[Stage Direction]
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs) moved:
That the name of Mr. MacNaught be substituted for that of Mr. Grant on- the standing committee on public accounts.
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Mr. W. R. MACDONALD (Deputy Speaker):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.
Yesterday the hon. member for Parlcdale (Mr. Bruce) made certain observations with respect to my actions as chairman of the committee of the whole. As these observations were so completely without foundation as to be fantastic, I did not, at the time, take his remarks seriously. Also I felt it would be most unbecoming for the Deputy Speaker to enter into a controversy with another member, and I still intend to avoid it. However, as certain sections of the press have given prominence to his remarks, I feel that I should make a brief statement.
The words to which the hon. member objected were brought to my attention in committee two days after they were uttered. The hon. member for Parkdale rose in committee on a point of order. I allowed him the widest latitude possible, as I felt he should be given an opportunity to make a complete statement. I. was most anxious that I should be as fair as possible toward him. When he had completed his statement it was necessary for me to make a ruling, and irrespective of my personal feelings in any matter I am bound to see that the rules and precedents of parliament are observed. I read the rule which applied to the point of order which had been raised, and in accordance with the rule I made the finding to which the hon. member objects.
It is natural that any hon. member should be somewhat disappointed when a ruling is made against him. May I, however, Mr. Speaker, be permitted to point out that it is contrary to long established practice in this house and in the British House of Commons for any hon. member to attack the Deputy Speaker, and I trust that in future it will not be tolerated.

Cable Services



CABLE AND WIRELESS SERVICES


[Stage Direction]
On the order for motions:
Hon.J. L. ILSLEY (ActingPrime Minister): The leader of the opposition asked the other day certain questions regarding commonwealth communications, and perhaps this would be the proper stage at which to answer these questions.
1.	The first question was, whether there have been negotiations between Canada and other governments of the commonwealth on the nationalization of cable and wireless circuits and if so, what is the present state of those negotiations.
The answer is that negotiations between the various governments of the commonwealth commenced in the summer of 1944 following recommendations submitted to them by the commonwealth communications council, upon which each partner government is represented, in favour of a policy of nationalization. Early in 1945, Lord Reith, on behalf of the United Kingdom government, visited each of the dominions and India to explain the point of view- of the United Kingdom on the recommendations of the commonwealth communications council. Following these discussions with Lord Reith, it was agreed that the partner governments should participate in a commonwealth telecommunications council to . be held at London in July, 1945. That conference was duly held and unanimously recommended:
(a)	A fundamental change in the organization of commonwealth telecommunications services.
(b)	The public ownership of overseas telecommunications services of all the commonwealth governments.
(c)	The replacement of the existing commonwealth communications council by a new board with wider functions, representing all the governments of the commonwealth.
(d)	Financial contributions by members of the commonwealth for the maintenance and use of the cable system.
Canada lias since been notified of the agreement in principle of all partner governments, except Australia, to the above recommendations, and the Canadian government has indicated its willingness to nationalize external telecommunications services and to subscribe to an interim agreement extending the functions of the commonwealth communications council, pending the creation of the new telecommunications board.
2.	The second question was: Have any conferences been held or is it intended that any shall be held. This has been partly answered by 1. A United States-commonwealth telecommunications conference is scheduled to be held in Bermuda commencing November 19 for the discussion of outstanding questions on telecommunications matters between United States and commonwealth interests. Canada has agreed to participate in this conference, and in addition to the government delegation, representatives of the Canadian Marconi company, the Canadian National Telegraph company and the Canadian Pacific Telegraph company will attend.
3.	The third question was: What Canadian communications services or Canadian interests in commonwealth communications services are involved in this proposal. The answer is that the external telecommunication services of Canadian Marconi company and the local facilities on the east and west coasts of Cable and Wireless Limited, that is, cable terminals.
4.	The fourth question was: What will be the cost to Canada of the proposed nationalization. The answer is that the cost is yet to be determined by negotiation with the Canadian Marconi company and Cable and Wireless Limited- These negotiations have not yet been initiated.
Mr. POULIOT:: Is it the intention of the government to send the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Bruce) over there as a Canadian delegate?



QUESTIONS

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

Mr. DANIEL:: 1.	Have the R.C.A.F. an airport or landing field near Tilsonburg, Ontario?
2.	If so, when was it constructed?
3.	What use was made of this airport?
4.	What was the cost of constructing and equipping this airport?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	The R.C.A.F. had a landing field near Tilsonburg, Ontario, which has now been declared surplus and is in the process of being turned over to the Department of Transport.
2.	Construction was commenced in the * spring of 1944.
3.	This airport was used as a relief field to No. 16 Service Flying Training School, Hagersville.
4.	$273,594.38.
Questions


EXIT LABOUR PERMITS FOR WOODS WORKERS
Mr. DIEFENBAKER:: 1.	Has the Department of Labour any statistical information indicating that there is a shortage of woods workers in Canada? If so, what is the number required by provinces?
2.	When was the last estimate of such labour requirements made?
3.	Have any exit permits been granted to residents of Canada in each of the months of September and October, to cross the border to work in the woods in the state of Maine? If so, how many?


Mr. McILRAITH:: 1. The woods-worker situation in Canada as at September 1, 1945, shows three times as many men (54,767) engaged in logging and pulpwood cutting as at the same date in 1939 at the outbreak of war. There were 8,405 more than this time last year, and 16,228 more than in 1943 at the same date. The demand, however, has slackened off somewhat due to the late fall; but it is expected that winter requirements will be heavy and a special campaign is under way to locate the men needed. The results so far have been good.
The numbers needed for winter work are
estimated to be:
Maritime region	 5,000
Quebec region	 20,000
Ontario region	 14,000
Prairie region	 8,000
British Columbia	 3,000
2. October 1, 1945.
3.	Yes. In September, 2,592; in October to 20th instant, 1,183.


R.C.A.F. BUILDING AT WHITEHORSE
Mr. KNOWLES:: 1.	Is there an R.C.A.F. building at AYhite-horse known as very important personnel building? If so, what was the cost of building the same?
2.	For what purpose was it built? For what purposes is it being used?


Mr. GIBSON (Hamilton West):: 1.	Presumably this refers to officers' and transients' quarters. This building cost $21,697.50.
2.	.This building was constructed to provide accommodation for United States and Canadian government officials and senior officers, as hotel accommodation in Whitehorse was very limited. It is being occupied by the commanding officer of the station, and has several rooms available for transient government officials and officers..


INTERNATIONAL CARTELS
Mr. MacINNIS:: 1.	Has the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act made an investigation of international cartels as they affect Canada?
2.	Has the report been submitted to the government ?
Mr. ST. LAURENT: The answer to 'both branches of the question is yes, and with the permission of the house I should like to table a copy of the report in question and. to state that instructions have been given to have it translated and printed. As soon as that is done a copy will be mailed to each member of the house.



QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURNS


Mr. BLACK (Yukon) :: 1.	What are the estimated amounts collected during each of the two 6scal years last past by the government of Canada in war exchange tax on beer and liquor imported to Canada and the estimated amount collected by said government during the same period on sales tax on domestic sales?
2.	If the records of the Department of Trade and Commerce are kept in such a way that the above information is unknown to it. from what source can the information be obtained?



CANADIAN FLAG


Hon.  J. L. ILSIASY@Acting Prime Minister: That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada posses a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag;
That standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, .papers and records to aid iij the discharge of its functions; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that the House of Commons has appointed this committee and to request their honours to appoint members of the Senate to act thereon with the members of the House of Commons as a joint committee of both houses.
He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving on behalf of the Pj-ime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the resolution standing in his name to set up a joint committee of the two houses of parliament to consider and report upon a suitable design for a distinctive national flag, I wish to inform the house that several weeks ago, when the government was more optimistic about the progress which would be made in the proceedings of the house, I asked my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie)

Canadian Flag
if he would be prepared to proceed with this resolution during my absence on the victory loan tour. The minister has been ready since that time to proceed with the motion, and he will now speak on behalf of the government.
Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the consideration of this house the resolution that stands on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister.
This house will recall that similar resolutions from private members were moved here by members of previous parliaments, not by members of the government, but by private members of this house.
I recall this afternoon the repeated efforts of the former member -for North Battleford, Cameron McIntosh, to bring this issue to the attention of previous parliaments, and on one occasion a resolution along similar lines moved by a former Conservative member for Nanaimo, Mr. Dickie, who was highly respected in this house.
In the discussions of previous days there were very valuable contributions made, notably by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), by the former member for Kin-dersley, Mr. Elliott, by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, now Lord Bennett, and by the present Prime Minister.
There have been suggestions by some persons that this is not an important matter, and that it should not be brought forward at this time. With this I emphatically disagree. In the life of every nation symbols are important, and perhaps the most important of these is a national flag. We need only to think of the vast affection and loyalty that has attached to the union jack in Britain and throughout the commonwealth, and I yield to no one in this house in my admiration for that great symbol of empire. In the same way, for our neighbours to the south the stars and stripes have been an inspiration to national unity and national endeavour. We in Canada have shared the union jack, and we shall always honour it as the symbol of much that is best and most precious in our heritage; but we have had nothing that has been peculiarly and indisputably our own, that would symbolize Canada-all of Canada and everyone in Canada. There should be something that all cam see and look to with pride, as the symbol of this great nation of ours, to which affection and loyalty can attach, and which can become the sign of the unity and purpose that will make Canada great.
In advocating that Canada have a flag of its own, we are not suggesting that a narrow nationalism become our goal. Far from it. We are not turning our backs on the British
commonwealth; far from it. We are not drawing away from the new international community of the united nations; far from it. It is the firm intention of the government, and of everyone in Canada, that we shall continue to play our part in the British commonwealth, an association of nations that has been an example to the world. It is equally our intention that Canada shall be a strong and unselfish voice, and a courageous and active member in the united nations; that is our hope for future peace. All of that is ' our purpose. In our laudable longing to have a national flag we are only seeking to give to the spirit of Canada, to the enthusiasm of our people and to the sacrifice of our men in two terrible wars, the symbolism that all other nations have joined to create a force in their national life, the symbolism of a national flag.
There are, however, definite practical disadvantages in not having a distinctive Canadian flag. There is the necessity for a Canadian flag on the buildings of our ambassadors, ministers and high commissioners in other lands. At present the Canadian red ensign flies from them, the same flag that now flies from the peace tower here. But it has never been adopted as a national flag although it has become recognized generally as distinctive of Canada, and there is much confusion concerning its use.
On our war memorials in France, Belgium, Great Britain, and other countries where the flags of the allied nations have been enshrined, there is no distinctive flag to commemorate the Canadians whose sacrifice is honoured there.
' A distinguished Canadian correspondent-I believe he is with us here-visited the cathedral at Amiens, where the memory is honoured of Canadians who stemmed the onrush of the Germans in 1918. He described in the following words the reaction of a leading citizen of Amiens who was his guide:
He led the way -around the altar to where on one side of the lady chapel were hung the flags of those countries whose soldiers had stood between Amiens and the invader. He went on to explain that there was no flag for Canada and the people of Amiens deeply regretted this was so. Canada, alone, was missing. But it was not their fault. They had tried to obtain the Canadian flag. They had taken the matter up with the government at Paris and had been told that there was no Canadian flag.
It would not be right, he said, to hang a second British flag. He felt and his fellow townsmen felt that this would be unworthy of Canada and, in any case, would be meaningless -since one British flag was there already. If the writer could assure him that there had been any change in this situation, the city of Amiens would write to Paris immediately.
Canadian Flag

