not very important any more. They said: We have our own flag, the fleur-de-lis; we could not care less about the flag; what is important is control over our own economy and we shall not brook any more interference from Ottawa on this point. This is what I gather after talking to important French speaking Canadians in the city of Montreal. This would imply that the question of the flag is not the big issue in Quebec we have been led to believe it is. Certainly, in my riding, of those who have written to me- and I have received more than 500 letters- over 90 per cent were in favour of the red ensign and the rest were divided in their opinions.
I believe a perusal of history would indicate a desire to retain symbols of the past in any new flag we might choose. When I see the three lions on the flag, I immediately think of William the Conqueror coming from Normandy, and I believe 90 per cent of all the people who come to this land, to the

province of Quebec, are of Norman stock. That is their proud heritage. It was William the Conqueror who came to the throne of England after defeating Harold at the battle of Hastings. Let me remind the house that the parliament of England and the ruling class of that country used the French language for 300 years. The first income tax bill was written by William the Conqueror. The first census was taken by William the Conqueror, and I am proud that a man coming from Europe did that. It showed administrative ability, and I am also proud of the fact that it was by one of this line of Norman kings that the first great charter, the cornerstone of British democracy, was written. I refer to Magna Carta commonly known as the great charter. We honour that and we respect it, no matter what our country of origin, because it is a cornerstone of parliamentary democracy. It was a Norman king who was forced to sign that charter. It was drawn up by the Norman barons at Runny-mede and it became the father, or the mother, or whatever you like of the great bill of rights which gave this country freedom of choice, freedom of election, freedom of religion and freedom of assembly.
Over those 300 years of history the English language became a melting pot of the Norman and the English tongues and out of that evolved the English language which is spoken today by the strongest and greatest nation in the world, just south of us. I am proud of that, Mr. Speaker. I am proud of the part the Normans played and I am proud of the fact that a great part of the English people belong to that Norman stock. Surely those of us who are of that stock do not want to throw it out the window or sell it for a colourless piece of cloth which does not mean anything to us.
In the course of history a few hundred years later a great event took place on the plains of Abraham. I am always proud when I read about it because many of the soldiers who fought there were soldiers from this melting pot of English, Norman and Scotch. There were also Norman soldiers under Montcalm. I read those pages of history and I am proud to learn that Montcalm was a man who loved his homeland and who, in his letters to his wife and daughters, said he hoped he would soon be able to join them back home. He was a home loving man and he was a great soldier of high moral principles. I am also proud to know that Wolfe wrote home regularly to his mother and that the night before the battle of the plains of Abraham, as they 20220-319i
Canadian Flag
floated down the St. Lawrence, he pulled a copy of Gray's Elegy from his pocket and read it. When he had read it, he said: Fellow officers, I would rather have written that than capture Quebec tomorrow. Both these two great generals were killed on the plains of Abraham and I want to say that out of their ashes, out of the things they gave to Canada, has arisen a mighty nation of which we are all proud. We are proud of the part each of them played; we are proud of them. We are proud of the pages they have given to history.
I want to say to you, Mr. Speaker, that poor indeed will be the lot in tradition of the young people of this country when those pages are removed from their history books. Do we really want to give up the symbols of the past? As I go through the pages of history and come to the American revolution I think of the French, and how they stood nobly by with their brothers. Yes, the English were Normans, do not forget it; they were a mixture of Normans, Piets, Scots, and so forth. They stood nobly by; they were the staunchest of people, saying: We do not want any part of the American republic; we want to maintain our loyalty to the crown that will protect our rights and that gave us the Quebec Act.
Yes, Mr. Speaker, these same people fought alongside us in the first great war. Who make these differences? Is it the politicians?
I wonder. It is not the people, because they fought alongside us in the first great war.
I think also of the present Governor General of this country who fought in that war and was seriously injured. I come to the next great war and I think of another French Canadian, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod of the other place, who was severely wounded. We have fought for the same causes and the same principles over the years.
What is wrong, Mr. Speaker? Do we want to change the flag? Do we want to retain our symbols? My feeling is that this country has done a tremendous task and nothing should be done now to divide the country. When the Prime Minister takes it upon himself to shove down the throats of members of parliament a flag which he says represents all that is good in Canada but which leaves out all our past history, then I think we would be derelict in our duty if we did not fight to the last ditch to retain those principles that have made Canada the great nation it is, and a part of any new flag.
Is there any good reason for shoving the flag through at the expense of much more

Canadian Flag
important legislation left in mothballs, legislation that this country is crying for and needs? Does the Prime Minister not realize that he in effect is using a subtle form of blackmail or closure through the threat of an election? Or is there a feeling of divine right? This view was more or less expressed the other day by the hon. member for Northumberland (Miss Jewett) when she said it did not matter much what your constituents thought, that you should vote regardless of their wishes. I am one of those who have always felt that the people of one's riding are those who decide how a member should vote, because they elect the member as their representative.
Why is the flag issue the supreme issue before the house? Will it change the economy of Canada one whit? Will it improve the lot of any Canadian home the day after it is adopted? Will it put one more dollar in the pockets of the taxpayers? Will it improve the security of even one Canadian? As one writer noted, the Prime Minister may imagine that he is bold and daring but his armour is completely that of foolhardiness. On May 15 last the Prime Minister outlined 38 pieces of government legislation which he said must be completed before a summer recess and, as I said, the flag issue was not among them. Why the haste? Is it to conceal something? Is it to get off the hook on more important issues? I suggest that the most important issue confronting Canada today is automation and employment. If we do not solve this problem hundreds of thousands of young Canadians will be walking the streets in a few years.
The Prime Minister knows he is in trouble because of his two flag stand. Most people do not want a two flag nation. Passions are being roused across the country. I am one of those who try to carry out the wishes of my constituents as far as possible. Therefore 1 think the people of Canada should be allowed to express their opinion.
I want to remind the Prime Minister that he is the head of a minority government. Only 42 per cent of the people of Canada supported his minority government. If the Prime Minister will not let the people of Canada decide this referendum, will he consider setting up a dominion-provincial conference, provide the delegates with the assistance of historians and heraldic experts, and let them do the job? Then we will have a flag picked democratically and, above all, we will have one flag instead of ten. We will have a flag representative of Canada, not of only two provinces.
[Mr. Rvnard.l
The Prime Minister has a unique challenge today. I say to him: Take off this foolhardy armour; get rid of this bold and daring approach and go back to the approach of Sir John A. Macdonald, William Lyon Mackenzie King-St. Laurent, Cartier, Lafontaine, Baldwin and others. Let him cease to be a despot, a dictator with a minority government. Let him again restore democratic principles to this parliament and respect the wishes of the peoples who make up the mosaic that is Canada, who are proud of Canada, proud of our past, proud of our history and do not want to trade these symbols for a mess of potage.


Mr. Jack Davis (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I should like to make it quite clear that I am going to vote for both parts of the resolution.
I am going to vote for two flags. I am going to vote for a distinctive Canadian flag and I am going to vote for the union jack.
I do not make any apologies for the fact that I intend to vote for two flags. I think that with the passage of time Canadians will be indicating loyalty to a number of flags. Foremost among these flags, at least in the minds of those who are international in their outlook, will be the flag of the United Nations. They will be looking also to the flag which denotes our connection with the commonwealth family of nations, the union jack, which is found in the second part of the main resolution presented to the house several weeks ago. They will be looking to a distinctive national flag for Canada, the maple leaf flag, the flag that will be passed during the current session of parliament.
There will also be provincial flags across this country. There are several in existence at the moment. There is one in Newfoundland, the union jack. There is one in Quebec, which most of us have seen flying. It is composed of a white cross on a pale blue background with four white fleur de lis, one in each corner. There is a flag in one of our other rather nationalistic provinces, the province of British Columbia. The flag prominently displays the union jack. There is also a flag in Nova Scotia. In heraldic terms at least this flag dates back to the early 1600's. It is essentially the cross of St. Andrew with a lion rampant representing Scotland on the centre of the flag.
These four categories of flags at least will be regarded as important by Canadians. I repeat that those who are internationally minded will tend to look more to the flag of the United Nations and to the union jack.

Those who are more provincially minded will tend to look to our provincial flags, club emblems and so on. But there will be more than one flag prominently displayed across this nation.
A flag is used as a banner to rally people together, to rally forces, to focus the interest and attention of the populace at large. It is used to identify groups, provinces, nations and peoples. It is also used to celebrate historic events and highlight recent accomplishments. These are the various purposes of flags, banners and coats of arms of different kinds. But these are merely the symbols. Underlying them are the basic ideas, the basic concepts for which a flag or coat of arms stands.
These concepts, these ideas are what is really important. They are the essence of our modern democracy and of any substantial crusade to get things done. The union jack means a great deal to many people. It means a great deal to members, like me, who come from British Columbia. To me and to many other British Columbians it signifies courage, confidence; it indicates compassion and it also is a symbol of Christianity and Christian ideals. I am certain that we will continue to fly it, that is the union jack, because of the basic ideas which it symbolizes, because of the history and tradition in which those various ideas have been displayed.
Now, we need a national flag as a means of identification of Canadians, particularly Canadians abroad. It would be particularly useful at this moment if the Canadian forces on Cyprus had a distinctive Canadian flag because they could be identified, not as forces from the United Kingdom, not as forces from other commonwealth countries, but specifically from Canada. Canada is thought by many countries to be unbiased, lacking in territorial ambitions, and so on. For these reasons I think it is important that our forces have this distinguishing mark.
I should like briefly to make reference to the concept of nationhood, of nationality. In this connection I should like to quote from the first chapter of a book which has recently been published, entitled, "The New Nationality". The author is Frank H. Underhill, and he states in this book-and I think interestingly-
A nation is a body of men who have done great things together in the past and who hope to do great things together in the future. What makes them into a nation is not necessarily community of race, language and religion, though these are powerful forces when they are present; it is their common history and traditions, their experience of living together, their having done great things
Canadian Flag
together in the past, and their determination to continue doing great things together in the future.
Now, Canadians in their history have not seen many sharp and dramatic changes. Most of the changes which have taken place in our great country have been gradual. I should like briefly to run over and contrast them with the histories of other countries. Throughout history, many of the great nations of the world have been in conflict when they were born, and they grew to maturity beset by danger and tribulation. Out of these circumstances rose strong and fervent feelings of patriotism and nationalism, fanned by difficulty and nurtured by opposition.
Under such circumstances, a feeling of national identity came quickly to the fore. National heroes were made. They were men who fought or died or faced prison or exile for the new nation. Great landmarks in the form of battles won or lost were stamped on the national consciousness. To these people, the Bismarcks, the Cavours, the Simon Bolivars, the Gandhis, the de Valeras, and to these historic events, new citizens could look for inspiration and for a spirit of dedication.
A great example of this of course is in our neighbour to the south. Born in desperate revolution, nurtured in the crucible of the civil war, the United States quickly established its national heroes such as George Washington, Jefferson, Hamilton, Lee and others; its historic landmarks; its character and identity. Its first citizens gained their independence in blood and toil, and the facts of history were starkly etched for future generations to see.
We in Canada do not have the advantage, if one may call it an advantage, or such a violent and spectacular birth. We came to nationhood through negotiation and consent. We reached independence without forfeiting the connection with our ancient motherland. We achieved maturity without hostility and identity without violence.
All this has left its mark on our national character. Most Canadians tend to be moderate in their decisions, unexcitable in their attitudes, slow to anger and not prone to extreme positions. So it is in this matter of national symbols. I do not believe that as Canadians we should regret the fact that we have to spend a few weeks of parliament's time to arrive at a national flag, a national symbol, when by contrast we look at the wars, the revolutions, the extreme emergencies out of which other nations were born,