Unfortunately no assurances could be given. It did not seem right that the Canadian boys, of all who fell in the battle of Amiens, should not be remembered in this ancient and holy place.
Canada is to-day as a nation taking her just place in the forefront at international conferences. When both the United Kingdom and Canada are represented it would be misleading if there were not some distinctive flag to identify the Canadian delegation.
The delegations from Great Britain might have every reason to resent Canada appropriating the flag which is their distinctive emblem. Other countries of the commonwealth do not so presume.
Then again, we all recall the confusion and embarrassment at the Olympic games in 1928, when there was no Canadian flag to go to the masthead to honour Canadian victories, although our glorious athletes frequently came-in first in the competitive games in that great event.
Our Canadian defence forces have had more than one occasion in our time to serve abroad alongside other British forces. It seems only appropriate that the banners at their camps and quarters and under which they march should betoken t'heir Canadian origin.
Furthermore, the use of the union jack as the Canadian flag gives a mistaken impression abroad, especially in the United States, where, if we are to discharge our historic function as interpreter, it is of real importance to emphasize that Canada speaks with her own voice.
Other reasons too could be cited for the importance of this matter, and other instances of difficulty and embarrassment through the lack of a distinctive national flag. If the matter is, then, important, is this a proper time to bring it. up? I think it is. The war has brought Canada to a new peak of international importance, to a new recognition in the eyes of the world. We are regarded as a nation, and a powerful nation, and we are expected to have the attributes of one. A national flag is one of thesq. Moreover, after Canada's great part in this war, after the solidarity of the commonwealth that was demonstrated in the face of peril and attack, none can misunderstand our action, none can think that this is a symbol to withdrawal and isolation. In the debate on this question in -1938 our present Prime Minister concluded with, a cogent argument, which if it was effective then, is ten times more pointed now- an argument, too, as we can now see, which was pungent in its prophecy. Let me quote his words:
There has never been a time, I believe, when the relations between Canada and the mother country were so cordial, so completely friendly,
fMr. Mackenzie.]
helpful and cooperative in every way as they are at the present time. The present is the time, then, to consider this question. It will not be disposed of, in my opinion, until it is settled in Canada as it has been in the other dominions. If we do not settle it now, some issue may arise in the course of a few years which will provoke another discussion and lead to the settlement of the question in a manner that may be misunderstood elsewhere. To-day there is no possible danger of misunderstanding on the part of anyone in this country, in Britain, in Europe or elsewhere in the world, as to what Canada has in mind in seeking to have a distinctive national flag.
In considering the question of a national flag, I think it may be helpful, if I give to the house a brief summary of the historical background and of the present position with regard to flags in Canada.
Prior to 1867, the flag in general use was the union jack, which was flown in all the colonies. Upon the establishment of com-federation, however, it was felt desirable to have a symbol of the new country that had been created, and this was achieved through the use of a flag made up of the British red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly, a flag which became known as the Canadian red ensign. The ensign was flown from all public buildings after 1867, and achieved quite general use. In a governor general's dispatch of December, 1891, on the question of the issuance of a formal warrant for use of the flag on Canadian merchant vessels, Lord Stanley wrote:
Though no actual order has ever been issued the dominion government has encouraged by precept and example the use on all public buildings throughout the provinces of the red ensign with the Canadian badge in the "fly". I submit that the flag is one which has come to be considered as the recognized flag of the dominion both ashore and afloat, and on sentimental grounds I think there is much to be said for its retention.
In 1870 the Canadian blue ensign was formally approved for use on Canadian government vessels. In 1892 the Canadian red ensign was authorized by admiralty warrant for use on merchant vessels registered in Canada. On account, however, of the lack of any formal adoption as a national flag the use of the red ensign on public buildings ceased about 1904, on instruction of the Minister of Public Works of that day. With this change the use of the ensign gradually declined, until by 1912 the colonial secretary gave it as his opinion that "the union flag is the national flag of Canada."
In 1903 Australia had adopted a national flag; in 1900 New Zealand had done the same, and it soon became clear, especially after the first world war, in which Canada played so magnifieant a part, that it was necessary to

Canadian Flag
have some emblem that would be distinctive of this country. The same need was felt in the Union of South Africa, which adopted a flag about 1927 or 1928. So far as Canada wTas concerned the only immediate action taken was an order in- council in 1924 authorizing the Canadian red ensign to be flown "over all premises owned or occupied by the Canadian government abroad".
The order in council of 1924 did not give the ensign any formal status as a national flag, but the obvious need for a national emblem led to its steadily increased use. At both the Quebec conferences-in 1943 and 1944 it flew alongside the union jack and the stars and stripes. On October 22, 1943, the cabinet war committee agreed that the army should provide for flying the Canadian red ensign where Canadian forces were serving with forces of other nations, and noted with approval action taken by the R.C.A.F. to fly it in conjunction with the R.C.A.F. service flag at all stations where the air force were serving with the forces of other nations. During the entire conference at San Francisco last summer it flew with the flags of forty-nine other united nations. On V-E day and V-J day the red ensign flew from the peace tower in honour of the part played by the Canadian forces in the victories that had been achieved. To remove any possible doubt as to the propriety of its use, pending action on a national flag by parliament order in council P.C. 5888 was passed1 on September 5 of this year, copies of which were tabled in this house by the Acting Prime Minister on October 1. The text appears in Hansard at page 593.
I might mention one or two other points with regard to the use of flags for Canadian purposes. I have already referred to the adoption of the Canadian blue ensign in 1870 for use on Canadian government vessels. There was, of course, no Canadian navy at that time. However, under a memorandum of agreement of 1911 between the government and the admiralty, ships of the Royal Canadian Navy were authorized to fly the Canadian blue ensign at the jack staff as a distinctive national flag, the white ensign being displayed at the stern. The present practice with the Royal Canadian Navy, I believe, is to fly at sea only the white ensign, and in harbour to add the Canadian blue ensign at the jack staff.
There have been many discussions of the flag question in former parliaments. In 1925 the government appointed a committee of officials to choose a design for a Canadian flag, an incident that provoked a heated debate in the House of Commons owing to an unfortunate coincidence as to the personnel of
the committee. As a result of that debate the committee was disbanded and no action was taken.
I cannot be certain of all the occasions on which the issue has been debated since chat year, but there were debates in 1931, in 1932, in 1933, in 1935, in 1937 and in 1938. There have been resolutions, as I said, by Mr. Cameron McIntosh, the Liberal, and by Mr. C. H. Dickie, the Conservative. In 1938 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the then leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, agreed that a committee should be appointed to recommend an appropriate design, but the resolution died on the order paper without a vote.
The debate of 1938 is worth recalling for another reason, because in that year the former member for Kindersley, Mr. Elliott, recalled that Canada already has a flag which is 176 years older than the union jack itself. He referred to the flag of Nova Scotia, authorized in 1625 by Charles I. This flag of Nova Scotia consists of the blue cross of St. Andrew on a white field, with an orange tawny shield bearing a red lion in the centre. Mr. Elliott said he would have had no objection to the dominion asking Nova Scotia if that flag might be adopted for the whole of Canada. While I am not making that suggestion, we are indebted to Mr. Elliott for bringing out the fact that as early as 1625 the king had no objection to his subjects on this side of the Atlantic having a distinctive flag of their o^n.
Arising out of this, the fact that even at so early a date no impropriety was seen in having distinctive flags, I want to reemphasize that in choosing -a national flag for Canada there is no thought or suggestion that we shall cease to honour the union jack as the symbol of the British commonwealth and empire as a whole. Our affections are not so shrivelled or our enthusiasm so narrow that we need renounce the one because we adopt the other. Both can have their place; both do have their place; both, will have their place.-
As Canadians we take justifiable pride in the growth of Canada, in its individuality, in its nationhood. Our Canadain army went into action under the red ensign and, without deviating from our determination to pool our resources with those of the other British nations and our allied nations in the most effective manner towards the attainment of victory, the Canadian people at all times indicated a strong desire that the identity of Canadian forces and of individual Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen be maintained.
Canadian Flag

Even Canadians who joined the fleet air arm of the Royal Navy, a force operated and maintained entirely by the government of the United Kingdom, wore the "Canada" badge on their shoulders, and we were proud that they should do so. This sense of distinctive pride is in no way inconsistent with the broader attachment to the British commonwealth as a whole.
We do not think of one who has a well developed sense of local pride in his home city as lacking in national patriotism; nor should we think of one who has a good sense of Canadian national pride as being any the less devoted to the purposes and principles of the British commonwealth of nations.
Turning now to the resolution. itself, there are one or two matters I should like particularly to point out. Hon. members will have noted that the resolution is not only for the establishment of a committee on the flag, but also to place it on record-
That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag.
In other words, approval of this resolution will involve a decision by the house that Canada should have a distinctive national flag. If there are any members who do not agree that Canada should have such a flag, this is their opportunity to record such a view, by voting against the resolution. If the resolution- is carried it will not be for the committee to consider whether a distinctive flag should or should not be adopted. Approval of the adoption of a distinctive flag is embodied in approval of the resolution itself, and the sole function of the committee, as the resolution makes clear, will be "to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag".
One further point to which I would refer is, in a sense, related to the rule about discussion in the house of matters before a committee. This matter of the design of the flag Is not yet before the committee, but I think there is good reason to feel that much might be lost, and little gained by a discussion of designs here in the house, before the committee has an- opportunity to study the matter and make its report. The question of the design of a national flag is one that will re-quire careful study and investigation. It is also a subject about which many of us have personal views on the question-as indeed I have myself-but I feel that it will avoid a great deal of trouble and difficulty if these personal views are withheld until we have the report of the committee before us. For that reason I do not myself intend to ad-

vocate or suggest any particular flag or design that might be adopted as our national flag.
There is nothing more, Mr. Speaker, that I wish to say. I earnestly hope that it will be unanimously adopted by the house, and that the work of the committee will settle now and for all, and for the good of Canada, and through the growth and influence of Canada for the good of the commonwealth and the community of nations, this question of our national flag and symbol. The children of to-day and, let us pray, the children of tomorrow, will strive for and gain a ne-w peace, a new freedom and a new security under the protection of the flag of Canada.


Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):: Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house was forecast in the speech from the throne. In his moving and- eloquent address the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) has raised this subject above the level of narrow partisan policy, and it is my earnest desire to endeavour to keep the discussion on that same high plane.
For many years parliament, and perhaps Canada as a whole, has been too busy in material affairs to give full attention to the spiritual side of her life. It might be said that we have -been too close to the dust and roar of the market to consider the immortal soul of our nation. But a nation has a soul. Indeed it has been said that a nation is a soul, that -a nation is a spiritual principle. Surely -Canada, through the sacrifices and the terrible hardships of her original explorers, through the sacrifices made by her missionaries as they travelled farther and farther to the west, through the privations suffered by the early settlers who came to this country, as well as in recent years by the endeavours of all those who took part in the two great wars of this generation, has proved that she has a soul of her own. Therefore it is only natural that she should desire some token to represent that soul, some token symbolic of her history and of her future aspirations. That thought has been expressed not only in discussions which have taken place in the house, -but also quite recently in discussions in every part of the country.
In early colonial days the union, jack was regarded as sufficient for our needs. But the union jack primarily is the flag of the British isles; it has gone through a period of evolution. At first the cross of St. George was added to the flag, then the cross of St. Andrew, and later the cross of St. Patrick. By common usage that flag has become recognized as the flag of the British empire.
But, as has been shown by the remarks of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the union jack has not filled1 all our requirements here

Canadian Flag
in Canada. As he pointed out, to-day Canada has two sea flags, and the distinctive ensign of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Canadian regiments have carried' overseas colours of their own. A regiment usually carries two colours, one known as the king's colour- usually the union jack-and in addition the regimental colour. Those colours have been symbolic of the' spirit and soul of the regiment. They were originally the token around which the regiment might rally, and history record's many deeds of daring in fights for the flag. I think from whait the minister has said and the few remarks I intend" to make this afternoon it will be clear that both ancient and modern history emphasizes the fact that there is a demand for a national flag for Canada.
As the minister pointed out, up to 1904 the Canadian red ensign flew from these parliament buildings, from the legislative buildings of the provinces, from other public buildings and from many schooLhouses, with the result that there was a generation which grew up believing that that was the flag of Canada. In 1909, when Canada sent an expedition to Arctic waters and took over certain of the islands lying off the northern shore of Canada, alongside the union jack was planted a Canadian ensign.
In 1918, when Sir Arthur Currie moved into the city of Mons immediately after the declaration of the armistice, he carried a Canadian ensign which is sometimes referred to as the Mons flag. That flag was collected rather hastily; it was not perfect in design, because there were slight irregularities with regard to the crests of some of the provinces, but to all intents and purposes it was the Canadian red ensign. When the contingent sailed from Canada in December, 1939, a flag was carried by the commander which was looked upon as the flag of the Canadian expedition, but for various reasons that was not carried right through this war.
We now have the troops returning home, and we see in every city across this land flags hung out from poles and from windows. You will see as many Canadian red ensigns as union jacks displayed in welcome to our troops returning. In 1924 authority was granted by order in council that the Canadian red ensign should fly over the offices of the high commissioner in London, and in 1927, a similar order in council was passed authorizing the same flag to be flown over our buildings in Washington.
Reference was made to the difficulty experienced by our athletes during the Olympic games, and similar difficulties were found at the great boy scout jamboree when some
50,000 boy scouts paraded in London. They had difficulty in knowing just what was the flag of Canada. We hear also that at the San Francisco conference the Canadian red ensign 'held its place proudly with the flags of other nations.
From what I have said and from, what the minister has said it will be clear that the Canadian ensign has flown sometimes unauthorized, sometimes quite unofficially, and sometimes that ensign has been incorrectly designed; but it has flown alongside the union jack in some cases and in other cases by itself. As the .minister has said, much confusion has been created as to its use.
What is now being asked is that a flag should be recognized as a Canadian national flag for general use. The use of these unauthorized flags has not displaced the union jack, nor has it made it any the less the flag of our commonwealth. Neither would an authorized Canadian flag make that union jack any less authorized as the flag of the British commonwealth. Any British subject would have the right to fly the union jack in any part of the British empire.
As the minister stated, when dominion status was authorized for Australia and for New Zealand, the governments of those dominions immediately signallized that event by the adoption of their own flag. The loyalty of Australia and New Zealand to the crown or to the commonwealth cannot be questioned. The ' adoption of a national flag is just a coping stone in the edifice of dominion status. The question therefore arises:	What flag
should Canada adopt?
At the present time the red ensign flies from the parliament buildings. That red ensign has a union jack in the left-hand comer with the armorial bearings of Canada in the fly. Those armorial bearings were granted to Canada to replace the previous crests that we had and which endeavoured to embrace the crests of the different provinces. In 1921 the then reigning monarch, King George V, whose interest in Canada, as well as in retaining the dignity of pageantry and tradition, were equally well known, took a personal interest in the adoption of our own armorial bearings, to which, after they had been reviewed by the college of heralds, he most readily gave his approval.
I do not think there is anyone who would not concede the beauty and appropriateness of our shiefd. This is really the royal crest, being differenced in one quarter so that the arms of old France might be displayed, while in the lower third on a field of silver is a sprig of three green maple leaves representing Canada. That crest carried on the fly of the
Canadian Flag

Canadian red ensign, and in fact that ensign itself, is symbolic of our history and of our unity under the crown. I submit that by long usage and ancient custom that flag has become closely identified with Canada. It is distinctive; no other land flag is just like it. It embodies all the features requisite for a national flag. It meets the requirements of *heraldic lore; it is a good flag, and one of which we can be proud.
The minister has said that now is the time to make a decision. I agree with him; now is the time to make a decision on this matter. The time of this parliament is short; we still have a heavy programme to get through, and I question the advisability of referring this question to a committee. Such a committee would have to consider hundreds of different designs which might be submitted; it would have to wade through pages of explanations.; it might open up bickerings over the question of artistic design; and the one thing we want to avoid when discussing this question of a national flag is the possibility of engendering any ill feeling at all.
There are a number of committees already sitting in this house. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has the veterans affairs committee, which he said was practically a full-time task for its members. It is a large committee, and embraces the greater number of those who have seen service either in the first great war or in the recently concluded struggle. I do not think that this parliament should set up a committee to discuss a matter which is so close to the hearts of those who have fought for this country without having representatives of those who have served, sitting on that committee. I therefore propose in all seriousness, prompted only with the idea of trying to expedite the work of this house, to meet the desires of the people of this country, and to ensure that there is unity among all classes and sections of our land, the following amendment to the resolution:
_ That all the words after the word "expedient" in the first line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
". . . that Canada adopt the present Canadian red ensign as the official national flag."


Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support on behalf of our party the resolution presented to the house in the name of the Prime Minister. I think the time has come, indeed in my opinion it came some years ago, when Canada should have a distinctive emblem of her nationhood. After all, this country has a magnificent history, and the steps which have been taken throughout several hundred years to reach the point where Canada in her own right is
[Air. Pearkes.]
known among the nations of the world, are, I think, interesting to every historian wherever he may be found.
If we look back into the history of our country, and observe that the foundations of Canada were laid by divers types of persons- explorers and missionaries, traders and settlers -we realize that we have something of which we may be proud in the origin and in the building of our country. Our country symbolizes, I think, more than any other nation in the British commonwealth, the steps which have been taken throughout the years to create the free independent nations which comprise the British commonwealth of nations -the Quebec Act, the Constitutional Act, the Act of Union, and, following the Act of Union that great challenge to responsible government in our own country when the Rebellion Losses bill was approved by Lord Elgin and responsible government was established for all time in Canada; then the coming together of the various provinces in the Act of Confederation; and in 1931, the statute of Westminster, which clearly recognized that each nation of the British commonwealth was equal with every other nation of the British commonwealth. That being so, it has always seemed to me rather strange that Canada, which blazed the trail in so many respects, has lagged behind our sister nations of the commonwealth-South Africa, Australia, New Zealand-in acquiring and in recognizing a national symbol, a national flag.
I am very glad indeed that this resolution is before us. I think we should round it off as soon as possible by two other measures, one to recognize for the use of all Canadians a national anthem-	.
As hon. MEMBER: We have one now.


Major James William Coldwell: -a piece of music particularly and peculiarly Canadian, which, when our people meet in other parts of the world, might be played as significant of our nationhood. When I was in Brussels last year the brigadier who was in charge of that city was explaining to us that the people of Brussels had been good enough to invite each Saturday evening to the opera the Canadian soldiers- Canadian soldiers were the only soldiers at that time in any number in Brussels. He said that when the people in charge of the opera asked what anthem should be played, and he suggested "O Canada"-


Mr. MacNICQL:: That is not a national anthem.


Major James William Coldwell: -the music apparently was not available on that occasion; but I was assured that it was going to be available on subsequent occasions.

Canadian Flag
The other thing I think we should do as soon as possible is to take the right to amend our own constitution. It is a most undignified position for a country which has reached nationhood and has made the contribution to world affairs that Canada has made that we should go across the sea and request an amendment to our own constitution when it is something we should do for ourselves. Once I asked an outstanding member of the British House of Commons-he was not a Socialist, Labour or even Liberal but a Conservative member-just what happened when a request came from Canada to amend its constitution., and he said it would not matter what Canada asked, it would be approved almost without discussion, and certainly with very litde consideration.
Consequently I think that these three things are essential to our nationhood; a flag, a national anthem, the right to amend our own constitution, and indeed the right to interpret our own laws.
I welcome this measure because I believe it is a step in the right direction. Canadian soldiers held the whole of the left flank of the allied armies a year ago in France, Belgium and Holland, and when we were driving along the countryside, as I once before remarked in this house, we saw the flags of all the nations, but there was no flag representing Canada. Canadian soldiers had no symbol of their nationhood which the local population could fly to welcome and honour them, and had I not been convinced before I would have been convinced last autumn, when I had the great privilege of seeing our Canadian boys along the left flank of the allied armies, that Canada needs a distinctive emblem. This is not chauvinistic; this is not the wrong kind of nationalism. There is a kind of nationalism which I think we can decry, but this is a healthy form of respect for our own nation and for those who have built it, who have loved it, and who have died for it.
The minister suggested that we should not this afternoon go into the kind of flag. I am in agreement with him, and therefore when the time comes I shall vote against the amendment. In my opinion this is not the time for such an amendment. I do not deny that a member of the house has a right to move it, but I do not think we should be called upon now to decide what particular kind of flag we should adopt. I wish to see the intent of this resolution carried out. I wish to see Canada with a distinctive flag, and in my opinion the red ensign with, a coat of arms on it, which I would rather say nothing about, is not a distinctive flag.
Hon. members who were at San Francisco will recall the occasion on which we had all the flags displayed, the forty-six nations' flags at the rear of the platform. Canada's ensign was there, but as it appeared in the building all that one could see was a union jack in the corner and the red bunting-no distinctive feature about that flag; nothing to distinguish it from several other flags that were displayed. Even if we cannot agree immediately on the flag that we are going to adopt for our country, I think it would be better to delay the adoption of a flag at this moment than to adopt one that is not distinctive of this country. The flag of the British commonwealth is the union jack, and we respect it, but I am pleased indeed to know that my hon. friends to the right are prepared' to recognize that the time has come when Canada should have a flag of her own.
I was born in Great Britain, and I have distinct recollections of my childhood there. I remember well, though it is now a long time ago, the celebration of Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee in 1897, when I was quite a small boy. I remember the schoolboys' parade on that occasion. I was in it, and I and others carried a flag. It was not the union jack that I carried, but the cross of St. George, the flag of England, and' I say that if England has the right to carry the St. George's cross, and Scotland the right to carry the cross of St. Andrew-	[DOT]


Mr. MACKENZIE:: The lion rampant.


Mr. COLD  WELL@: My hon. friend1 says the lion rampant, and that more nearly fits his speeches at times than the cross of St. Andrew. At any rate, if the cross of St. George and the lion rampant may 'be flown as distinctive of England and Scotland respectively, why should there be objection anywhere in Canada to our having a distinctive flag, a flag that is as distinctively Canadian as the cross of St. George is distinctive of England?
I do not want to prolong the discussion, but on behalf of my friends and myself I simply say that we support the resolution. We do so not only because we in this house believe that it is a resolution that should be supported, but because those who have sent us here believe so. For years our national conventions have passed resolutions urging the adoption of a Canadian flag, and1 we speak therefore not only for ourselves but for those who have sent us here.
I am glad indeed that a committee is to be set up. I hope it will not be in a hurry to choose a flag which might prove to be not sufficiently distinctive. Even though it may involve a little delay in the examination of the
Canadian Flag

many suggestions that come to the committee, every effort should foe made to see to it that we have a flag that is distinctive of Canada, because whatever we do now will affect generations to come. We should seek to have a flag which we may be proud of, which future generations may revere, and in which they may take full pride as members of the Canadian nation.


Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):: This resolution urges the expediency of Canada's possessing a distinctive national flag. I agree that an anomaly exists with respect, to the matter of a Canadian flag, and I and my associates in parliament are in favour of removing this condition. But personally I consider that under the constitutional conditions prevailing in this country at the moment such action is premature. There are other and more important actions to be taken before it is appropriate to adopt a new flag.
The flag question is just one of the many anomalies which exist in Canada's constitutional position. Some of these have been referred to this afternoon. One of them, the matter of Canadian- citizenship, is intended to be dealt with at this session. There are others, such as amendments to the constitution, appeals to the privy council, the power of disallowance, the matter of a federal district propei'-and doubtless there are others. All these anomalies ought to be dealt with, and I am personally in favour of dealing with them at the earliest possible opportunity. But I consider that the present piecemeal method is improper as well as undemocratic. I contend that the people of Canada are not being consulted in the manner in which I believe they ought to be concerning their rights in these questions.
I wish to indicate, Mr. Speaker, my reasons for contending that the method that is proposed to attempt to remove these anomalies is improper and undemocratic. Then I wish to indicate what I consider to be the proper method to use. To do this I first wish to endeavour to account for the constitutional circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment.
The question which must occur to every hon. member of this house and to every other citizen in this country is, why do such anomalies exist in our constitutional position? How did they come about? There must be something in Panada's constitutional history that accounts for the circumstances in which we find- ourselves. No other part of the British empire finds itself in the same circumstances. Why are these conditions peculiar to the people of Canada? In endeavouring to answer

these questions, and in suggesting what I consider to be the proper remedy for them, I am not posing as a constitutional expert, although I may say it is now ten years since I began my studies on this subject, and I trust I shall not be considered presumptuous in claiming to have added a little to my knowledge in that time.
The matters which I wish to discuss are those with which every public school child in the seventh and eighth grades, every high school student, and certainly every voter, should be thoroughly familiar. Every citizen in the land should know by what authority we do things in this country. On several occasions during the past two parliaments I have argued the case I am about to introduce, but very little attention- was paid to my statements either in the house or out of it. On this occasion I intend to be heard, and if not I demand to know the reason why. I consider that the situation which I shall discuss is of such importance that a reply or a comment should certainly be forthcoming from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and for that matter from all hon. members of the house. I and the people who have sent me here have a right to know whether there is or is not a basis in fact for my contentions, and if there is, they have the right to know what is going to be done about it.
I propose to make a reasoned argument supported by the best evidence I have been able to secure. If my argument is to be controverted, I demand that it be met with a reasoned argument and not with personal abuse and statements which are wholly irrelevant. I expect a more intelligent criticism of my argument than was exhibited by a certain hon. member when I discussed this subject in a previous parliament. In Hansard of April 8, 1938, at page 2183, this little exchange took place between myself and the hon. member for Selkirk, Mr. Thorson:
Mr. Thorson: Would the hon. member indicate where he gets these queer ideas?