Canadian Flag
and as a result of which they established their own symbols.
I should like briefly to run over the reasons for choosing the colours in the distinctive Canadian flag, the colours red, white and blue. There are many historical reasons for choosing this grouping of colours. The first white men to set foot on North America, historians now tell us, were the Vikings. Essentially a northern, or a Norman people, from whom both our French speaking and English speaking ethnic groups are largely derived, these adventurers set foot on North America around the year 1,000. Back in those days, a flag of the type that we now know did not exist. One of the identifying marks was the sail-the colours of the sails of the ships in those days. The colours of the sails of the Viking ships were red stripes on a white background. The red and white were established there. The black raven of these northern people also was displayed on some of these ships, but the colours predominantly were red and white.
Cabot touched Cape Breton about 500 years later, in 1493. The flag he flew was the cross of St. George, red and white. In 1524, some years later, Jacques Cartier first arrived in Canada. Jacques Cartier flew the flag of France. Down through two centuries after that, variations of the flag of France appeared and were flown in what is now eastern Canada. They were substantially the fleur-de-lis and various groupings of the fleur-de-lis on several backgrounds, red, white and blue. Again therefore the red, white and blue colours appeared in our background.
Henry Hudson flew the first union jack that was shown in Canada in Hudson bay in the year 1610, a few years after the first union jack was struck. The union jack then was a combination of the cross of St. George and the cross of St. Andrew, red, white and blue. The union jack was again established on Canadian territory in Nova Scotia in the early years prior to the battle of the plains of Abraham. The union jack was raised on the plains of Abraham in 1759. It included the cross of St. Patrick after 1800 and it was the official flag of Canada down to the early 1920's, although a variation of the red ensign was flown by our merchant marine and occasionally from buildings both inside and outside of Canada.
In 1921, Canada's official coat of arms was struck. It was the result of careful deliberation and a careful review of heraldry. This coat of arms was introduced and confirmed

by a Conservative government. It bears the historic emblems of England, Ireland, Scotland and France in the top part of the shield. Incidentally, the top part of the shield denotes the historic background of the nation or an individual. If one hires an expert in heraldry to go into his family background, he will find the history of his family is on the top part of the shield and the individual himself, the present, is on the bottom part of the shield. On the bottom part of the shield as introduced, formalized and finally adopted by Canada in 1921 are three red maple leaves conjoined on a single stem on a white background.
This was the first time on which the three red maple leaves on a white background were officially proclaimed. This is now Canada's official coat of arms and has been for the past 40 and more years. There was a cabinet minute passed in 1957 which further clarified the red leaves on a white background. Many red ensigns flying today still show green leaves, but this is not true to the legislation of the early twenties and the cabinet minute of 1957.
In 1963, in order to clarify matters further, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson) asked a question of the previous government. He asked, "What are Canada's national colours?" and the answer came back, red on white. He also asked, "What is Canada's national symbol?" and the answer came back, "Three red maple leaves on a white background." Therefore during the life of the previous administration this was recognized officially, first confirmed and then officially recognized in answer to questions posed by the opposition, that our national colours are red on white and the official emblem of Canada is three red maple leaves conjoined on a single stem on a white background.
I would like to refer briefly to the form of the flag, but before doing so I shall make a reference to Canada's colours at the Olympic games. They have always been red on white, red maple leaves on a white background. Similar colour combinations have been shown at our national exhibitions, beginning back in 1905 at Turin, Italy; so that we have a long history of red maple leaves on a white background as part of our Canadian tradition.
As to the matter of form, there are various requirements of a distinctive emblem. These are that it should be easily recognizeable, that it should not be like the emblem of any other country. It should be visible at a considerable distance, as well as close up to those

who are looking for its designation. It should also be symbolic of the country and characteristic of the nation.
These requirements are not met by many flags; hence those flags are not truly distinctive. I should like to indicate some flags of this type, flags of the red ensign type, and this information I obtained from the parliamentary library. They appear on a card headed "Flags of the Commonwealth," and I should like to describe these flags. There is, of course, most prominently the union jack, and under it the flags of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and many other countries. The flag that is typical of the colonies resembles the flags of Australia and New Zealand. There is the union jack up in the canton, next to the pole, and the distinguishing mark is on the blue or red background. The blue background, or blue peter as it is sometimes called, is more common in the case of colonies, but there are variations.
On the chart in front of me I see 33 different territories or colonies whose unique badges appear in the fly, in the same fashion or manner as the now official Canadian coats of arms appears in the fly of the Canadian red ensign, and for the record I would like to read out what these are. Their flags resemble the red ensign of Canada, with the union jack up in the corner, and the shield or circle down in the opposite corner, and they include Aden colony, Antigua, Barbados, Bahamas, Bermuda, British Guiana, British Honduras, British Solomon Islands, British Virgin Islands, the Caymen islands, Dominica, The Falkland islands, the federation of Rhodesia and Nyasal-and, Fiji, Gambia, Gibraltar, Gilbert and Elice Islands, Grenada, Hong Kong, Kenya, Mauritius, Montsarrat, North Borneo, Northern Rhodesia, Nyasaland, St. Christopher-Nevis-Anguilla, St. Helena, St. Lucia, St. Vincent, Sarawak, Seychelles, Southern Rhodesia, Turks and Caicos Islands. Those are flags of various colonies and other territories around the world which are of the ensign type.
I should also like to put on the record a quotation taken from "Flags of the World", edited by Gresham Carr and published in London in 1956, and the remarks in it bear more particularly on the type of red ensign flown by the British merchant marine around the world:
Some commonwealth merchant vessels-of Canada, the commonwealth of Australia, New Zealand, Cyprus, Somaliland, Western Samoa and Tanganyika territory, and of the British North Borneo Company-may, by admiralty warrant, wear the red ensign with the badge of the dominion, state, protectorate, or trust territory in the fly, but other
Canadian Flag
colonial merchant vessels shall wear the red ensign free from any badge or distinctive mark.
Any colonial merchant vessel may, however, wear a distinguishing flag with the badge of the colony thereon, in addition to the red ensign, provided that such a flag does not infringe the provisions of the merchants shipping act of 1894.
Again, still quoting,
A few yacht clubs have permission to wear the red ensign defaced-
That is a proper term
-by the badge of the club.
There are, in addition, numerous companies which over the centuries have been given permission-the Hudson's Bay Company is one of them-to put their own identification on the fly of a red ensign type flag, and hence around the world you have numerous territories, groups, other organizations and many private corporations which have official permission to fly a flag which at more than a few hundred yards distance cannot be distinguished from the Canadian red ensign.
I am reasonably certain that the vast majority of Canadians could not tell us what is on the shield of Canada, and hence what is on the badge of the Canadian red ensign. Indeed I would be surprised if the majority of members of parliament could quickly reel off what is on this distinctive badge in the fly of the red ensign at the present time. Therefore clearly the Canadian red ensign, which is officially adopted as our flag pending action by parliament, is not a unique emblem or flag for use in international gatherings such as at the United Nations.
Continuing on the form of the flag, the history of the three maple leaves dates back more than a century. There were a number of organizations which adopted the maple leaf as their symbol prior to 1867.
In 1860 a significant incident occurred when the then Prince of Wales visited Toronto. It was planned that all native Canadians would join in a procession, wearing the maple leaf as an emblem of the land of their birth. The Toronto Globe of that time tells us that they would therefore-
-be known to the world as such and as loyal subjects to Her Majesty.
It also expressed the hope that the-
*-first public act of His Royal Highness, after presenting its banners to the Royal Canadian Regiment, would doubtless be that of sanctioning the adoption of the maple leaf as our national emblem.
The establishment of the coats of arms of Ontario and Quebec in 1868, immediately after confederation, is also of significance because three maple leaves conjoined on a single stem appear at the base of both of these coats of

Canadian Flag
arms. The coat of arms of Ontario includes three gold maple leaves on a green background. Incidentally, these maple leaves appear much larger than on the coat of arms of Quebec, because in the case of Quebec the top part, the historical part, of the shield includes both three fleur-de-lis on a blue background and the lions passant, representing the English ethnic stock of Quebec. The Quebec shield has at the base three green maple leaves on a gold background.
In heraldry the top colours, the most distinctive colours, are rated as follows; red, white, blue, and so on down to the less easily distinguishable colours. It is significant that neither red, white nor blue were used in the coats of arms of Ontario or Quebec at that time, in 1868. So presumably red on white or white on red was reserved for the nation, as they take precedence in terms of distinctiveness and certainly in terms of heraldic value. In 1921, of course, the heralds of that day were able to take advantage of the more distinctive colours, red on white, and confirmed the three maple leaves on a white background as the Canadian portion of our official coat of arms.
From 1868 onward many military medals were struck and most, if not all, of them have shown maple leaves, frequently three maple leaves on a single stem on the reverse side of the medal. "The maple leaf forever" was written in the late 1860's by Alexander Muir. In 1939 the battle flag of the first Canadian division was struck. This flag has been described by the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Matheson); it contains three maple leaves prominently displayed on a red ensign-type flag and also shows three gold fleur-de-lis on a blue background. The service pin that veterans wore at the end of world war II is substantially a shield topped by a crown. It has a white background displaying three red maple leaves conjoined on a single stem.
In 1946 a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate sat for some considerable period of time and considered over 2,000 different designs for a Canadian flag. By far and away the most popular design contained one or more maple leaves. If that was any indication of the preference of Canadians of that day, the maple leaf was certainly at the top of the list.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Plus the jack in the corner. What was the choice of the committee?


John (Jack) Davis: Since then there have been various insignia and symbols adopted by our armed forces. During world war II, as

many hon. members will remember, the air force insignia was the rondel, the circles red, white and blue; but instead of the red circular core which appears in the Royal Air Force rondel, we had a red maple leaf. We now have a red maple leaf on the funnels of our destroyers and other naval vessels. We have maple leaves appearing as the distinguishing mark on our military vehicles in the army, and we now have on the official cars drawing up before the House of Commons three maple leaves prominently displayed as the distinguishing mark of Canadian sovereignty.
The Queen's personal flag, struck in 1962, contains on the top part, indicating our ethnic background again, the three lions passant of England, the lion rampant of Scotland, the three gold fleur-de-lis on a blue background, of royal France, and the harp of Ireland; but in the bottom half you have three maple leaves conjoined on a single stem, indicating the Canada of today and tomorrow, and printed on top of all this is "E.R.", "Elizabeth, Regina".
In concluding this portion of my remarks, Mr. Speaker, I would like to refer to colour and design. Certainly one of the group of seven great Canadian artists, Mr. A. Y. Jackson, seems to agree that three red maple leaves on a white background is appropriate. Remarks to this effect have appeared in the newspapers recently and I will merely quote from the Montreal Star of June 28. He is speaking about a design which he had prepared some three years ago and which, incidentally, bears a striking resemblance to the present proposed design, the design described in the first part of the resolution. Mr. Jackson is quoted as saying:
"We had to decide either on an emblem or an abstract design such as a tricolour-
This is Mr. A. Y. Jackson speaking recently when he was interviewed by the press:
-and there's so many of those-
He is referring to abstract designs:
-it's hard to get a distinctive flag. We have no animal-the heaver looks like a rat-and so the maple leaf seems best.
"Having decided that, the government should have called for suggestions-
I will skip the rest of that paragraph. Then he said:
"You have to think how a flag will look through a telescope from three or four miles away".


Gordon Minto Churchill: Who owns a telescope?


John (Jack) Davis: He continues:
"One maple leaf, from that distance, might look like a circle or something and the flag would not

be distinctive. The three leaves would make it distinctive".
So this is the view of A. Y. Jackson.


Gordon Minto Churchill: Get out your telescope.


Mr. Smallwood:: It looks like the Russian merchant flag.


John (Jack) Davis: Mr. Speaker, I would like to go back just for a moment to the matter of several flags. I mentioned the United Nations flag, the union jack which is essentially the commonwealth flag, our own distinctive national flag and the provincial flags. I am certain that more provinces will be striking flags with the passage of time. I think some, acting soon perhaps, will be inclined to adopt a variation of the red ensign. This may not be, heraldically, correct, but they could remove the Canadian coat of arms and add the provincial coat of arms; or, for example, in the case of Ontario you could have an ensign type flag with the cross of St. George next to the pole, in the upper left-hand corner, and the three gold maple leaves in the opposite corner, on the fly, the background being green. This would be in conformity with the coat of arms of Ontario and heraldically correct. Similar flags could be struck in other provinces, with the cross of St. George or the union jack frequently appearing next to the pole.
I would like to remark that all the parties represented in this House of Commons have at one time or another passed resolutions favouring a distinctive Canadian flag. I stressed earlier that a distinctive Canadian flag is not an ensign type flag-it is certainly not a red ensign type flag. I might also have added that an ensign type flag is rated below flags like the union jack. In other words, the union jack in an ensign is in the superior position, and hence flags with derivatives of the three maple leaves, for example, would have three maple leaves in the corner and variations down below on the remaining three quarters of the flag.
All parties in this house have passed resolutions at the grassroots level favouring a distinctive Canadian flag; hence they have a responsibility to face up to this issue.
Across the country we have a variety of opinion and I think most members have received a great deal of mail on this subject. I would like briefly to break down the mail which I have received in order to give an impression of the popular response, the popular participation, in this matter.
There is a middle group of people who, I suggest, may encompass three quarters of the 20220-320
Canadian Flag
population, perhaps 80 per cent or more. This middle group includes many English speaking Canadians. They would like us to have a distinctive flag, a flag which would not be confused with the flag of any other country in, for example, a United Nations ceremony. Many of these people are of British origin, who are what one might say British to the core, but they are Canadians first. Many English speaking Canadians with a sentimental attachment to the union jack or red ensign have a kindly understanding of the French speaking Canadians who would have Canada's flag distinctive and purely Canadian. Many a French speaking Canadian wishes a purely Canadian flag but wants this without any venom or disrespect to the Englishspeaking portion of our great Canadian community. These people in my belief make up the vast majority of Canadians; I would put the figure as high as 80 per cent.
There are two other groups, distinct minorities. One has certainly earned its right to speak up for a flag, and let no one belittle its right. It includes many of the men and women who are prominent in organizations such as the Canadian Legion and the Imperial Order of the Daughters of the Empire. I think our job is to convince them that it was freedom, democracy and true British justice they were fighting for, not just for a flag. I think most of them on second thought will agree with this. They might account for 10 per cent of the Canadian public, but I doubt it.
Finally there is a small group of people who are essentially malcontents-separatists and the like. There are some French speaking Canadians who want no part of a Canadian flag which bears the union jack. They are not necessarily venomous but perhaps blind to a large part of our past.
There is a similar group of people in English speaking Canada. Its members are not very numerous but they feel very strongly that English speaking Canadians have the right, because of their majority, to dictate to the rest of the country. They are not thinking in family terms. They are not thinking of our neighbours or of relatives of other tongues as Canadians. They are thinking purely in a dogmatic fashion which knows no respect to the ideals and traditions which I believe are embodied in the union jack. Together these two small groups, this minority, if you like, of malcontents, may account for 2 or 3 per cent of the population of Canada. Their prejudices I think should be disregarded.

Canadian Flag
In view of this breakdown, Mr. Speaker, I can see little point in a national referendum. A national referendum would be overwhelmingly in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. But what happens if we had a referendum? We have had two referendums in the history of Canada, and both appeals to the people over the heads of members of parliament have been frustrated because parliament, after the referendum results were in, refused to act and did not legislate. Hence the referendums in those two cases, in 1898 and in 1942, were purposeless.
Should we have a referendum, and the result be inconclusive? I doubt it. I think we would have a conclusive result. Hence a referendum is purposeless.


Eric Alfred Winkler: It saves us from dictation.


John (Jack) Davis: Once the results of the referendum were in, assuming one were held, and parliament had acted, then I think we would have to petition the Queen to ask other countries not to use the red ensign-type flag. Otherwise we would not have a distinctive Canadian flag flying throughout the world. We would also have to petition that the merchant marine of the United Kingdom not fly the red ensign. I think our recent experience in having to refer the social security legislation in the form of an amendment to the British North America Act to Westminster is sufficient indication of the difficulties involved and its complications. As a sovereign nation we should no longer have to go through this procedure, and in order to establish a distinctive Canadian flag this would resemble the ridiculous. I have merely given this example, Mr. Speaker, in order to illustrate how difficult it would be to establish a red ensign-type flag as a distinctive national flag.
I think that a flag is something for here and now. It is something which basically looks to the future. Our coats of arms and our shields tell us of the past. We have nationally and provincially established our coats of arms. We have established our past firmly. Our flag should be more Canadian, a Danner to rally the people of the country and to look ahead. I think basically it must present an idea or ideas. It is the ideas behind the flag which are important-the ideas of liberty and opportunity. This is the imaginative concept, the type of ideas, which can lift up Canadians, lift up their eyes and stimulate their imagination. It will help to unify this country, I am convinced. It will not deny our traditions. Here we have another step, adding to the emblems of the country

instead of taking away from our emblems or destroying them. I believe Canadians of the future will fly United Nations flags, will prominently fly the union jack, they will fly our new national flag, provincial flags-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I regret I have to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. Chaiierton:: Mr. Speaker, may I have consent of the house to ask the hon. member a question?


Gordon Minto Churchill: Let him continue.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Perhaps the hon. member should be allowed to finish his speech.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


John (Jack) Davis: I was nearly finished, Mr. Speaker. I just want to drive home the point that our shield and coats of arms do indicate quite clearly our past. I think it is significant that it was Conservative governments which established these coats of arms which bring out clearly and distinctly our past. I think it is also appropriate that a Liberal government should bring in a flag which looks to the future; a living, moving thing, something which will inspire Canadians to work together to develop a national purpose. For these reasons I personally will vote both for a distinctive Canadian flag and for the union jack as one of the many flags which we, with our rich tradition, will fly in this country in the years to come.


George Louis Chatterton: May I put a question to the hon. member. Does he feel that the vote which he casts in the house for the new flag, as opposed to the flag that we have, should be guided by his own opinions or by the opinions of the majority of the people in the constituency of Coast-Capilano?


John (Jack) Davis: I think that my decision to vote for or against this resolution should be dictated by both considerations. I am convinced that the majority of people in my riding are for a distinctive flag. I have had at least one municipality display the new flag in its municipal offices. I have had it flown in many other parts of my riding, and I am convinced that if there was a plebiscite type vote in my riding today it would show at least two to one in favour of a distinctive flag, even though there is little knowledge yet of the traditions and background of this distinctive flag.