John Ritchie MacNicol: He has queer ideas of his own.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I continue:
Mr. Kuhl: I placed on Hansard on February 10 .a clear outline of the reasons for my statement. If the' hon. member wishes to refute any of the facts or arguments which I placed before the house, I shall be pleased to hear the refutation.
Mr. Thorson: Why battle against windmills?
I submit that the subject matter and the arguments which I presented on that occasion were worthy of more intelligent criticism than

Canadian Flag
was exhibited by that hon. gentleman. I have long ago learned that when an individual has a weak argument, or no argument at all, he usually resorts to personal abuse of his opponent. If hon. members have not a better argument to make than Mr. Thorson made on that' occasion, I suggest that they hold their peace.
In submitting my argument, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that I am actuated by the highest possible motives. We proudly proclaim our faith in democracy; we proclaim it from the housetops. I wish to urge that we practice what we preach. Let us demonstrate democracy instead of merely paying lip service to it.
It is my desire to see the people of Canada consulted where their fundamental rights are concerned. I wish to see government of the people by the people. These are the motives which actuate me in what I have to say on this resolution.
In presenting the special case I am about to discuss I am not necessarily speaking as a member of the Social Credit group; I am speaking as a native of Canada. The matters on which I am to speak are of fundamental concern to every citizen of Canada regardless of his or her political persuasion. They are among the most serious matters upon which a citizen can be called to think; they are the bed-rock considerations of human government.
In order to endeavour to account for the contradictions in Canada's constitutional position and to suggest a remedy therefor, I wish to lay down some fundamental premises on which I shall base my entire argument. Locke is credited with saying:
Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the power of another without his consent. The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community.
Jefferson, in the declaration of independence, states:
We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit ef happiness; that to secure these rights governments dre instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.
In addition to that premise I wish to indicate the definition of a federal union. What is a federal union? Bouvier in his law dictionary defines "federal government" as:
-a union or confederation of sovereign states, created either by treaty, or by the mutual adoption of a federal constitution.
Doctor Ollivier, joint law clerk of the House of Commons, on page 85 of the report of the special committee on the British North America Act, said:
A confederation is a union of independent and sovereign states bound together by a pact or a treaty for the observance of certain conditions dependent upon the unanimous consent of the contracting parties, who are free to withdraw from the union.
A. P. Newton, in his book entitled "Federal and Unified Constitutions," at page 5 says:
A federal state is a perpetual union of several sovereign states based first upon a treaty between those states or upon some historical status common to them all, and secondly upon a federal constitution accepted by their citizens.
Two points stand out prominently in these definitions. The first is that the states which form the union must be sovereign, free and independent before they federate; the second, that the federal constitution which forms the basis of the union .must be accepted by the citizens of the federating states. I think it worth while in this connection to point out that when the states of Australia federated, the people of Australia were provided with two opportunities of voting on their constitution. I should like to quote a paragraph from a history of the Australian constitution by Quick and Garran. This paragraph is on the meaning of the words "have agreed" in the constitution, and it states:
These words make distinct and emphatic reference to the consensus of the people, arrived at through the procedure, in its various successive stages, prescribed by the substantially similar enabling acts adopted by the legislatures of the concurring colonies. In four of the colonies acts w'ere passed enabling the people to take part in the framing and the acceptance or rejection of a federal constitution for Australia. Through those acts the people agreed, first, to send representatives to a federal convention charged with duty of framing for Australia a federal constitution under the crown in the form of a bill for enactment by the imperial parliament, and, secondly, they agreed to pronounce their judgment upon the constitution at a referendum, which in each colony was arranged to follow the convention. In all the colonies, the constitution was eventually referred to the people. At this referendum each voter was enabled to vote by ballot "yes" or "no" on the question asked on the ballot paper, "Are you in favour of the proposed federal constitution?"
In this manner there was in four colonies, a popular initiative and finally in all the colonies a popular ratification of the constitution, which is thus legally the work, as it will be for all time the heritage, of the Australian people. This democratic method of establishing a new form of government may be contrasted with the circumstances and conditions under which other federal constitutions became law-.
Now I should like to ask a few questions concerning our position in Canada. Did the provinces of Canada desire federal union? ,
Canadian Flag

The Quebec resolutions, the London resolutions and the draft of the bill by the London delegates all indicate that the provinces of Canada desired federal union. The preamble to the Quebec resolutions reads:
The best interests and1 present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a federal union under the crown.
Clause 70 of the Quebec resolutions indicates that whatever agreement was arrived at by the delegates would be submitted to the provinces for their approval. It reads:
The sanction of the imperial and local parliaments shall be sought for the union of the provinces, on the principles adopted by the conference.	.
Furthermore, a bill drafted in London by the Canadian delegates contains the same preamble that appears in the Quebec resolutions, and this draft bill also contains a repealing clause which hon. members can find on page 179 of Pope's "Confederation Documents". It reads:
From and after the union, all acts and parts of acts passed by the parliament of Great Britain, the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the legislature of Upper Canada, the legislature of Lower Canada, the legislature of Canada, the legislature of Nova Scotia, or the legislature of New Brunswick, which are repugnant to or inconsistent -with the provisions of this act shall be and the same are hereby repealed.
The next question is: Did Canada become a federal union under the British North America Act. I submit that the manner in which the bill was drafted and the manner in which it was enacted throw much light on the answer to this question. The act was drafted by the law officers of the crown attached to the colonial office. Lord Carnarvon, secretary of state for the colonies, was the chairman of the conference. Sir Frederick Rogers, under-secretary for the colonies, in Lord Blachford's Letters, is quoted as saying at page 301:
They held many meetings at which I was always present. Lord Carnarvon was in the chair, and I was rather disappointed in his power of presidency.
Id reading accounts of the times it is quite obvious that the bill which was drafted by the colonial office seems to have prevailed over that which was drafted by the delegates from Canada. The title and preamble of the bill drafted by the colonial office read:
The union of the British North American colonies, and for the government of the united colony.
Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for the purposes of government and legislation would be attended with great benefits to the colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom;-
That is the preamble of the draft bill submitted by the colonial office, whereas the preamble of the bill drafted by the Canadian delegates reads:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a federal union under the British crown for the purpose of government and legislation, based upon the principles of'the British constitution;-
I submit, Mr. Speaker, no evidence is to be found to show that the preamble which we find in the printed copies of the British North . America Act in Canada was either discussed or proven in the British parliament. This preamble reads:
Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion

Lord Carnarvon, who introduced the bill on February 19, 1867, used these words as reported at page 559 of the British Hansard:
The bill opens by reciting the desire of the several provinces to be federally united.
Furthermore Lord Campbell, speaking to the bill on February 26 of the same year, is reported at page 1012 of the British Hansard as having said:
The bill is founded, I believe, on what is termed the Quebec scheme of 1864. When the resolution, which alone engages the Nova Scotian parliament, was in debate, its whole tenor, as our papers show, were against that project. The leader of the government was understood distinctly to renounce it. Our lights, indeed, may be imperfect upon this part of the subject, and I will not dwell upon it. But one thing is clear, the preamble of the resolution comes before us in full and perfect authenticity. The preamble lays down the expediency of confederating British North America.
I submit it should be evident from these quotations that the preamble which was discussed was that to be found in the Quebec resolutions, not the one we find in the printed copies of the British North America Act in Canada.
A pertinent question to ask at this point would be-: when was the present preamble placed in the British North America Act? Why was it .not discussed in the British parliament, and, furthermore, what is the significance of an act bearing a preamble which was not even discussed, let alone proven? Another point of significance in connection with this, I believe, is the undue haste with which the bill was passed through the imperial parliament. When second reading was called for the bill was not even printed. At page 1090 of British Hansard for February 27, 1867, we find these words:
Mr. Hatfield said he rose to ask the government why it was the second reading of this bill had been fixed for to-raorrow. It was one

Canadian Flag

Professor N. McL. Rogers, of Queen's university, at page 115 of the report states in reply to a question by Mr. Cowan:
Mr. Cowan:	You do not subscribe to the
belief that this was a pact or contract?
Mr. Rogers:	I am thoroughly convinced it
is not, either in the historical or the legal sense.
Then I would quote Doctor Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of Commons, who at page 125 states.
It is quite true that if we apply to the British North America Act the principles followed in the interpretation of statutes, it is not a compact between provinces; it is an act oi parliament which does not even embody all the resolutions passed in Canada and in London prior to its passage in the British parliament where certain clauses that had not been recommended by the Canadian provinces were added.
The evidence which I have submitted establishes to my satisfaction that there has been at no time in Canada any agreement, pact or treaty between the provinces creating a federal union and a federal government. The privilege to federate therefore was still a future privilege for the provinces of Canada.
Since the condition of sovereignty and independence must be enjoyed by the provinces before they can federate, it was necessary that the British government relinquish its authority over them. This was done through the enactment of the statute of Westminster on December 11, 1931. By section 7, paragraph 2. of this statute, the provinces of Canada were made sovereign, free and independent in order that they might consummate the federal union which they wished to create in 1S67, but were not permitted to do so.
Since December 11, 1931, the provinces of Canada have not acted on their newly acquired status; they have not signed any agreement, they have not adopted a constitution, and the people of Canada have not ratified a constitution. Such action should have been taken immediately upon the enactment of the statute of Westminster. It is by reason of the failure of the provinces and of the people of Canada to take this action that all the anomalies in our present position exist. We have been trying since 1931 to govern ourselves federally, under an instrument which was nothing more than an act of the imperial parliament for the purpose of governing a colonial possession.
Not only has this anomalous condition obtained since 1931, but it has done so without any reference whatsoever having been made to the Canadian people. They have not been consulted- on anything pertaining to constitutional matters. Before there can be a federal union in Canada and a federal government, the provinces of Canada must be free and independent to consummate such a
[Mr. Kuhl.J
union. They have been free to do so since December 11, 1931, but they have not done so.
I therefore pose this question: Whence does the dominion parliament derive its authority to govern this country? The imperial parliament cannot create a federal union in Canada or constitute a federal government for the people of Canada by virtue of the British North America Act or any other act. This can be done only by the people of Canada, and they have not yet done so.
Since December 11, 1931, as an individual citizen of this country I have had the right to be consulted on the matter of a constitution. I have had the right along with' my fellow citizens to ratify or to refuse to ratify a constitution, but I have not been consulted in any way whatsoever. I assert therefore that until I, along with a majority of Canadians, ratify a constitution in Canada, there can be no constitution, and I challenge successful contradiction of that proposition.


Jean-François Pouliot: Were you born in 1867?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Not that I recall.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: Were you?


Jean-François Pouliot: No.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Those who were in charge of Canadian affairs in 1931 were under obligation to acquaint the people of Canada with 1he constitutional position obtaining at the time and to prepare them so that they would be able to act upon their altered status.


Mr. JAENICKE:: What about section 7* of the statute of Westminster?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I have already answered that.
I have indicated the position of the British North America Act, and have pointed out that it has not been accepted as a constitution by the people of Canada.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: The statute of Westminster made the provinces autonomous.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Yes.	.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: What about section 7 of the statute of Westminster?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Which one?


Frank Eric Jaenicke: Amending the British
North America Act.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Just exactly as I have said,
there can be no constitution in Canada, whether it is on the basis c*f the British North America Act or any other act, until the people of Canada accept it. They have not accepted it.

Canadian Flag


Major James William Coldwell: We have been acting
under the British North America Act since 1867.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: That does not alter the situation.


Frank Eric Jaenicke: What are you going to
do about it?


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Before I resume my seat I
shall indicate definitely what to do about it. The people of Canada have not acted on the altered constitutional status; hence the deplorable constitutional position in which we find ourselves in this country. I know of no country which is in such shocking constitutional circumstances as Canada. As a native of this country it is most humiliating to me to be obliged to continue to accept this position, and I am determined to do my part to rectify that position.
Legally Canada is in a state of anarchy and has been so since December 11, 1931. All power to govern in Canada since the enactment of the statute of Westminster has resided with the provinces of Canada and all power legally remains there until such time as the provinces sign an agreement and ratify a constitution whereby they delegate such powers as they desire upon a central government of their own creation. Since December 11, 1931, the parliament of Canada has governed Canada on assumed power only. It is imperative that this situation be dealt with in a fundamental way. Patchwork methods will not suffice. Obviously the first act is that the provinces of Canada shall sign an agreement authorizing the present parliament to function as a provisional government. That is number one in answer to my hon. friend. Secondly, steps must then be taken to organize and elect a constituent assembly whose purpose will be to draft a constitution which must later be agreed to by the provinces and then ratified by the people of Canada. The dominion-provincial conference is to reconvene in the near future. This would be a most appropriate time and a most appropriate occasion on which to initiate action o.f this kind. I trust that the delegates to this conference will not disappoint us in this matter. I shall observe with much interest what will be said in this conference on constitutional relationships in Canada.
' To show that I am not alone in my proposal I quote Doctor Beauchesne from .the evidence' of the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935. On page 126 of the evidence he is credited with saying:
-the statute of Westminster has altered our status . . .
47696-123J
The time has come in my humble opinion,' when the British North America Act, except as to minority rights, should be transformed and a new constitution more in conformity with present conditions should be adopted. Amendments here and there would be mere patchwork which could not last. The people of 1935 are different from those of 1867. What we want is a new constitution . . .
The new constitution must leave nobody with a grievance. A spirit of conciliation should predominate. For these reasons, the task must be entrusted to an independent body in which alt the elements of the country will be represented. I, therefore, beg to suggest an imposing constituent assembly, formed of eminent men coming from all parts of Canada. Provincial conferences, attended by a few ministers meeting behind closed doors, would hardly satisfy public opinion. The debate should be public . . .
I want the assembly to sit in a city in the west. It would not be necessary for a delegate to be a member of parliament or of a provincial legislature . . .
And on page 128 Doctor Beauchesne is reported as follows:
I would suggest that the assembly do not sit in Ottawa, in order that it may not have the appearance of being dominated, or even influenced by the dominion power; and, as the western provinces' are of such paramount importance in the countiy, I suggest the best city for the representatives to gather in would be Winnipeg.
And again on page 131:
There have been many disputes about provincial rights since 1867 and it seems certain tint when a new constitution is drawn up, the distribution of federal and provincial powers will have to be modified.
And page 135:
I think the time is ripe for a change in the constitution. I do not think you would need much publicity in order to draw to the attention of the people of this country that the British North America Act is inadequate.
And finally on page 129:
Whether our country should be changed from a dominion to a kingdom is also a subject which might be discussed. I would suggest that the country should be called "the federated states of Canada."
I should also like to quote in this connection a resolution which was adopted at a convention of Social Credit supporters and monetary-reform-minded people held in the city of Edmonton in 1942. This resolution is to be-found at page 59 in the publication "Prepare Now," issued by the bureau of information, legislative building, Edmonton. It reads as follows:
Whereas the statute of Westminster, in granting complete sovereignty and equality with Great Britain to Canada and other nations of the British commonwealth, has changed the relative positions of the provincial and federal governments as provided in the B.N.A. Act: and
Canadian Flag