George Louis Chatterton: A supplementary question. If the hon. member is so sure that there

would be two to one in favour in Coast-Capilano-and it must be an extraordinary riding in British Columbia-why would he not agree that a plebiscite would determine the question?


John (Jack) Davis: If I believe that the members of my exceptional riding already favour a distinctive flag by a great majority I am also convinced that this is a wise step for the country to take, and I have no doubt as to how I should vote.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: Mr. Speaker, no subject comes home more closely to the heart of a people or appeals more clearly to the intelligence of its citizens than the flag-its traditions, its history, its "prestige", its many and vital meanings.
On taking part in this debate I do so fully realizing that this past few days on the radio and in the papers, certain people have suggested that debating this issue is hopeless and wasting the time of the house. Sir, I suggest to you that no one knows this better than the Prime Minister himself and those who are helping to engineer and steer the passage of this resolution through the house.
I do not believe there has ever been an issue which has been so cleverly conceived by a government, knowing that it can win the vote in the house with certain members of the opposition playing a most important role and acting in co-operation with the government. The suggestion that parliament should make the decision is only another concealment, because these same proponents of the new flag know full well, if they let the people of Canada vote on this issue, what the result will be, and that they with their lust for power and dictatorship will receive in full measure the decision of the people.
Some days ago, the Prime Minister stated that only on two previous occasions had a plebiscite been carried out in Canada, once in 1898, on prohibition, and again in 1942, on conscription. I say, sir, that this, too, would be a plebiscite on prohibition brought on by a government drunk with power and certainly increasingly prone to dictatorship.
Also, when the Prime Minister introduced this resolution he stated that the red ensign was not acknowledged until the second world war; again, apparently the Prime Minister misinformed the house. I would like to read an extract from the Peterborough Examiner on this point; it has been referred to already by the hon. member for Victoria (Ont.) but I know there are some hon. members here in 20220-320J
Canadian Flag
the house today who were not present at the time he read it. It states:
In 1900 the Fenian raid medal was struck carrying the red ensign. This was the first Canadian military decoration to be presented veterans by the government of Canada.
A few minutes ago a speaker who has now resumed his seat said that one of the reasons he was against the red ensign was because it was not distinctive. It is evident he could not have heard the hon. member for Battle River-Camrose (Mr. Smallwood) last night when he spoke about certain other flags. I should like to refer to page 4967 in yesterday's Hansard when the hon. member for Battle River-Cam-rose said:
Hon. members opposite are concerned because the red ensign may be confused with the British merchant navy flag. I should like to refer to "Flags of the World" by H. Gresham Carr which I obtained from the parliamentary library. On turning to page 190 reference is made to the flags of the Soviet union. There appear to be a lot of flags in the U.S.S.R., and this is what is said about the merchant flag of the U.S.S.R.:
"The ensign is white, and has a light blue border one sixth the depth of the hoist along the bottom of the flag. In the white portion are the star and crossed hammer and sickle in red-"
I suggest that this proposed flag of the Prime Minister is not distinctive from any other flag. We want to destroy our red ensign because it is the symbol of the British merchant marine and replace it with a flag with the white background, the blue trim and the red of the Soviet union.
The nub of the flag controversy seems to be the use of the union jack. Those who object to the prominence of the union jack do so because they feel it denotes subordination to a sovereign power other than Canada. I feel however that the union jack is much more than a flag of England or the United Kingdom. The truth is that it never was the flag of England alone. It incorporates what used to be England's standard, but it is made up of various traditions. Long ago, from Normandy, France, we brought the crusaders' emblem, the cross of St. George-England's patron saint-and it became the banner of the kingdom centuries later. Scotland and England were united under the Stuarts. Thus, the cross of St. Andrew

Scotland's patron saint -was linked to the standard of St. George, and as a result of a flag with two crosses came to represent the United Kingdom. It was this flag which flew over Quebec when the treaty of Paris was signed in 1763, and when the Quebec Act was passed. Years after, in 1807, as a matter of fact, when Ireland joined the union, the cross of Ireland's patron saint-St. Patrick-was added.
Thus the union jack appeared. It was never the banner of a single country. From the be-

Canadian Flag
ginning it stood tor "united nations". It was the flag of the United Kingdom and Ireland. With the expansion ot the British empire went the union jack, carrying in its wake civilization and Christianity. It represents countless blessings to humanity.
The union jack is the symbol of our freedom maintained. It tells us of our explorers, reformers, and colonizers sailing the oceans of the world to bring Christian civilization, justice and liberties, the pioneering instinct, the benefits of science and a great literature, to the far flung corners of the earth.
French Canada, under the shield of the crown, was never held subject or kept servile, but carried on in the enjoyment of her ancient faith, customs, and language, and received its Magna Carta in the Quebec Act; and we have prospered and flourished into nationhood with the statute of Westminster in 1931.
Today the union jack speaks to us and our world neighbours of the commonwealth in a much broader way. It is the emblem of a free family of nations in which Canada is regarded as the mature daughter. What an example this family gives to the rest of humanity, and particularly to the United Nations organization. Do hon. members recall the conference of the commonwealth prime ministers in London at the coronation-a conference which had no treaty shackles, no rigid agenda, and no cold formality? It was a family gathering. Around that conference table sat a group of spokesmen for hundreds of millions of people of all races, colours, and creeds, drawn together by an act of faith and by the mysticism of the crown.
With Canada's active and predominant role in that commonwealth conference, and in world councils, there is no evidence that her right or power has been subordinated to any other sovereign power. Yet there is a segment of our population who apparently have an inferiority complex and believe themselves to be a servile race held in subjugation by another sovereign power, and are vassals. In the strange aberrations of their minds, they imagine that by the removal of the union jack from our flag they will be released from a mythical yoke.
One does not have to be of British origin or British in outlook to appreciate the British institutions of freedom. Distinction is something that is earned; culture is something that time creates. You do not build a culture trying to destroy another one or by trying to deny that another one exists. You give free vent to all worth-while cultural influences. We are what we are today because of

these ideals and institutions, which have given us both distinction and culture.
It is the spirit we want, something we feel yet cannot touch. We have ridden through nights of a thousand perils and the spirit is still strong within us. The symbolism of the union jack is spiritual. It is something above and which should be above all politics. It would be a pity if there were no nation on this continent to carry the union jack on into the future and, with strength and vitality, to give it the prominence it so justly deserves.
In searching for a distinctive national flag for Canada there is much to suggest that we have such a flag in the red ensign, which has become recognized as a symbol of Canadian autonomy within the British commonwealth of nations. Flags, as symbols of the deepest emotions of a nation, arise from the hearts of the people and not from formal edicts of a parliamentary body. Certainly our Canadian way of life, rooted and grounded in the British parliamentary institutions, can be symbolized in no better way than by a flag which is rich in spiritual content and features prominently that which only flags in the British commonwealth possess, the Christian concept. The cross of St. George, the cross of St. Andrew and the cross of St. Patrick are symbols of our redemption. This flag, with the three crosses of Christianity flying on the four winds of the Canadian heavens, will wave us forward along that difficult path to the universal communion of the brotherhood of man. It is emblematic of the source from whence our greatness came.
Much has been said on the other side of the house about the correspondence that members have received from constituents and I should like to take five minutes to read into the record some of the correspondence I have received. Here is a letter from Winnipeg:
Dear Sir:
Please keep fighting for the red ensign. This issue will profoundly affect future Canadian generations and our whole place in the world. A recent poll taken by the Free Press here, whereby readers sent in a form from the paper stating their preference in the flag matter, showed over 60 per cent for the red ensign, 30 per cent for the new flag design, and the rest undecided.
I have here a letter from Mr. Donald Welch of Toronto which reads in part as follows:
Since good will and fellowship always make for unity, and unity is paramount for Canadians and Canada, we believe the issue should not be made into a political football to be kicked around by politicians whose actions sometimes make us wonder whether they respect or give a damn for our feelings and desires. We therefore say the flag issue should not be made a political one in the

House of Commons. Each member must vote as an individual free from party politics. His own conscience as a patriotic Canadian seeking to do what is best for unity of Canada should be his only consideration and guide.
We do not believe in rushing tactics but the taking of plenty of time and consideration, keeping in mind that at all times the only successful conclusion that can be reached will be based on fairness and acceptableness to all groups. Newspapers and radio news and television commentators could be of real help in keeping our unity if they would co-operate, too.
This letter is from a retired professor and reads in part as follows:
I beg to submit a point that might be of some use in debate. The government is to be congratulated on their choice of a flag. Since it contains absolutely nothing that is British, it can be used without any change when our country becomes the republic of Canada. The Prime Minister with his great wisdom has probably considered this advantage.
Here is part of an editorial from the Peterborough Examiner which for two or three years now has been acclaimed one of the top newspapers in Canada by reason of its edi-
Canadian Flag
across Canada. The headline is, "Ensign Takes Big Lead in National Flag Poll". The article reads in part as follows:
Toronto is backing the ensign more than five to one, with Telegram readers favouring it 12,838 to 2,530.
I have a letter from Rockcliffe park, Ottawa, reading in part as follows:
It is the kind of flag one would expect a minor dictator, having recently conducted a successful revolution in a small mid-European or South American state, to produce to a conquered nation with a view to wiping out any past heritage they may have enjoyed.
I have a letter from another branch of the Legion. Incidentally, some of these letters from branches of the Legion are from branches in ridings represented by members on the other side of the house who have said in their speeches that their people endorse the new flag. This one is from Trenton, Ontario, and reads:
Dear Mr. Webb:
torials:
Will Prime Minister Pearson be so misguided as to make the life of his government conditional on the acceptance of a new national flag? It is possible. If he does, and goes down to defeat, it will be difficult to muster any sympathy for him. Important though a national flag may be, it is not a suitable excuse for destroying the elected government of Canada.
Here is an excerpt from an editorial in the Winnipeg Tribune on June 6 last:
There seemed to be a deliberate policy of rooting out little by little distinctive terms and designations that bound the nation to its past. Years ago Dr Eugene Forsey asked: "Where is it all going to stop? Are we going to wake up some morning and find ourselves citizens of the republic of Canada? It looks like it. But I think there are a lot of people who don't want it."-
The people of Canada have the right to ask this question and to expect an unequivocal answer from Mr. Pearson and his advisers. Is the Liberal party dedicated to turning this country into a republic?
I also have a telegram from the president of the Royal Canadian Legion endorsing the red ensign and asking all members to support it. I have a letter from a group of people m Toronto reading in part as follows:
The undersigned feel it is about time that some voices were heard in favour of our red ensign which the vast majority of the people of Toronto respect and fly as our national flag. Why a change should be proposed by Mr. Pearson to appease a small but vocal group we cannot under-
I have another telegram from the dominion command of the Royal Canadian Legion assembled in convention at Winnipeg. I also have a newspaper article reviewing the results of a poll taken by many newspapers
I have been instructed by the executive council of branch 110 of the Royal Canadian Legion, Trenton, Ontario, to communicate the following to you: Trenton Ontario branch of the Royal Canadian Legion request your support of the red ensign.
That letter is signed by W. Lawson, secretary. Then I have a letter from a Mr. Vincent of Sydenham, Ontario, and I will read the first paragraph:
I feel very strongly that the Canadian red ensign represents so much common sacrifice that I cannot sit idly by and see some other flag forced on us by any minority group.
This letter is from the Hastings county black chapter and reads:
Hastings county black chapter passed a resolution at their annual meeting last night in the Orange hall Madoc very strongly protesting any change in the flag and also the national anthem.
this letter is from Mrs. Clancy of the town of Harold, Ontario:
I have been instructed by the members of Wellman's women's institute, north Hastings district, to express to you our desire to have, as the official flag for Canada, the red ensign with the union jack m the upper corner next to the mast and the dominion coat of arms in the field.
This next letter is from an old, respected citizen, a man who has devoted much of his time and talent to the needs of Canada He says:
may leu jonn uiefenbaker and the other parties not to press Pearson too hard, but for him to pay out the rope and eventually Pearson will hang himself, and then he will be hung for a long while.
This letter is from the zone commander of nine branches of the Legion, including Kings-

Canadian Flag
ton,	endorsing the red ensign. I have many other quotations here, Mr. Speaker, but I should like to read this little article. I am sure it has not been put on the record. It is entitled, "Leave Our Flag As Is". I quote:
There's a lot of fuss going on-again-these days about a Canadian flag.
Just whatinell's the matter with the flag we have now?
It's the flag under which Canadians fought in the past to keep today's Canadians free.
If it weren't for that flag, and what it stands for, the people who are yapping like miniature dogs who never will grow up surazell wouldn't have a chance to say anything about a flag nor anything else.
Canadians-real Canadians-are proud of our flag; proud of our young men, and young women,
too,	who fought under it and at times in front of it. Today's Canadians-real Canadians-look with pride on the sacrifice made by 100,000 of their number who died for what that flag stands for- freedom.
All this nonsense about the "English" flag makes me sick. It isn't England's flag. It's Canada's flag. It's representative of all of Britain, not just England; and of all Canadians.
Why ignore the French? We aren't. We are treating them as Canadians. Some million Canadians, and more, got into uniform to preserve freedom for them, as well as the Canadian-British, and all the other ethnic groups in our country.
If the Canadian French don't want to be treated the same as other Canadians, be they British, Ukrainian, Dutch, or what have you, that's their fault.
Now, Mr. Speaker, on two occasions I announced over the radio in my own riding that I had not received a single letter from my constituents in favour of the new flag. These announcements were made in order that people, if they so wished, would write me expressing their views on the flag issue. Even yet, Mr. Speaker, not one letter have I received from a constituent in favour of a change in the flag. I must say, however, that in the past few months I have received thousands and thousands of letters and names on petitions requesting that the government retain the red ensign as Canada's national flag.
In my own opinion, Mr. Speaker, the true number of names in favour of the red ensign has not been given to the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) or I am certain he would not have proceeded with this resolution. Just the other day, sir, I attended the funeral of a veteran of world war II. On this soldier's casket rested the red ensign, the flag that he lived for and the flag that he died for. After the funeral, I was talking to his three sons, two living in Toronto and one in my own riding. They remarked that throughout their lives they and their parents had always been supporters of the Liberal party. However, if Mr. Pearson

forced this flag issue, never again would they cast a Liberal vote.
I say to the people of Canada that the Prime Minister has betrayed the boys with whom he fought. He has betrayed the 100,000 Canadians who gave their lives. He has betrayed the boys that were fortunate enough to return home. He has betrayed the Royal Canadian Legion, the daughters of the empire, many women's institutes, municipal councils, municipalities and thousands upon thousands of Canadians who have spent their money and their time making representations for the retention of the red ensign as Canada's national flag.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the just manner in which to deal with such an important issue is by referendum; let the Canadian people decide this issue. If such a vote were carried out,
I am certain that all parties would be united in carrying out the verdict of the electorate.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that time is running out. One is reminded of the fact that whom the gods would destroy they first make mad. This situation stems from the selfish lobby for control under which liberty becomes licensed and responsibility is replaced by self-consciousness; the welfare of the greatest number is prostituted to the pressures of the few. In this direction lies madness and death. This is not the way of democracy in which the few sacrificed self for the welfare of the many, when the spirit of sacrifice gives birth to liberty, freedom and trust, out of which grows the greatest good for the greatest number. Surely this is the way of life, liberty and peace.


Mr. Habel:: I wonder if the hon. member will allow a question?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The member in the corner wanted to ask a question and I agreed if I had time.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: The hon. member knows well, and will admit, I am sure, that the red ensign was flown on all federal buildings after the order in council was passed replacing the union jack. Can the hon. member tell this house in what year the union jack was replaced by the red ensign on provincial buildings and schools in Ontario?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: The hon. member's own prime minister proclaimed the red ensign the national flag of Canada in 1945. I can assure the hon. member that the province in which I live will always be proud to fly the red ensign on any school or public building in the future.


Joseph-Alphonse-Anaclet Habel: I am asking the hon. member in what year the provincial government replaced the union jack with the red ensign on schools and provincial buildings?


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I would advise the hon. member that in Ontario there are no restrictions. The province of Ontario, and its leaders, want to fly either the union jack or the red ensign on any building at all times.


Mr. Pierre-Andre Boutin (Dorchester):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out one thing to the hon. member: if, for many of you Conservatives the choice of a Canadian flag is a matter of sentiment rather than one of common sense and if, as English Canadians you want to keep the union jack, what would you say if we French Canadians, were asking, out of sentimentalism, that the French flag become the Canadian flag? As for me, I must say that being French Canadian, if I am not responsible enough to let go my mother's apron strings, I would rather be tied to the apron strings of my real mother, that is my motner country.


Roderick Arthur Ennis Webb: I want to thank the member for that question because I intended to deal with that but I did not have time. I think we should retain some of our heritage. That should be left with us. I mentioned that in two or three paragraphs. That is what we would like. If you people in Quebec feel you want to get rid of your heritage and want nothing to do with your forebears, the people who built up this country, I can tell you we do not feel that way. We are proud of our forefathers and our heritage.


Gilles Grégoire: By heritage do you mean our Canadian heritage or foreign country heritage?


Mr. Pugh:: Canadian, you stupe. [Translation]


Mr. Herman Laverdiere (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, during the few remaining minutes, I should like to make a few comments in support of this resolution, a support which reflects the attitude and conviction of the majority of Canadians about the adoption of a national distinctive flag.
I consider as a great privilege to support that resolution on behalf of my constituents.
I also believe that the majority of the Canadian people are eagerly waiting for a distinctive national flag which will not be con-
Canadian Flag
fused with any other flag throughout the world.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, we live historic moments which will certainly etch the future of our beautiful country; the adoption of a new distinctive flag will show all the people of the globe, and in no uncertain terms, the sound determination of the Canadian parliament to take all the necessary means so as to be recognized everywhere as a mature nation, united and capable of self-government, able to command respect and provide for the welfare of its people, regardless of their ethnic origin.
Much has been written since the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) introduced this resolution on June 15 last; comments ranging from one extreme to the other, appeared in the newspapers. Even though I was only able to ascertain part of the views held by the main Canadian journalists, I think most of them are in favour of the prompt passage of this resolution.
However, I am more interested in the opinion of the average citizen. It is easy to realize that almost everybody, the young and the old, are greatly interested in the resolution. I find that most people were certain the resolution would be passed with a minimum of discussions and the majority wonder why this discussion must drag on for so long. I am happy to note that the younger generation especially, in every social class, is more interested in this resolution than in any other legislation now before the house. It is the most discussed subject among young people.
As a matter of fact, here is what a 12-year old boy told me in substance: When this resolution was introduced, I looked right away into my encyclopaedia to find out what emblem represented Canada; I saw the red ensign but that emblem is not a distinctive flag.
I feel that the interest shown by the people is a clear indication of the deep attachment each Canadian feels for his country; they show in their remarks that Canada is no longer, and has not been for a long time, a colony but is instead a free and autonomous country. For those reasons, the people favour the adoption of emblems which are typically Canadian and cannot be identified with those of any other country.
In my opinion, we have maintained long enough certain colonial ties which are humiliating for all those who believe in our country's maturity and independence; it is humiliating to be identified throughout the world by an emblem which is nothing but

Canada Elections Act
a replica of the British merchant navy's; it is humiliating to be obliged to go to the British government to amend our own constitution; it is humiliating for all Canadians who have faith in Canada to see the word "British" so often linked with the word "Canadian"; it is humiliating to be identified still as just a part of the British empire; it is humiliating not to be now just plain Canadian citizens.
Many seem to promote the retention of the red ensign because large numbers of Canadians fought gloriously under that flag during two world wars. Yet, if you question some of those gallant citizens who risked everything on the front, it is obvious that the red ensign meant nothing to them and that most regiments had to fight under the union jack, the flag of another country.
Our courageous soldiers did not risk or sacrifice their lives for a symbol but to put an end to the unscrupulous domination by a people who were considered by their leader as superior to all other men, a racial superiority which does not exist in Canada more than anywhere else. It was mostly for the cause of freedom that Canadians accepted to fight and die in large numbers on the battlefields of Europe.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order. It being five o'clock the house will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely public bills and private bills.