Whereas it is desirable and expedient in the interests of national unity that an interprovincial conference of appropriate representatives of the Canadian provinces be held for the purpose of reviewing and adjusting the constitutional relationship as between the provinces ami their central government with a view to providing effective democratic government in Canada:
Therefore be it resolved that -without in any way prejudicing or jeopardizing the rights and privileges of any minority group in Canada, a comprehensive conference of representatives of the provinces be held for the purpose of considering:
1.	The existing legislative and administrative organization in the provincial and federal spheres.
2.	A more expedient allocation of powers as between the provincial and federal authorities.
3.	Ways and means of facilitating the drafting, the adoption and the implementation of a Canadian constitution in keeping with the rights granted in the statute of Westminster.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that such are the actions which should be taken before it is .appropriate to adopt a distinctive national flag. I submit that the adoption of a new flag of our own designing should be the .crowning act to putting our constitutional lhxmse in order.
I believe that the statements which I have placed upon the record are historical facts. I believe that the conclusions which I have drawn from these facts are the only ones which can be drawn from them, and I believe, consequently, that the solution which I have suggested is the only one adequate for the circumstances. If hon. members of this assembly can successfully dispute either the facts which I have submitted or the conclusions which I have drawn therefrom, I shall be prepared to withdraw those conclusions, but if they do not do so, I believe the people of the country have a right to know what they propose to do in the circumstances.
It was my intention to move an amendment, but as one has been moved already I shall refrain from doing so until the amendment already moved has been dealt with. So far as the substance of that amendment is concerned, I repeat what I have previously indicated. I think it is premature to consider any flag, either the one suggested in the amendment or any other. There are other and more important actions to be taken before we can consider the adoption of a new flag.
Mr. JEAN-FRANCOIS POULIOT (Temis-*couata): Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the. Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie), the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) and the leader of the C.C.F. (Mr. Coldwell) upon their eloquent speeches. It was a good thing the government brought this matter

before the house and for the house to refer it to a committee. I have listened with patience to the remarks of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Kuhl). Some of the newer members have said that he was out of order, but they should not be surprised. This is the ninth or tenth time I have heard him make his annual oration about the nullity of the British North America Act. We are living in a democracy and he has the right to express his views, but I am sure that if he does so before the end of the session he will be surely called to order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: He would be out of order if he did.


Jean-François Pouliot: And when I think of it. I have heard it eight times, nine times. I remember distinctly what he said, and it was so highly technical and so technically constitutional that he did not remember it himself and had to read his speech. Of course, having delivered the same oration, nine times, he should have remembered it better; however, there are so many ones and twos and et ceteras that it is pretty hard to put them all in their right places.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: Let the hon. gentleman
examine my speech and take it apart. What he has said is no answer.


Jean-François Pouliot: Oh, I could not. I would die of boredom.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You would be "bored to death".


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes. I could not do it; I am very sorry. But I believe in the democratic spirit. So long as an hon. member has the right to be here he has the right to express his views. The only trouble with the hon. member for Jasper-Edson is that he denies his right to be here, and therefore he is quite a problem by himself.


Walter Frederick Kuhl: I am not responsible for the British North America Act.


Jean-François Pouliot: Let us be indulgent to him. Of course I believe in the British North America Act, and he does not believe in it. If I am here it is because I was elected in accordance with enactments made by virtue of the British North America Act. But if I believedi the act to be void I would have the self-respect not to sit here; and I would tell my constituents, "I will not sit in that house until the House of 'Commons is reformed and constituted legally." My hon. friend is not logical. He has bored us to death for ten years with his unique speech; we have listened to him with patience

with a great deal of patience-and he comes along

Canadian Flag
with it again. I have been patient again to-day, but until the end of the year I will not be patient any more. I will ask him to wait until next year to deliver, for the eleventh time, his oration which is so full of spiders' webs.
That being said about what may be called the hors d'oeuvre of the hon. member for Jasper-Edson, let us come to the flag. You know, Mr. Speaker, it is the easiest thing in the world to discuss any matter, contentious or not, if it is done objectively; and my great regret is, I will not say the total ignorance-it may be that that would be too strong-but the perfect misconception of what a national flag is.
There is the word "ensign", which is general, which applies to all flags. The royal standard is an ensign. The merchant marine flag is the red ensign. There are all sorts of ensigns; it is the generic appellation of the flag.
In the United Kingdom they have many flags. In the first place there is the royal standard, which is the personal flag of His Majesty and follows him everywhere. There is the union jack, which is the land flag; it is the union flag, and it may be called the union jack only when it is hoisted on the middle mast of a ship; then it is a jack, a union jack; otherwise it is a union flag. The nautical ensigns are: tha white ensign for the navy, and also for the Royal Yacht squadron, the blue ensign for government vessels, and the red ensign for the mercantile marine.
I admire very much the union flag, the union jack. It is one of the finest flags, bearing the emblems of the three countries which comprise the United Kingdom. We have the Cross of St. George for England, the Cross of St. Andrew for Scotland, and the Cross of St. Patrick for Ireland. But in the United Kingdom the union flag is not considered at all as the flag of a nationality, because then the Welsh would repudiate it; they have no emblem on that flag. It is the flag of the United Kingdom, the flag of the country.
How is it that outside Great Britain, that is in the colonies which are called dominions, as well as in the colonies proper, the union jack is not considered any longer the flag of a country? It is considered the flag of a nationality. If that were right it would be no longer a flag, but a banner, because in its essence a national flag represents the soil of a country. It represents the country itself; and if there is sentiment attached to it, it is precisely because those who look at that flag remember their younger days, when they were at school, when they were told what the flag symbolized, what its real signification was. When they saw the flag on the public buildings on festive days; when they saw the flag on the coffins^ of those they loved; when they saw the flag in the church, they were reminded of the prowess of the sons of the locality.
The flag means a lot, but the first meaning of the flag is that it is an ensign, the ensign of the country. England has understood that very well. But naturally we have to suffer from the total ignorance of the elite, both English and French, who have deformed the meaning of the national flag, and that is the result of the intense propaganda which has been made by the press and by some people to prevent the people of the British empire outside the United Kingdom from fully recognizing the meaning of it.
In 1865 an imperial statute was passed to create a colonial navy, and later in the same year, which was two years before confederation, regulations were passed at Whitehall and sanctioned by the queen to allow all colonies to have a commercial flag. But it was a nautical flag; and the first flag which the colonies were allowed to make their own-it was quite a ceremony, permission for it had to be given by the admiralty-was the blue ensign. It was in that year that the British government allowed the colony to have as the blue ensign the blue flag with the arms of the colony in the field. Naturally everyone knows what the blue ensign is. A similar regulation was passed on July 16, 1870, and it was not until a number of years afterwards that the admiralty authorized by warrant the flag of the Canadian mercantile marine to be used on board vessels registered in the dominion. It was on February 2,	1892, a short time
after the death of Sir John A. Macdonald. But mark you, sir, it was specified in the first place that the blue ensign was to be the flag on Canadian government vessels, and then the red ensign with the arms of Canada-I will describe them in a minute-was to be used, by permission of the admiralty, "only on board vessels registered in the dominion."
What were the arms of Canada? The arms of Canada in 1892 were not those of all the provinces of Canada that formed the confederation at that time, but only those of four provinces, Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. There were no arms of Manitoba, nor were those of Prince Edward Island, nor those of British Columbia, and naturally at the time the prairie provinces had not been created as provinces. It was only in 1924 that the change was made to put the new arms of Canada on the flag, to replace the first shield which was that of only the four mother provinces.
Canadian Flag

This is the description of the shield of Canada which is on the flag that is hoisted daily on the tower of this building. It is something absolutely absurd:
The arms or ensigns armorial of the Dominion of Canada shall be tierced in fesse the first and second divisions containing the quarterly coat following, namely, 1st, gules three lions passant guardant in pale or-
In the first place there are supposed to be three lions, but what astounds me is that in the French official translation these lions become leopards, and it is most ridiculous because these leopards are spotless. I hold in my hand the English and French texts which were printed by the king's printer.
-2nd, or, a lion rampant within a double tres-aure flory-eounter-flory gules, 3rd, azure, a harp >r, stringed argent . . .
Of course, it is a harp with a very fine female figure which I would not dare to describe in the house even in the absence of my lady colleague from the west. It is something very pictorial.
4th, azure three fleurs-de-lis, or, and the third division argent three maple leaves conjoined on one stem proper . . .
This is the shield of Canada and we see it on the flag. I had that flag in my office, and I have made measurements to see the size of the union jack. I found that it is seven times that of the shield and in the shield the" three animals, which are described as lions in the English text and as leopards in the French text, are two inches high and seven inches long. How formidable! The lion rampant is four inches by five inches-much more powerful. Then there is the suggestive Irish harp and there are the fleurs-de-lis- golden fleurs-de-lis on blue. That is a heresy because, as everyone knows, the standard of the king of France was the fleurs-de-lis on silver or white. . It was probably Arthur Meighen and the late Mr. Belley, who were so blue that they wanted to put something blue into the emblem of the province of Quebec.
Then there are three maple leaves. There being three lions which were three leopards, there must be of course be three maple leaves and three fleurs-de-lis. The number three was his unlucky number; that is why he is no longer the leader of the party. He has been replaced by many fine gentlemen, one of whom is sitting over there. At any rate, the number three did not bring him luck.
[Air. Pouliot.l
Let us see the description of the shield-and by the way this is not Pastor Shields that I am speaking of. I am discussing something in heraldry, a science that belongs to the middle ages, covered with tons of dust. I do not want the Canadian flag to look ridiculous, and that is why I object to emblems that belong to another age, which have not their place here.
And upon a- royal helmet mantled argent doubled gules the crest, that is to say, on a wreath of the colours argent and gules a lion passant guardant or imperially crowned proper and holding in the dexter paw a maple leaf gules.
There is a lion that holds in his paw a tiny, little, wee red maple leaf, and the lion on this armorial bearing is not bigger than my thumb.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Suffering from malnutrition.


Jean-François Pouliot: To continue:
' And for supporters on the dexter a lion rampant or holding a lance argent, point or, flying therefrom to the dexter the union flag, and on the sinister a unicorn argent armed crined and unguled or, gorged with a coronet composed of erosses-patde and fleurs-de-lis a chain affixed thereto reflexed of the last, and holding a like lance flying therefrom to the sinister a banner azure charged with three fleurs-de-lis or; the whole ensigned with the imperial crown proper and below the shield upon a wreath composed of roses, thistles, shamrocks and lilies a scroll azure inscribed with the motto- A miari usque ad mare.
The lion holds a union jack, and the unicorn holds another flag on which there are creases, showing there are breezes, but they are in opposite directions. It reminds me of the drawings I made when I was a child. Once I made one representing a ship with the smoke on one side and the flag on, the other side. My uncle, who was very funny, said to me: "Could the wind blow two ways at the same time?" Here we have a coat of arms and the wind blows the union jack to the left and the French flag to the right; it is an extraordinary wind. It is a most foolish thing, but it was sanctioned on the 21st of November, 1921, just a few days before the defeat of the Meighen government. Therefore, if it is something absurd, the only blame that, I can put on the government is to have kept the foolishness of Arthur Meighen on the Canadian red ensign. It is absurd; it is full of ferocious beasts; it is a circus in a garden that is not well kept. Of course, when I read it, my hon. friends who are listening to me now, were perhaps under the impression that I was reciting a speech by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson. But it was not that; it was the official language of heraldry, and heraldry must continue, because some people