CANADA ELECTIONS ACT


Reid Scott: the second reading of Bill No. C-42, to amend the Canada Elections Act (age of voters).
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the bill which I have introduced to the house is very simple. If carried, it would reduce the voting age in Canada in federal elections from 21 years of age to 18 years of age. This measure is one upon which I do not intend to say very much, because it is a measure that has already been approved unanimously by the privileges and elections committee of this house. Last November the committee, although it has not as yet reported, unanimously approved an amendment of the act for this purpose; and of course in the house the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) in response to a question of mine last fall said, "This party"- that is, the Liberal party-"has been committed to the reduction of the voting age to
[Mr. Laverdiere.l
18 years for some years, and we are anxious to see that it is done as quickly as possible".
Therefore I introduced this bill in order that this change, which all parties in the house appear to agree unanimously is desirable, can be brought into effect without the necessity of waiting until the privileges and elections committee reports on the far more extensive changes that they are making to the Elections Act. The bringing into effect of this bill would add approximately 800,000 new voters to the rolls. If carried over until the next election, it would add approximately 1,100,000 to the election rolls.


An hon. Member:: That depends on when the next election comes.


Reid Scott: As one hon. member has just said, that depends on when the next election comes. But in any event, Mr. Speaker, it would add a very substantial number of voters. It is interesting to try and trace back to the origin of the idea that 21 years of age is the magic age at which young people pass from adolescence into adulthood. My analysis shows that this is a medieval belief. The idea of 21 years of age as the magic age for adulthood d/ates back to medieval times; it dates back to the days when the serfs were allowed to farm their own land at the age of 21. From that time stems the custom that has been perpetuated down through the centuries. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, it is time to get rid of some of these medieval customs that we perpetuate and bring them up to date and in line with the twentieth century.
I think it is a truism to assert that young people today 18 years of age are far better equipped to take part in public life than were the medieval serfs of centuries ago. Our young people today grow up in an entirely different environment. Attendance at school is now compulsory, and although our school curricula are very lacking in training in political and public matters, there are courses which equip our young people to take part in public life. Travel today is very swift and simple. Radio, television, newspapers and all the methods of communication and dissemination of news are very widely used on our young people are constantly exposed to current events and things that are taking place in the community. Therefore I think the 18 year old of today is far more knowledgeable than was his medieval ancestor and certainly ought to have the right to participate in voting for a particular government.

At 18 years of age, of course, one can marry without consent and can have children. At 16 years of age one may drive an automobile, which is potentially an instrument of death. If our young people 18 years of age are married and earn high enough incomes, we grant them the privilege of paying income tax, along with all the other people of this country, and their children receive the benefit of many welfare measures over which they have no control. I think the real basis of our concept of democratic government is that the greatest possible number of people who are going to be governed ought to participate in the method of choosing that government, as long as they are able to do so intelligently. I think this might encourage earlier voting habits, and perhaps these voting habits would be carried over into their later years.
This is interesting to note, Mr. Speaker. In making this change we timid Canadians need not really be worried that we are doing anything terribly radical or anything terribly different. In our own country, of course, we have examples of the voting age having been lowered. In the province of Quebec the 18 year old can vote, and this is also the case in Saskatchewan. British Columbia and Alberta both have the vote at 19 years of age. I happened to get in touch, with the help of our Canadian officials, with the United Nations and obtained an analysis of the countries in the United Nations which have already brought into effect legislation granting the vote to persons 18 years of age. There are some 32 countries in which the 18 year old can vote. So, as I say, Canadians would not be doing anything very spectacular, anything very different or anything very radical, in accepting this proposal.
The house might be interested to have these countries on the record. The following countries have the 18 year old vote: Albania, Argentina, Bolivia, Brazil, Bulgaria, Byelorussia, Burma, Ceylon, mainland China, Costa Rica, Czechoslovakia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras, Indonesia, Israel, Mexico, the Mongolian People's Republic, Nicaragua, Pakistan, Paraguay, Poland, Rumania, Salvador, South Africa, Ukraine, Uraguay; Georgia, Kentucky and Alaska in the United States; the U.S.S.R., Venezuela, Yugoslavia, the Central African Republic, Congo, Brazzaville; Hungary, Iraq, the Ivory Coast, Laos, Ruanda, Somalia, Syria and South Viet Nam. Therefore, as I say, this practice has spread very widely in the world and it seems to me that a highly
Canada Elections Act
educated country like Canada ought to be prepared to adopt it. It is interesting, also, that in the United States a presidential commission appointed by the late President Kennedy has recommended that the 18 year old vote be put into effect in that country. This would add 9 million young Americans to the voting lists.
I should now like to deal with some of the arguments that are advanced against this proposal. The first is that the young people themselves do not want the 18 year old vote. One cannot find any evidence in support of this proposition; in fact, the evidence is all to the contrary. In a very interesting report prepared by an eminent member of the press gallery, Norman DePoe, and published in Weekend Magazine of April 11, 1964, this matter was dealt with. He reports on a survey conducted by Canadian High News, a paper with a circulation of 120,000 in our secondary schools, in which our students were asked the question as to whether the 18 year old should be given the vote. Sixty nine per cent voted in favour of this proposal. Several television programs have dealt with this matter. The C.B.C. program "Inquiry" conducted a survey and obtained roughly the same percentage in favour of it. So it is quite clear, Mr. Speaker, that these young people do want to have the vote and do want to participate in the choosing of governments and approving or disapproving of government policies.
It is also sometimes suggested that these young people are not adequately prepared for and are not ready to have the vote. It is argued that their level of judgment and their knowledge of public affairs is not as high as that of their superiors, their parents, and that therefore they should be deprived of this vote. But the Canadian peace research institute, in trying to evaluate the importance of this matter and obtain the opinion of all sections of the population, conducted a very carefully prepared and precise investigation. They put a series of what they called knowledge questions to a section of the population from 18 years old, up. After it had been analysed and interpreted the report said that there were no significant differences between the teenage and adult samples on the eight knowledge questions. So that any precise examination that has been made of this young age group indicates that they are as adequately trained and prepared as the older groups.
I do not want to go into this at any great length because I think it is clear that

Canada Elections Act
throughout the history of voting every time the right to vote has been extended to another group in the community it has strengthened and improved popular government. It is also clear that the young people of today have every right to vote, that they are capable of voting, that they want to vote and that they would make a valuable contribution to the general good of our democratic system.
For the benefit of my Liberal friends the survey to which I referred showed that 93 per cent of our young people are in favour of "O Canada" as our national anthem. If hon. members opposite want to add a very large group of ardent supporters to their cause they had better bring in the 18 year old vote as quickly as possible.
I will not go any further into this point. As I said at the beginning this is a measure which has been unanimously supported by all parties in the house, and therefore it would be my hope that we would not talk this measure out or refer it back to the committee which has already approved it. I hope we might be able to pass it tonight and to make these young people eligible to vote at the general election everyone talks about as coming this fall.


Mr. Joseph Macaluso (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to add a few remarks to those of the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott). I should like to align myself with his remarks. I am in favour of lowering the voting age to 18 years. As the hon. member stated, on Thursday, November 14 of last year, the standing committee on privileges and elections unanimously endorsed an amendment to section 14 of the Canada Elections Act to reduce the voting age from 21 to 18 years. Therefore, the 18, 19 and 20 year olds would be included and this would introduce some 750,000 to 800,000 new electors to the voting roll.
It may be fairly predicted that before long Canadians between 18 and 21 years of age will have the right to vote both in provincial and federal elections. This trend has already begun and its impetus is increasing. In the province of Saskatchewan the voting age is 18, in Alberta it is 19, in British Columbia 19, in Quebec it is 18 and in Newfoundland it is 19. In Manitoba it is interesting to note that the majority opinion of civic and provincial government officials supports 18 years of age as the voting age. The Winnipeg city council by a majority vote decided to ask the provincial government to change its city charter so that 18 year olds could vote in civic elec-

tions. Premier Robarts of Ontario has indicated that he will take similar action and give the franchise to 18 year olds in Ontario in time for the next provincial election.
In the province of Prince Edward Island the government has given an undertaking to amend the voting age in the province to conform with any change which is made in federal legislation.
As the hon. member for Danforth said, a move is afoot to lower the voting age in the United States for federal elections to 18 years of age. The President's commission on registration and voting participation which was set up by the late President Kennedy recommended to President Johnson on December 20, 1963 that all states consider dropping the minimum age for voters to 18 for state and federal elections.
Some people argue that the proposed step would mean the ruination of Canada. They say that the 18 year olds are not mature enough politically or otherwise to cast an intelligent vote. I think differently. The case for giving 18, 19 and 20 year olds the vote is realistic, sound and can stand on its own merits.
What are some of the arguments against lowering the voting age? First of all, it is said that an 18 year old's judgment is not as good on the average as it is at 21. I think this can be contradicted on many grounds. Second, it is said that the old-enough-to-fight argument is emotional because military standards are based on physical fitness and ability to learn, not on political awareness. Third, it is said that young drivers are more irresponsible; but some of the adults I have seen driving are more irresponsible than any person I have seen between the age of 18 and 21. Fourth, it is argued that the public should not be taken in by the aging platitudes of the political opportunists. Fifth, it is argued that under 21 years of age voters would not know what they were voting for, or would vote as society expects them to vote. I submit that this is a ridiculous argument.
It is interesting to note that the young Progressive Conservatives and the Progressive Conservative student federation voted against lowering the voting age. It is also interesting to observe that at the time the vote was taken at the meeting of February of this year there were not too many present, so perhaps that is one of the reasons for the vote. Many of the young Progressive Conservatives in my riding to whom I have spoken were in favour of lowering the voting