Canadian Flag
are living by it. There is in England a gentleman who receives a fat salary and is called the Master of Arms of His Majesty.
In England a distinction is made between a flag and commercial ensigns which are ensigns of ships. Different ships fly different ensigns. The man-of-war flies the white ensign; government vessels, the blue ensign. On merchant vessels it is the red ensign. But they always have a flag of the country, and mark you, sir, it is not surprising that a small union jack is on the flag of the navy and of the marine, because all British ships registered in England are a continuation of the soil of England on the seven seas. The deck of a British ship registered in London can be compared with the soil of the United Kingdom.
The question is not one of sentiment, but one in which we could say we are proud of our nationality, and rightly so. But to impose the wrong flag on the country just to satisfy one's personal feelings is wrong. If any member wants to have a union jack I do not want it to be minimized; I want to have the union jack in full, not a little union jack, not a mockery, not a miniature union jack. If Canada has not reached the point; if the country is not mature enough to have her own flag, then let us continue as we are and wait for better times. As my hon. friend, the leader of the C.C.F. group has said, if we' are not mature enough to have our own flag we are still colonial; we have not a right to call ourselves Canadian citizens; we must call ourselves British subjects and colonials. That is why I suggested to the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) to wait a few days, perhaps a couple of weeks, before bringing down this resolution, in order that the citizenship bill should pass first. If the citizenship bill had passed first with full honours, then members of parliament would 'be qualified to discuss the matter of a national flag. What we want is not an official flag; we want a national flag. We have only an official flag now. Why do we have an official flag? It is because someone thinks it is important to appease the very small group of jingoes who have no Canadian feeling; and if they express at times something like Canadian feelings they have not at heart the feeling of the real Canadian who puts his country before all others.
* Why should we impose a flag which is not distinctly Canadian on this country for future generations? There is more to it; if a committee of this house and this house accepts a truly Canadian flag it will mean only one thing. It will mean that we have reached the age that we can reason for ourselves; it will not mean that we are opposed to the old country, not at all. It will not deny our right of
association with the British commonwealth, with the United States or with anybody. It will mean that we are mature enough to make our own decisions and to think of this country first and before all others. That is the meaning of the Canadian flag, and there is a precedent for it.
We hear some members say, "Well, well, well, look at the flags of the other dominions. There is a flag of New Zealand." I give them credit for having their own flag, which is not a national flag. It is a blue ensign with the southern cross, a flag that can be flown on a vessel, not on land. The parliament of New Zealand passed legislation in 1905 which decided that that flag would thereafter be the flag of New Zealand. In Australia a competition was organized by the newspapers and supported by the government; and it was a young boy who came with the suggestion of a flag for Australia. It must have been approved by the admiralty, because I have seen pictures of that flag in the Encyclopedia Britannica and in other publications; but when I asked the office of the high commissioner if it had been approved by order in council, or by the Australian government, or if any legislation had been passed-and I searched the statutes of Australia for some time to find out if that were so-I could not get an answer. They did not know anything definite about the adoption of the flag.
Let us go to South Africa. South Africa had for some time a flag similar to the red ensign, in accordance with the general permission granted by the admiralty. It was the red ensign with the old shield of South Africa in the field. But in 1927 it was changed for a flag which is not perfect, but which shows some national dignity in the parliament of South Africa. On this flag are three horizontal stripes, and in the middle stripe there are three very small flags, all in line. There is the union jack, the old flag of the Orange Free State and the Vierkleur of the Transvaal. These flags are very small; they could not be seen, any more than the emblems in our own shield can be seen from the ground when we look at the flag flying from the tower. The flag legislation passed in 1927 by the parliament of South Africa is a precedent for all dominions, in the sense that it shows that the establishment of this national flag does not mean South Africa is opposed to the United Kingdom and ceases to be British. The legislation adds that both the union jack and the official and national flag of South Africa shall be flown together on all public buildings.
That is it, sir. Here we have a reply to the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes),
Canadian Flag

the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) who is to follow me, and all others who think as they do. The hon. members want the union jack. Let them have it. We want a national flag. Let us have it, by all means. That is my point of view. If some people throughout the country want to hoist both flags together, let them do so; there is no possible objection to that, and then everyone will be satisfied. The hon. member "for Nanaimo does much better now than he did at the beginning of the session, and I am sincere in telling him so. But if he commits the heresy of considering the union jack to be the flag of a nationality he will have the Laurentians of Quebec who will come with the Carillon flag, which is no more a Carillon flag than the lions in the shield are leopards. They will say the flag represents two cultures. Whoever thought a flag could represent two cultures? That is positively a heresy. It would not be a flag, but a banner. Could it represent a culture? With a banner we could do anything. Every man can have his banner, as each of the old crusaders had his banner, his shield and so on. They would not accept the red ensign, not because the union flag is on it, but because there would be no place left for the fleur-de-lis on blue or gold or silver. They will say, "You are entitled to have an emblem of your nationality on the flag. We want ours, too." It would be fair. Then what about the others? What about my hon. friend who speaks so often for the Ukrainians? They would have a right to their own emblem; and how many emblems would we have if each nationality had its own?
Then why should we have the union jack? Why not have separately the banners of the people of British origin, of Scotch origin, of Irish origin, and then the French Canadian? Then everyone will have his banner, but it would not be a flag any longer. If we are to have an emblem we must come to the point and see what emblem we may have on the flag. It would not be a repudiation of our friendship and our association with Great Britain. It would be a decision that will prove to the world that Canada has reached the stage where we have our own national flag. I will tell you more than that, Mr. Speaker. We may discuss the policies of the Prime Minister and not agree with all of them, but we are coming to a time when I believe Canada could help Britain much more if not tied too closely to her. I am not now preaching the breaking of the British tie, but I will say that in matters of diplomacy very probably Canada may be of much more help to Great Britain ia dealing with countries who do not 
agree with British policies by being autonomous within the British empire. That is my view.
I am expressing these opinions with earnestness and sincerity. I desire a national flag, and my people would revere a national flag, which would be the flag of Canada, which could be hoisted by all Canadians irrespective of race and creed, but a flag which would designate only Canada. By this I mean that when a stranger lands in this country and sees the union flag he says, "I am in British territory." He does not know he is in Canada. I should like a flag which would tell the world that Canada exists as a great country, and would tell any stranger who comes to our shores that he is in this great country which is called Canada.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview):: This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, I have refused to follow the crowd. Ever since I came to this parliament I have tried to support definite, concrete principles. In all the years I have known the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) I cannot remember his rising to such heights of oratory as he did this afternoon, since he is a Scotsman I would urge him to remember an old Scotch proverb, that when you go up in the clouds be always sure to keep one foot on the ground. I think that is what my hon. friend is not doing.
We were told by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) in his remarks on the address in reply to the speech from the throne to forget all these secondary things, with the grave problems before us; and to put first things first. He lectured the opposition along that line. I believe we should wait for two years and not raise these questions now that are only secondary and might be left over until we get our soldiers in homes, until we provide houses for civilians, until we obtain coal for the winter, until we provide jobs for soldiers and others, until we solve a great many of the serious and complex economic problems that confront this country. Since I was a child I have always made a point of trying to get on with people. Mind you, sir, sometimes some people are hard to get on with, but I always made it a point in life to try to get on with everybody a,s best I could, I am surprised that the Prime Minister is not in this chamber to-day to support what stands in his name before us and to give effect to the preaching on first things first he delivered in this house on many occasions during the war.
The resolution says it is expedient. It is not. It is a life-line thrown out to those who meet in another place today in connection with this resolution to come over and aid us to change the flag. The resolution says that

Canadian Flag
this action is expedient. I say that in view of the strikes we have in all parts of Canada, it is not at all expedient at the present time to cause strife over the flag. With industrial conditions as they exist in Canada to-day it is not proper for us to divide our people in their expressions of views as to what a flag should be.
I can remember when the hon. member who has just spoken raised a similar question in the house. And, by the way, he is wasting his time as a member of parliament; had he been a comedian he would have made his fortune. Two bishops, one of them in his church and one in mine, have told me that he seems at times to be the only person in the house with any sense of humour. But I can see this, that he is now preparing himself to go over to another place, with its sepulchred walls, and all that sort of thing, to raise the dead, and seek aid to secure a new flag.
I have been much surprised by the suggestions made in the house, because since becoming a member I have stood by certain principles. I believe this matter should await better days; I have the support of a large majority of the people in Ontario when I oppose this move on a secondary matter at the present time.
Mind you, sir, I want to say to my few fine friends who have moved and seconded this amendment, that the red ensign was never the flag of Canada, and never had any official sanction until an order in council was passed on September 5, 1945, hauling the union jack over this house down.
To support my contention in that regard I have the record, and I shall place it on record. On October 1 of this year I asked these questions:
New flag on parliament building tower
Mr. Church:
1.	On whose instructions is a new' flag being flown from the tower of the houses of parliament: who authorized it, and when?
2.	Who is in charge of such matters, and of this building?
3.	Was such an innovation ever authorized by parliament? If so, when?
4.	Who authorized and gave the order to haul down the Union Jack?
5.	Have instructions been issued for similar action on other government buildings throughout Canada? If so, at what cost?
6.	Why is this innovation carried out without the knowledge or consent of parliament now in session ?
The Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) answered:
1.	The red ensign is being flown from the tower of the houses of parliament under authority of order in council P.C. 5888, passed on September 5, 1945, copy of which appears below.
That was the first sanction the government of Canada ever gave to the red ensign. Then the answers continue:
2.	The Department of Public Works.
3.	The red ensign flew from the tower of the houses of parliament from the days of confederation until 1904.
4.	5 and 6. Answered by No. 1.
Let me say to him that that reply is not correct. At no time did parliament authorize the red ensign, until this order in council was passed on September 5, 1945.
I have before me the various proceedings which have been taken in connection with the flag, and in this connection I cannot help thinking what might have been done in another place on this, matter. Every session during the war I have spoken across the chamber to the Prime Minister, when I have seen those in another place going home, meeting and then adjourning, and have suggested to the government that they be given more work, since therq were many able men over there who could so well do war work anid help the war effort.- But not one iota of war work was given to them during the whole period of the war. This is the first time, under this resolution, that we find any effort to ask those in another place to throw out the life-line and to save the government.
This question was discussed in the house on February 16, 1938, at which time there were placed on record representations from the colonial secretary pointing out that all along the union jack has been the flag of the empire, and that the red ensign was never authorized. My former leader, a great Canadian, supported a flag committee. I did not; I have never yet voted against the party, and I will always support it as long as they will support the principles of a united British empire. But I will support no party in Ontario which fails to stand up for its principles. However, my former leader, a great Britisher, the then Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, now Viscount Bennett, was in the -house at that time. On that occasion someone in Saskatchewan named John F. Steadman, and another gentleman named George S. Hodgins, had written the colonial secretary and had asked questions respecting the flag of Canada. They asked in particular if the red ensign was part of it. Their communications were addressed to the secretary of state for the colonies.
On that occasion in 1938 the Prime Minister rose in his place and practically corroborated what my leader had said, that the union jack has always been the flag of Great Britain and

Canadian Flag

of the whole empire, and that it was the official flag of Canada. I will read what was said on that occasion by Viscount Bennett:
It would hardly be correct to say that that was the first official statement as to what the flag of Canada was; for there was a circular showing that the official flag of the whole British empire was what was called the union jack, Hid it was not until long after that that there was any question of any other flag being used. . . .
He means until after those two letters had been written from Saskatchewan. The present Prime Minister in his reply referred to the two letters from Saskatchewan of March 11, 1911, and May 2, 1912-and I am sorry he.is not here to-day-and pointed out that the secretary of state had replied to the governor general, there being no reference to His Majesty or to His Majesty's secretary, that he would be glad if the governor general would cause Mr. Hodgins to be informed that the union flag was the national flag of Canada.	.
Therefore it is clear that there is no authorization for the red ensign. This matter was discussed again on February 15, 1939. Speaking in the house on that occasion, I quoted a letter written by the acting under-secretary of state, Mr. W. P. J. O'Meara, in answer to a question regarding an official flag for Canada. Part of that letter was as follows:
The union jack, however, is recognized as the flag to be properly and officially flown on land in Canada.
As regards the Canadian red ensign, there is no law' prohibiting the flying of this ensign on land in Canada. The only regulation of which I am aware respecting the flying of the Canadian red ensign- on land is a special order in council which permits the flying of the ensign over Canada House in London, and the Canadian legations at Paris. Washington and Tokyo. It is also flown on vessels of Canadian registry.
The last sentence is not correct. Since I have come to the house I have numbered among my friends many who come from Quebec, and I hope I shall always do so. -I paid tribute to the French nation in the last war, and on many occasions I have so expressed myself since coming to the house. But I ask hon. members opposite this question : Is this the time or the place, when other vital questions are so complex, for us to haul down the flag, when we have just hauled up the union jack at Hong Kong, Singapore, Burma, and many other places in the British empire, to discuss this matter? At this time, when Great Britain in a grave economic sense is fighting for her very existence, war weary, worn out and seeking food and clothing, and when we in Canada are faced with great questions, should we raise this question? No. Who is responsible for

bringing the matter before the house? Who asked for it? Certainly it was not the opposition; we did not ask for this.
Two years ago I said to the Prime Minister that we were willing to let this matter stand until long after the conclusion of the war, until our soldiers came back, men who could give us advice and guidance. What is the condition to-day? I say that those who have proposed this matter, the government, will have to answer for it before the country
Who is asking for this reform? I can remember last June the Prime Minister of Canada going across this country and making speeches. And may I point out in passing, that in the election campaign I held only one meeting. However, I noticed that the Prime Minister spoke differently in the eight Englishspeaking provinces in connection with some questions from what he did in the other province. Since I have been in the house I never have been one to raise questions which would divide the provinces. I have always believed in the principles of confederation, and the old Cornish battle-cry of "each for all and all for each." What is for the good of one province must be for the benefit of the whole. I am one in this party, to which I have belonged all my life-and my people long before me- who has always followed the principles of the late Sir John A. Macdonald. Those great principles are still carried on by us all these years and in this war and by the government of Canada. What he said in those days is just as relevant to-day. Speaking in Kingston in 1884, he said:
I, therefore, need scarcely state my firm belief that the prosperity of Canada depends upon its permanent connection with the mother ci untry, and that I shall resist to the utmost any attempt, from whatever quarter it may come, which may tend to weaken that union.
Speaking again in 1891, in his last campaign shortly before he died, he said:
For a century and a half this country has grown and flourished under the protecting aegis of the British crown. Under the broad folds of the Union Jack, we enjoy the most ample liberty, we govern ourselves as we please, and at the same time we participate in the advantages which flow with association of the mightiest empire the world has ever seen. As for myself, my course is clear. A British subject I was born and a British subject I will die.
That is still the policy of this country. I ask the hon. member for Temdscouata (Mr. Pouliot)-I am never sure just how that is pronounced; the hon. member for Vancouver North (Mr. Maelnnis), who is reading a newspaper on the front benches, I think is quite correct when he pronounces it "Temisquata" -does he think this is the right time to bring up these matters? Does he not realize that