age. It is also interesting to note that in a statement which I read Mrs. J. J. Henderson, the secretary of the Winnipeg South Centre Progressive Conservative women's association, stated in a resolution which was passed that "Young people are not fully informed and don't give enough thought to politics". That is another argument against.
Then it is argued that few of them pay taxes or own property, which is another argument against lowering the age, because it is said that they would not use their ballots with the sober responsibility of someone with a stake in the community. Another reason against is because the vast majority could not care less about government and political affairs. I disagree with this. The last argument which is made is that the new electors may be pulled in a radical direction, and there is good reason to believe that by and large this would be disproved.
Nevertheless the arguments in favour of the extension of the voting age to 18 remain strong. The advantage of reducing the voting age is manifest. For example, it would directly involve these young people in the country's affairs. Given a direct voice in their country's destiny at an earlier age they could be expected to take an even greater interest in the nation's life than they do now, which would be all to the good for it would mean an extension of the democratic process.
I should like to give a short quotation from the Toronto Star for February 20, 1964, which reads as follows:
There is every reason to encourage young people to accept this basic obligation of citizenship at a time when its importance might be impressed upon them as part of their education.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that hundreds of thousands of young people finish high school at . 18 and begin to earn their own living. At 18 they come into the armed forces. At 18 many of them participate actively in politics and political parties. Political clubs at universities are now flourishing as seldom before. In fact when I attended university not too long ago it was unknown to have a political club of any party. Today there are many active political clubs at universities, and there are many mock parliaments not only at universities but in our high schools.
An 18 year old today is probably better informed and more interested in government affairs than are some of the parents of today. Today's higher standard of education has seen to that. The proportion of people with a high school education has greatly increased. Enrolment at universities of young people be-
Canada Elections Act
tween 18 and 21 years of age is growing each year. Less formal education, such as television and radio, is also bringing about a much earlier maturity. Improved educational facilities and wider experience are very good reasons for lowering the voting age. In maturing earlier, young people are taking an earlier interest in the political life of Canada, a political interest which must not be allowed to dissipate.
It must be captured, in the hope that it will be retained for life. Cited as the major argument for 18 year old voting by the United States presidential commission was the belief that by the time young people reach 21, they are-and I quote-"so removed from the stimulation of the educational process that their interest in public affairs has moved." It is in the late teens that an enthusiasm for political affairs often manifests itself; it is important for Canada that this be developed into constructive channels.
The right to vote is a valuable asset. It may help to crystallize an interest, to confer a sense of responsibility, and to give a better appreciation of the significance of the political process. Lowering the voting age is unlikely to bring any harm to the country. It would, rather, be taking advantage of assets of interest and enthusiasm which should have a helpful influence on Canadian political life. Whatever might have been true a few decades ago, today the great majority of young people have a degree of responsibility and of knowledge which would have been unknown to their parents until much later in their lives. A young person would be more inclined to turn out at the polls than his parents in response to the honour and responsibility he or she would feel on being given the franchise; he would probably shame his parents into going out to vote, too, since many of them now neglect to exercise their franchise.
With modern standards of education, most 18 year olds are much better prepared to vote than most of their grandparents were at 21 years of age. Andrew Robertson, chairman of the Winnipeg school board says-and I quote: "I have read some political essays written by high-schoolers and they show a better appraisal and understanding of government issues than their apathetic elders do." There is no reason to believe that Canada's young people are not mentally and emotionally equipped to vote at 18. It is significant that anyone serving in the armed forces, whether at home or abroad, is now entitled to vote in a federal election regardless of age
5C46

Canada Elections Act
and that he retains his voting rights on discharge even though he is still under 21.
A great many people in this country and elsewhere believed that the world would go up in smoke if women were ever given the right to vote. That is what they thought, but of course the world is still going on. If young Canadians were given the right and privilege of voting in national elections they would see it as an opportunity and as a challenge. And if they take, as they are now taking, an active part in politics they can make a substantial contribution to the Canadian democratic process. Canada is a nation of young people. Half the population is under 25 years of age and an estimated 67 per cent are younger than 40. In national elections young people can bring to bear a more objective, more detached and less self-interested judgment on party politics. Adoption of the lower voting age would recognize the increasing interest now being shown by Canada's young people in political activities. Participation by the younger generation in political affairs is symbolized in the makeup of this present parliament. The average age of members is somewhat lower today than the average age only ten years ago.
We should encourage our young people to take an earlier interest in public affairs for they will be the people responsible in the decades ahead for the maintenance and operation of our democratic institutions. As I stated earlier, the case for giving 18, 19 and 20 year olds the vote is realistic and sound and can stands on its own merits.
It is interesting to note that a move in this direction will not affect the course of the ship of state, since the provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta, British Columbia and the others I mentioned earlier are still on solid foundations. It has not resulted in any dire consequences and I submit we should be realistic about the situation in which our young people find themselves. We give them every right except the right to exercise their franchise. The argument is often brought forward that legal responsibility is not recognized under the age of 21. I happen to be one of those who believe that legal responsibility might well be applied to young people at the age of 18, too, because more and more of these people are taking on commitments and increasingly it appears to me they should be legally responsible for them. However that may be, I endorse the remarks made by the hon. member for Dan-forth (Mr. Scott). I wish to support the lowering of the voting age from 21 to 18 and to [Mr. Macaluso.l
recommend to this house that it should either pass the bill or refer it to the standing committee on privileges and elections for reconsideration, since it has already unanimously approved an amendment to section 14 of the Canada Elections Act. Perhaps it might be wise to wait until that report comes forward, but I sincerely hope the house will support the stand being put forward this afternoon, because all parties represented on the committee supported the reduction of the age as recommended.


Mr. G. H. Aiken (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: I cannot quarrel in any way with the statements made by the two previous speakers in setting forth reasons why the voting age should be reduced to 18. All those reasons are valid. Furthermore, there is very little which can be said against reducing the voting age I cannot put forward an argument which has often been used in the past, because I think for example that a person who is 18 may be just as able to cast an intelligent vote as a person who is over 21. I agree with these views, yet I am not convinced we should reduce the voting age.
If this bill had been brought in a year ago I would have supported it because I could see no reason to object to it. But there are some basic questions which have been brought up today and which I think we should consider. I think one of the most important was summarized in a statement made by the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso) when he said: It can do no harm. I think these were the words he used. Over the years, the right to vote, particularly in a national election, has been very jealously guarded. In the early days, going back even to Roman times, the right to vote was severely restricted. Down through the years it has been extended and on occasions this extension has come about because a group of people who wanted to vote went out and worked for it. We know that in the early days lack of social or economic status was a barrier to the right to vote. People in a state of slavery or servitude were, of course, never allowed to vote. Eventually such people were released and all adult males were permitted to vote. Much later, as has already been mentioned, the women's vote was brought in. We can all remember the history of the great battle which went on for the right of women to vote in the United Kingdom and in Canada. This was a right which was fought for and won, and rightly so. This was the second great move forward in this field.

I assume the hon. member for Danforth in bringing forward this bill has evidence that the time is ripe for the third stage in the extension of the franchise, that is, the stage of reducing the voting age. But the difficulty that I see, and I have tested this to the best of my ability, is that the young people do not really want the vote.


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: My friends can make their arguments and I hope they will, but I have never seen a parade of students asking for the vote and I cannot say I have ever heard of one. Certainly no evidence was presented today of any great desire for the vote.
Earlier this year, as has already been pointed out, a group of members of the young Progressive Conservative student federation had a discussion on this matter. I was present along with several of my colleagues. I told them that if they really wanted the vote and felt that the young people of Canada generally wanted the vote and were interested in it we were prepared to support them. That particular group was not prepared to ask or press for the vote in national elections. They voted against doing so. I know the hon. member for Hamilton West was not there, and I was, but I do know that there was a good deal of discussion and feeling at the meeting.


An hon. Member:: Let us have a referendum.


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I think not.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Would the hon. member permit a question? Would he tell us how many were there?


Gordon Harvey Aiken: I do not know how many were there or how many voted, but I do know that the recorded vote was 21 against and 6 in favour. I know that many did not vote on the resolution and that on another occasion to which I am coming the same thing happened. A large number of the young people did not vote because they said they did not care, that it meant nothing to them at all.
Before this rather shattering experience I thought I and my colleagues were really doing something for the young people of this country in supporting their request for the vote, but then I really got a shock when I found that they did not want it. Then I started to think about when 1 had ever heard of a request from a young people's group to reduce the voting age to 18 and I could not recall that there ever had been such a request.
Canada Elections Act
However, Mr. Speaker, since this matter had been raised and discussed in the committee on privileges and elections I decided that I had better find out what the young people of my own riding thought. So I conducted a series of discussion groups. One was at the Parry Sound high school. I was asked to come and discuss the matter because the students there had indicated some interest in it. It was a perfectly voluntary arrangement. There was a substantial turn-out of the students and as best I could I put to them the arguments for and the arguments against which we hear in this house and elsewhere. I asked them to consider this matter and let me know.
There were about 75 students present at that meeting. Eighteen voted in favour of reducing the voting age, 17 voted against and the remainder would not vote. They said they were not sufficiently acquainted with the political situation or politics or national affairs even to express an opinion whether or not they should vote. We all know that there are young people who are really interested in national affairs to the extent of working for political parties, but on the average young people do not take that much interest.
I also asked some of these young people whether they would be more interested in national affairs if they were given the vote. In other words, would this be an inducement to them to find out who was running, what the issues were and so forth? Some of them said they thought it might be but the majority said that while they might have some interest they were more interested in passing their examinations. This was the attitude revealed in the answers I received.
We in this house seem to be doing a lot of thinking these days about what the people want. We are in the midst of a flag debate and many of us are trying to find out what our constituents really think and want. The same is true of the voting age problem. We would really like to know what our own constituents think, what the public think and particularly what the young people think. But I say we do not know. There has been no evidence one way or the other. I say also that until we do know we should not change. Change is only beneficial when it is for the better and until it is proven that change will be beneficial we should not change at all.
With this in mind I do not believe that the time has come to reduce the voting age in Canada. As I say, I am naturally in favour of reducing the voting age for young people if they want the vote. But I do not think it