Canadian Flag
were it not for the mother country after Dunkirk, with the aid of the dominions alone, and her magnificent fleet, the people of Quebec, the maritimes and Ontario might have suffered invasion? We would have had the concentration camps, the whip, the gestapo, the loud speakers and other horrors of occupation, and thousands of our population would have been shipped away to Germany to work. The mother country, saved us from all this, when she had to go -it all alone after Dunkirk, except for the dominions. There were hundreds of fine young men from Quebec also there, and but for the efforts I have mentioned we would have suffered the awful horrors of war on oUr own soil.
Is this the time and place to 'raise this question? The flag flown by the merchant marine was never the flag of this country. I appreciate that the soldiers may do what they like over there about a flag, because they were saving us from the awful horrors of war and many other things. They have a perfect right to say what flag they want for this country, and for 'that reason I think we should leave the determination of this matter until they all come back.
I am really surprised at the government bringing on a question like this at this time, when we have so many other urgent matters to consider. I would point out that if we on this side of the house agree to this motion we shall be agreeing to five or six other things. The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), for whom I have the utmost respect, told us the other day that they are going to consider the abolition of appeals to the privy council. I may say also myself they are going to have a new national anthem, and now we are going to have a new flag. It is intended to abolish appeals to the privy council, to have a Canadian governor general and to make Canada completely independent of the empire. It was suggested in San Francisco that we should join the pan-American union. If we are going to do these things we should tell the mother country at once.
As Mr. Churchill said, it was a miracle that in the last war one million men came from the dominions when they were not asked to come by the mother country. One hundred and thirty thousand of our men fell on the battlefields, and they are buried there in France and Belgium and will remain until the resurrection morning. Those men went over there voluntarily, with their own status of sovereignty and autonomy. They went to the side of the mother country. Thousands and thousands of the boys from my city lie buried to-day in France and Belgium, while many more lost their lives on the seven seas.
47696-124i
I have a high regard for the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), but I think it would be better if we allowed this question to stand until the boys come home. I say as a member of the opposition that I will not support the motion. I will not consider any change in our flag at the present time. I do not believe this is the time to change it. You can read, sir, what is in some of our newspapers. They are changing their views about the flag all the time. You will not find in the newspapers much, if anything that I say. I am ready to support the policies as to Canada and the empire which our leaders in the past have supported. Do you think the men who represented Ontario in other days would be considering things like this if they were here? Shades of Wallace and McCarthy! I say no.
The Toronto Star says that we are an Ontario party. We are not an Ontario party; we are a national party. We are the only party that has supported these British and empire principles all through the years. I have the highest regard and respect for our present leader. He is a different type of member of parliament and representative in the house from some of those I have known for many years. We have had many able leaders in the past, great men who led our part of the empire, and I always got on well with all of them. Our present leader is a man of very high character, a man who has done a great deal for the people of this country. I met him first in connection with sports in Winnipeg and Toronto years ago. because I am more of a sportsman than a politician.
I notice the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) smiling. I call him the master of ceremonies, which I think is the perfect title. He rises and announces the business of the house, and apparently he wants to discuss the flag all day Wednesday, Thursday and Friday. I ask him first to get rid of the red British flags that are placed outside the homes of our veterans when their chattels are put on the street.on eviction orders. That is what is happening in Toronto and the township of York.


Mr. SPEAKER:: Before calling it six
o'clock, I should like to give my ruling on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo. The main motion proposes to refer to a joint committee of both houses of parliament the question of adopting a suitable design for a distinctive national flag. The amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo proposes to modify the motion by substituting for the appointment of a committee the immediate adoption of the Canadian red ensign as the national flag. He is
Canadian Flag

therefore proposing to amend the main motion before it is referred to a special committee. Such an amendment cannot be allowed. It is prohibited by standing order 50 of the rules of the House of Commons, which reads as follows:
A motion to refer a bill, resolution or any question to the committee of the whole or any standing or special committee shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
I therefore rule the amendment out of order.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


Mr. JOHN BRACKEN (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, before the house
rose at six o'clock you made a decision declaring the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes) out of order. I understand that we are precluded from any debate on your ruling. But in view of the fact that in our judgment the standing order you quoted in declaring the amendment out of order was not intended to cover such an amendment, under these circumstances, with all respect to Your Honour, I must appeal from your decision.
Mr. Speaker put the question as follows:
On the resolution moved this afternoon by Mr. Ilsley:
That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag;	.
That standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committte have power to send for persons, papers and records to aid in the discharge of its functions; and
That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that the House of Commons has appointed this committee and to request their honours to appoint members of the Senate to act thereon with the members of the House of Commons as a joint committee of both houses.
Mr. Pearkes moved as an amendment, seconded by Mr. Merritt:
That all the words after the word "expedient" in the first line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:
"that Canada adopt the present Canadian red ensign as the official national flag."
Before calling six o'clock, I ruled the amendment out of order, taking into consideration
[Mr. Speaker.!
standing order 50, of Standing Orders oi the House of Commons, 1927 edition, which reads as follows:	>
A motion to refer a bill, resolution or any question to the committee of the whole, or any standing or special committee shall preclude all amendment of the main question.
The leader of the opposition appeals from that decision. Is it the pleasure of the house that the Speaker's decision be sustained?


Mr. STIRLING:: I was paired with the
Minister of	Labour (Mr. Mitchell). Had I	
voted I would have		voted against the Speaker's
ruling.


Mr. HACKETT:: : I wa3 paired with the
Minister of	National Defence (Mr. Abbott).	
Had I voted I would have voted against the		
Speaker's ruling.


Mr. CASSELMAN:: I was paired with the		
Minister of Transport (Mr. Chevrier). Had		
I voted I	would	have voted against the
Speaker's ruling.		
Mr. MoGREGOR: I was paired with the hon. member for Hamilton East (Mr. Ross). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speakei-'s ruling.


Mr. BOUCHER:: I was paired with the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Mcllraith). Had I voted I would .have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. McLURE:: I was paired with the hon.. member for Queens (Mr. Douglas). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BRYCE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. SMITH (Calgary West):: I was paired with the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. MacKinnon). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. BLANCHETTE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Wentworth (Mr. Leonard). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's decision.


Mr. COCKERAM:: I was paired with the hon. member for Algoma West (Mr. Nixon). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. HALLE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Weyburn (Mr. McKay). Had I voted I would have voted in favour of the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. SMITH (York North):: I was paired with the hon. member for Victoria, Ontario (Mr. Hodgson). Had I voted I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's ruling.


Mr. DROPE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Northumberland, N.B. (Mr. Maloney). Had I voted I would have voted against the Speaker's ruling.


Thomas Langton Church: When the house rose at
six o'clock I was referring to the fact that the government had no mandate from the country to introduce this resolution. The proof of my statement is to be found in the exhibition that we saw to-night not only in. the house but outside it. The action of the government in introducing this legislation is going to lead to more disunity in this country than we have ever had, in addition to the grave problems that now face us. In the address in reply to the speech from the throne the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said that it should be postponed. The last time I asked a question in the house about the flag I suggested that it should be laid over until after the war and until our soldiers
Canadian Flag

had come home. I believe he agreed with me. What is the result? Without any order in council they went to work and changed the anthem. The House of Commons never heard of the anthem, beyond a question asked once or twice, but now that has been changed.
I do not like to refer to these matters, because I am not a man of that stamp. This question was not raised during the last election campaign except in one or two places. I am sorry to have to speak in this way in this house, because I have supported certain principles here, and as I said this afternoon, I intend to keep on supporting them. But how does it happen that a motion of this kind should be brought forward at a time like this?.


James Horace King: Order. I wish to direct
the attention of hon members to citation 112, paragraph (d) of Beauchesne:
A member attending a sitting of the house:
fd) must not interrupt any member who is .-speaking by disorderly noises or in any other .manner.


Thomas Langton Church: I believe the government
is making a very grave mistake in taking up this question at this time. You will notice, Mr. Speaker, that the resolution is worded differently from what it was on any previous occasion. It says that "it is expedient" which is the language used in motions moved by private members. I have been here during five or six parliaments, and this question has always been brought up on the motion of a private member; it was never brought up in this way, to go over the heads of hon. gentlemen meeting in another place. By this resolution we are instructing them what to do. Over there they have never suggested any change in the flag. After all is said and done, until confederation this was largely a matter of property and civil rights in the provinces. We never bad any trouble about the flag when Sir Wilfrid Laurier was prime minister of this country; the union jack flew over this government building then. He went over to the diamond jubilee. Canada which was first in the diamond jubilee procession, was the last of all the dominions to send a contingent to South Africa. It was even said here that such action woud be contrary to the British North America Act and against the constitution; but the1 government of the day under Sir Wilfrid Laurier were compelled to send a contingent to South Africa. This established in this country from that day forward that when Britain was at war, Canada also was at war. Those were his very words. At that time the union jack was flown over these buildings. There was no order of the House of Commons, because we are only one branch of the houses of

parliament; there is another branch in another place. The flag resolution now before us repeals standing order 65. I have been here for many sessions, but never before have I heard of that rule being suspended in a case like this. All the standing orders relating to joint undertakings with the Senate are being initiated by this irregular resolution, over the head of the House of Commons. Then this committee has power to send for papers, and a message is to be sent to the Senate.
I suggest to the government that we are getting pretty far afield in our relations with the mother country and the rest of the empire. Let us take up first things first; homes for soldiers; jobs for soldiers and civilians; protection against evictions and many other things like that. The other day I saw a class of ten or twelve school boys from the Glebe collegiate standing in front of the monument to Sir John A. Macdonald. A teacher was there, and a little student was giving an address. He said that Sir John A. Macdonald was the father of his country. Well, we will have to look to our laurels, because I am afraid the principles he supported in this country will soon be forgotten by hon. gentlemen opposite. We have had many examples of this trend on the part of the government recently, since June 11. Even before the mother country has had time to recover from war weariness they are willing to dissolve the empire along the lines I have suggested, with a separate flag, a separate anthem, a Canadian for governor general, abolishing appeals to the privy council, pan-Americanism and so on. Let me repeat to the proposers of this resolution, as I said in this house last March:
The British empire has stood for centuries like the Rock of Ages for the peace and security of the vrorld. Next to the Christian church the British empire has done more for freedom, liberty, humanity and civilization and for the peace and security of the world than any other agency, and no one else has done so much for the w-eaker nations. Britain has protected them with her fleet for four centuries, and even during this war. The tragedy which has overtaken civilization in the past twenty years was born of the league o.f nations and all its works.
Let me 'refer to the reason, as I see it, for bringing up this resolution at the present time. There was an election on June 11, and the Prime Minister made some speeches during that campaign. I do not wish to be unfair to him, because I. have been a friend of his for a great many years. While I may differ with people in politics, I never let politics interfere with real friendship, while I stick to my principles. But I look upon it as very unfair on the part of the Prime Minister to put this resolution on the order paper