Canada Elections Act
is good enough for us to say that it will not do any harm, that they will vote the same way as their parents and so forth. This is not a good enough reason to extend the franchise to another large group of voters.
I do not think anyone will argue against the fact that as you grow older you grow a little wiser. I think that at age 21 people have probably learned a little more about life than at age 18. I believe there is a definable difference between people at age 18 and at age 21, and I think we must recognize it. Until we can be shown that there is a great desire on the part of these young people to reduce the voting age I do not think we should do it.
This was not the only group to which I spoke. I spoke to several others and the results were about the same. In other words, some were for, some were against and just as many either did not care or would not express an opinion. This is not an indication of a great desire on the part of young people between 18 and 20 to have the vote in national elections. I think the right to vote is a right that must be fought for and won. It is not something we should give without being asked to do so.
I appreciate the fact that the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) has brought this matter forward in the hope that we may perhaps run a little bit ahead of the feeling of the young people and give the vote to them before they want it, but in any aspect of life I do not think people appreciate anything given freely which they do not really want. For that reason I think we should move very slowly on this matter.
There is another problem which concerns the standing committee on privileges and elections. Technically I think there is nothing before that committee now because their proceedings came to an end when the last session finished, and their report was not adopted. I do not happen to be a member of that committee but I did read the evidence because I wanted to find out what had been said in the standing committee on privileges and elections which influenced the members to support such a move.
I found this subject had been introduced into this committee suddenly, and without notice, by a combination of a Liberal member and an N.D.P. member. The question was put and members found themselves on the spot. Members who were there apparently decided, well, we would be better off to vote for it than against it because if we vote against it we will be in an impossible position; but if we vote for it at least we will vote

for something that will do no serious harm. I still go along with this view. It will not do any harm. There will not be any great catastrophe if we reduce the voting age. I merely say it is not going to do any great amount of good. It is not being requested by the young people and therefore the move has not reached the stage when it should be accepted.
The hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott) who introduced this bill said he could not find any evidence to support the proposition that young people did not want it. I agree with him on that. I do not think there is any evidence. Any evidence I can gather indicates they are indifferent to the whole problem. I can say, Mr. Speaker, that if I were not fairly sure of my ground I would not be standing here and saying so. If I felt that young people really wanted the right to vote, that they really ought to have it, then I would be prepared to support this measure. I do not feel that way. I feel that if they did get it, those who would go to vote would do the best they could. I do not see any great harm arising. However I am not at all hesitant about standing in my place today and saying that the time has not yet come for a reduction in the voting age to 18 for national elections.
The hon. member for Danforth mentioned a large number of states which had reduced the voting age for national elections. Most of these states or countries were what I might call socialist states. This might not be the proper term, but except for three of the states of the United States, none of those states mentioned by the hon. member was what I would call a state of the western world-except perhaps Israel and one or two others. I was particularly looking for countries like the United States, Australia, New Zealand, France, Britain and the Netherlands. None of those countries has reduced the voting age to 18. I am not too much impressed by the list the hon. member read.
I will admit that in the state of Israel they are making great progress in bringing about social reform. They are making great effort to bring their young people into the national light. I think this is a good thing. They have, perhaps different circumstances than we have. With this one exception, and perhaps one or two others, I do not accept the list of nations which have reduced their national voting age as being impressive to the point of persuading us in Canada to reduce our voting age.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that is the sum total of my remarks. We are having a full consideration of the elections act by the standing committee on privileges and elections. I believe seldom, if ever, has it been the custom that while a committee is considering a certain matter, has gone through the motions at least of considering the whole of the elections act, that we in this house should introduce a bill anticipating the recommendations of that committee. It may be said that there was unanimous agreement in the committee, but when the report of the committee is introduced I am sure there will be considerable debate on many of the amendments proposed to the Canada Elections Act. For that reason, I do not believe this is the proper time to introduce this measure. In this respect, I agree with the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Macaluso). I took it that he was somewhat doubtful as to whether or not this was the proper procedure, to introduce this bill at this time. I agree with him. However, I am not going to hide behind that. I do not think it is time to reduce the voting age to 18.


Joseph Angelo Macaluso: Would the hon. member permit a question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: Order; the hon. member's time has expired.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit party is on record as being in favour of lowering the age limit for voting. Back in the parliament of 195357, the hon. member who at that time represented the constituency of Wetaskiwin, a member of the Social Credit party, introduced a bill with this thought in mind. As I stated, therefore, we are on record as being in support of the principle of this particular bill this afternoon. As has been pointed out, the province of British Columbia has already reduced the voting age to 19. I believe there was considerable discussion and debate as to whether it should be lowered to 18. However, apparently there was a general feeling it would be wiser to leave it at age 19, and therefore this is the position in the provincial field.
Many arguments have been advanced from time to time in support of the idea that young people, about the age of 18, should be granted the franchise and would be well able to exercise that franchise in a responsible manner. It has been pointed out that they serve in the armed forces. They occupy positions of some prominence and responsibility in various fields and, therefore, should have the opportunity of casting their ballots and making
Canada Elections Act
their choice of a representative. We feel, therefore, it is a principle of democracy that, so far as possible, those who are subject to government should have a choice of the organ that governs them. We talk about the fact that democracy is government with the consent of the governed. It seems therefore, Mr. Speaker, that they should have an opportunity to indicate their willingness to be governed by a certain representative, and this would be in the interests of all concerned. We feel, again, it would encourage young people to take an interest in politics at an age when they are still in school. Therefore they would give themselves to a study of the respective platforms of political parties. They would seek to understand various political philosophies and inform themselves as to the issues confronting the country. If this could be done it would be a very worth-while accomplishment.
Young people just standing on the threshold of life have more at stake in the future than those who are older in age. If they are able to stand the stress of life they will live longer, and therefore will be longer affected by the activities and decisions of government. A lot of young people are taxpayers, many of them possibly at the age of 18 years. At a time when so much of the government's revenue is taken from ordinary taxpayers to meet the expenses of government, surely as many taxpayers as possible should have the opportunity of expressing their opinions with respect to those who will be legislating for them and imposing taxes upon them.
It has been suggested that young people are not qualified to express intelligently their views on matters of government. I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, there are a great many young people aged 18 and 19-I am not going to be a sticker for either age, although I think possibly 19 might be better-who are more qualified than older people of a far greater age. Young people take a keen interest and are not afraid to make decisions while many older people tend to settle down and say, "So long as I can make a living I can get along. Leave it to the young people."
I do not intend to take up the remaining time as there may be other members who wish to speak on this measure, and I certainly do not want to talk it out. Reference has been made to the article written by Norman DePoe in Weekend Magazine of March, 1964. On page 3 of that article we find:
The students union council of the University of Manitoba.. .passed a vote supporting retention of the voting age at 21.

Canada Elections Act
It also referred to a meeting of the Progressive Conservative students federation which took a similar stand, but I do not think that it is indicative of the general attitude of young people. It may be in certain circles, but I am inclined to think most young people of this age would appreciate having an opportunity to make decisions and to cast their votes in an intelligent manner.
I understand, Mr. Speaker, this was passed by a committee last session. If the government sees fit to move that it be referred to a committee again we would support such a motion. Some consideration should be given to this matter with a view to lowering the age limit to allow a greater number of Canadian citizens to exercise the franchise in this enlightened age.
[Translation}


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Si. Denis):: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes remaining, I would not want-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hon.
member for Beauce.


Mr. Gerard Perron (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to have the great honour of killing the bill. However, I would like to say, on behalf of our group, that we approve and support the bill introduced by the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Scott).
Judging by the remarks made by various other members who spoke before me, it is quite obvious that, today, those who have reached 18 years of age have acquired enough maturity and emancipation to make up their own minds regarding the choice of their representatives.
It has been proved that 18 year old youths take an active part, through income tax and in other ways, in contributing to public funds. In such circumstances, it would be normal to give them the opportunity to choose their own representatives. Moreover, by allowing them to play the democracy game, they would perhaps be less prone to resort to violence which unavoidably leads to dictatorship.
I do not want to monopolize the time of the house but I want to add that the passing of this measure would give another opportunity for French Canadians to gain their freedom. Our past proves to us that youngsters want to integrate themselves to the adult population of Canada and take an active part in the political life of their province and their country. In short, it would be desirable to give our youths the opportunity to take part in national elections as soon as they reach 18 years of age.

[Text}


Mr. Terry Nugent (Edmonlon-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, before one of my friends on the other side of the house asks that question which is usually asked of a speaker when he rises a few minutes before the closing of the hour, I will answer it. Yes, I am aware that if I speak now I will kill this and, yes, that is exactly my intention, because I do not think for one moment that now is an opportune time in this country's affairs to lower the voting age to 18.
I may say I am quite aware of the very intelligent interest shown by many of that age, and I have had the benefit of their hard work in my own election campaigns. I may say they are just as serious as the 21 year elds; sometimes they are much harder working, but I think this is only a very small percentage of them. They make a very impressive mark; but the point I have made in this house previously on this subject is that voting is not just a case of intelligence and hard work.
Voting requires judgment, and judgment in this day and age requires an ever increasing amount of education to begin to comprehend the problems the country faces. It cannot be achieved while one is still encompassed with that very harsh problem of trying to catch up to this modern age. I say judgment is the result of education, intelligence and experience. Today if any change in the voting age is required, in keeping with conditions in the country, in keeping with the requirements of our modern technological society it would, if anything, be to raise the voting age.
A few years ago when comparatively little education was required a man could cope with life at 15 if he were full grown and had his full strength, but now it takes more and more education and experience and now, more than ever, if we are to run this country properly, if we are to have votes cast properly, there must be judgment. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have no hesitation in saying I hope this will go no further at this time. May I call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):: The hour
for consideration of private members' business has expired.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Gordon Minto Churchill: I would like to ask the acting house leader about the business for next week?


Mr. MacNaughl:: On Monday we will resume the committee stage of Bill C-90, an act to amend the National Defence Act. When the committee and third reading stage are concluded we will consider second reading stage of the bill relating to youth allowances. We will then take up the committee stage
Business of the House of Bill S-17, respecting the territorial sea and fishing zones of Canada. This bill has been considered by the standing committee on marine and fisheries and referred back to the house.


[Stage Direction]
At six o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to special order.
[Stage Direction]
Monday, July 6, 1964