Canadian Flag
at a time like this, after what he told the house in regard to the great complex questions we have to face in this country. Further, elections were held in the province of Quebec and various other provinces, during which many questions came up, including that of the flag. I noticed in one of the government organs in Quebec, L'Action Catholique, on June 7 an advertisement appeared in which it was stated that the Prime Minister had promised certain things along the line of what I call separation in this country: a separate flag and' anthem, a Canadian governor general and the abolition of appeals to the privy council.
This is not the first occasion on which it has been proposed to appoint a committee to deal with the matter of a flag. Away back in 1925-26, when the government had a majority of only one, two or three, a similar resolution was brought forward. When I asked for the production of certain information in regard to the committee I found it to be composed of the following gentlemen; G. J. DeSbarats, deputy minister of national defence; Thomas Mulvey, under-secretary; A. G. Doughty, dominion archivist; Commander W. Hose, director of naval service; Major General A. J. Panet, adjutant general, and J. S. Scott, director of the air force. How did it come about that only gentlemen of one religious denomination were appointed to deal with the question of a new flag? I objected at the time, and I believe the Prime Minister saw the force of my objection. I thought it was all wrong to ask valuable public servants like these, who had rendered fine service to this country, to undertake the task of a political committee of this kind. Only yesterday in this house I paid tribute to the civil service and to the Clerk of the House, one whom we all know and respect; and I thought it very unfair to impose this task in 1926 upon these gentlemen.
Some people seem to want us to get out of the empire altogether, but as I see it there is no question as to the future of this country. As Sir John A. Macdonald said, it is wrapped up with the motherland. I am in favour of one flag, the union jack, because that is the flag of our empire. I am in favour of one king, one anthem, "God save the King", one throne, one empire. I am opposed to any change in the flag at a time like this, for the reason that this parliament has no mandate from the electors. I support the cause of history and tradition. The flag stands for a symbol of empire. All hon. members will recall the great efforts in the old countiy to get control over the executive and over
expenditures. We forget what was done over there to give us the freedom and the liberty we enjoy to-day, and which has been copied by the United States and other countries. Men have been burned at the stake and tortured to give us freedom and civilization. The mother country secured for civilization that freedom. Her command of the seas for over 100 years, from the peace after Waterloo to the outbreak of the first world war won for the world that 100 years of freedom and peace, and secured for Europe three freedoms mentioned in the Atlantic charter: freedom from fear, freedom of speech, and freedom of religion.
It is not a flag, but what it stands for which is of importance. When Their Majesties visited Quebec, Ontario and other parts of Canada, in no places were they more joyfully received than they were by the people of Quebec. Many times during the last war I paid tribute to glorious France, which was our ally in the first world war, and which will always be a great country. She has been with Great Britain for a long time, and will continue to be by her side in the future. I believe the futures of France, Great Britain and the dominions are linked together. If they stand together in peace as in the war, with the United States and Russia I feel sure the world will enjoy an era of peace.
The flag, the union jack, represents equal rights to all and special privileges to none. It represents freedom and justice and protection; and so long as we remain part of the British empire her forces on land and sea and in the air will help us. We will remember how, after Dunkirk, the whole world stood aghast, and everyone thought Great Britain had gone. Save for the help she received from the dominions, she had no help against the axis powers.
The time is not ripe for this resolution, and this is the wrong way to go about it. We have seen both in and out of the house the disunity which the resolution has caused. It should stand until the Prime Minister returns. I understand he will be back shortly. He has been in the old country, and we should have the benefit of his views now on this question. He is soon expected in Washington, if indeed, he has not already arrived. I am very much surprised to see a resolution of this kind at the present time when, as citizens of the finest empire the world ever saw, unity should be our watchword.


Hon. H. A. BRUCE (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege. At the beginning of the sitting this afternoon in my absence Mr. Deputy Speaker, the hon. member for Brantford City (Mr. Macdonald),
Canadian Flag

challenged my veracity in respect of certain observations I had made yesterday, in these words:
As these observations were so completely without foundation as to be fantastic.
As I happened to have quoted from Hansard, as well as Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, my observations were based upon a solid foundation of fact.


James Horace King: I understood the hon. member for Parkdale wished to speak to a question of privilege. I would ask him to state his question of privilege.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: The question of privilege is that I, as a member of the house, have a right to the protection of the house. When an hon. member, even though he occupies the high and distinguished position of Deputy Speaker challenges my veracity, then I have the right to bring the matter to the attention of the house, and to show that I was not untruthful in the observations which I made yesterday. I maintain, therefore, that I have a perfect right to rise in my place at this time on a question of privilege and to object to the statement made by the hon. member for Brantford City earlier to-day.


James Horace King: Order. I draw the hon. member's attention to Bourinot's Parliamentary Procedure, at page 303, where, under the heading "Questions of Privilege" it is stated:
It is the practice in the House of Commons to bring up a question of privilege after prayers, and before the house has taken up the orders of the day.
I think this is not. the proper time during a debate to raise a question of privilege, and I doubt very much if the hon. member is rising to a question of privilege. At page 307 in the same volume we find this:
A question of order in the house, or in a committee thereof, cannot be treated as a matter of privilege.
I believe, therefore, that the hon. member is out of order.


William Ross Macdonald: I did not question the hon. member's veracity. I would suggest that, with the unanimous consent of the house, he might be allowed to state his position at this time.


James Horace King: With the consent of the house, does the hon. member have the privilege?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am sick of it.


Mr. GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: No, we have not the time.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: I would ask the hon. member to apply the same rule to himself that he applied to me when he said


Jean-François Pouliot: I object. There is no unanimous consent. We have had enough of this antediluvian stuff.


James Horace King: Order. Since the hon. member has not the unanimous consent of the house he will have to resume his seat.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: May I say that we should accept the statement of the Deputy Speaker to the effect that he did not impugn the veracity of the hon. member for Parkdale, and that the incident be closed.


Jean-François Pouliot: I positively object to it- definitely.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Question.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have had enough of it.


James Horace King: If there is not unanimous consent of the house I shall have to ask the hon. member to resume his seat.


Jean-François Pouliot: All right.


Angus MacInnis: Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to prolong the debate. The leader of this group, the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) stated the position for the group this afternoon. That position is that we are in favour of this resolution's passing, and in favour of setting up a committee to carry out the purposes of the resolution. I would n6t have risen at all had it not been for the fact that there seems to be some difference of opinion as to what we are discussing. We are discussing the setting up of a committee, and not the referring of anything to that committee. It is for that reason that we opposed Mr. Speaker's ruling a moment ago.
In my view we should now proceed, and if there is any difference of opinion let us have a vote on the resolution so that we may know where everyone stands.


Mr. FREDERIC DORION (Charlevoix-Saguenay) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker, to my mind, no occasion can more properly call for the use of the French language than this debate, because it must be admitted that the French Canadians-and such a statement implies no reflection upon others-have always, on this question as on all other matters, shown themselves to be first and foremost Canadians inasmuch as they have long advocated the adoption of a national flag.

Canadian Flag
I shall speak for a few minutes only, because I would most certainly not want to delay the passing of this resolution. I take this opportunity to tender my congratulations to the present government for having moved this resolution embodying the principle of a national flag for Canada, and I am prompted to do so by the fact that I am not one of those who believe that any measure, initiated by political opponents must foe considered as wrong.
I desire also to offer my congratulations to the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) upon his magnificent contribution to this debate. He has expressed the sentiments of a great majority of Canadians who wish to see their country advancing toward the status of a real and practical nation, free from the ties of the old colonialism whose policies too often have been dictated by interests from outside.
From the Progressive Conservative party we hear statements which are at variance and indicate that, unfortunately some of the members of that party have not yet realized the difference between colonial servilism and the free association for the attainment of a common aim.
As was said to-day by many hon. members, the question now at issue is not whether we should withdraw from the British commonwealth of nations; on the contrary, the point is that we should take a decision which will show that we are at last conscious of the position we occupy within that association of nations and which will certainly give more value to the action we are deliberately taking. While asserting that we should ever aim at more and more complete independence, I say that at this time, in view of the difficult problems which are coming up in the world, in view of the international situation which brings us the gravest problems we have ever had to solve, it is perhaps preferable that we should for the time being remain within the British commonwealth of nations. To my mind, that should not prevent us from implementing measures like this because I, for one, would rather have union in independence than blind and servile sufomissiveness.
Surely every Canadian worthy of the name will be happy to see, to-morrow, that the country's representatives in Ottawa have passed unanimously, I hope, the resolution now before the house.
I have in mind particularly my fellow-citizens of the province of Quebec who, deprived of their flag since 1760, have since done
everything in their power to find a symbol representative of their ideal. I am convinced that to-morrow they will be delighted to approve the decision taken by the committee appointed under this resolution. I do not know the names of the committee members, but I feel confident that their decisions will be consistent with the views set forth in the house1 to-day and I particularly hope that the flag they choose will be neither French nor English but truly Canadian.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear!


Frédéric Dorion: The red ensign has been
mentioned. Obviously-and this point need not be discussed very long-the red ensign is not a flag and can still less be considered as a Canadian flag. I would not forgive myself for not referring at this time to the suggestion put forth this afternoon that consideration of this resolution was premature and that it would be better to discuss matters other than the national flag. I was particularly surprised to hear the hon. member for Jasper-Edson (Mr. Ivuhl) speak as he did. As a matter of fact, he belongs to a group represented in the province of Quebec and whose vice-president is now standing for Beauce county in a by-election. I understand the hon. member must have expressed the policy adopted by that group and I suppose the national vice-president must have approved the statement made in the house this afternoon by the hon. member for Jasper-Edson.


Pierre Gauthier: Hear, heart


Frédéric Dorion: Mr. Speaker, this matter
is of paramount importance. We have waited so long for this symbol of our ideal that, far from wasting our time, we are taking a course of action long overdue and which I hope the house will approve unanimously.
(Text).


Mr. H. W. HERRIDGE (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, as one who has great affection for my mother country, for the national flag of that country, the union jack, and for many British institutions, I rise to give wholehearted support to this resolution. The government of the day has done a good thing for Canada by introducing this resolution at this time. In my opinion this is the most fitting time for this matter to be considered by the house. More than ever is it essential that we build in this country a national unity of purpose. I believe a distinctive Canadian flag will be a great factor in the future in building a real
Canadian Flag

national unity of purpose in Canada. I believe it will be the symbol around which all Canadians can rally in future to build a greater and more united Canada.


Mr. J. H. BLACKMORE (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, the Social Credit movement believes in the British commonwealth and empire. The Social Credit movement believes the British commonwealth and empire is the greatest organization that exists or ever has existed, making for the four freedoms and for the general blessing of all families of the earth. The Social Credit movement believes that the united nations organization for world security should be modeled' after the British commonwealth and empire, being a free association of autonomous communities, equal in status and in no way subservient one to another in any aspect of their external or domestic affairs. The Social Credit movement looks upon the union jack as being the symbol of the British commonwealth and empire. Social Crediters desire that the union jack shall keep an honoured place in any Canadian flag.
The union jack is the most distinctly Christian flag on earth. Each of the crosses of1 Saint George, Saint Andrew and Saint Patrick is a Christian cross. The origin of its recognition and use as a Christian symbol reaches back deep and far into generations dimly remote. On earth to-day there are no people more devotedly and fervently, though soberly, Christian than the British' people. Canada is devotedly and fervently Christian. What symbol can possibly be found1 more fully representative of Christian Canada than the union jack, a beautiful and inspiring blend of three Christian crosses? This fact should weigh heavily as a cogent reason for including the union jack in any Canadian flag.
Social Crediters are not unmindful of the fact that many hundreds of thousands of Canadians have marched into solemn battle for the cause of right under the union) jack. They remember, too, with sober reverence tens of thousands of Canada's noble youth whose lacerated young bodies sleep in far-off soil, each wrapped in, the union jack. This, we believe, constitutes another most urgent reason why the union- jack shall occupy an honoured place in any Canadian flag. We want to make it abundantly clear to all people, and particularly the C.C.F. people and the socialistic people throughout the country and the people who are seeking to undermine the loyalty of the people for the
[Mr. Herridge.f
great British ideal, that we are not advocating any condition of subservience on Canada's part; we merely want the union jack in Canada's flag as a mark of reverence and respect for the origin of our people.
We have no particular objection to the resolution. We wish to put our case definitely and clearly, that all men may know that the Social Credit movement desires that the union jack shall be an honoured part of any Canadian flag.


Mr. H. C. GREEN (Vancouver South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise this evening to say a few words because of the remarks of my good friends the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Cold-well), who is leader of the C.C.F., and the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), which were made this afternoon.
In the first place, I was surprised to hear the - leader of the C.C.F. party speak as though Canada had never had a flag. Of course that may be because he was not brought up in this country, and I do not hold that against him in any way.


Mr. PICARD:: That is cheap.


Howard Charles Green: Just keep still. He spoke
of being a boy in England and of carrying the Cross of St. George in a procession. But the position here in Canada, at any rate in my province of British Columbia, when I was a boy many many years ago, was that we thought we had a Canadian flag; that flag was the Canadian red ensign, although I think at that time the coat of arms consisted of the coats of arms of the four provinces which originally formed confederation. We had that flag depicted in the school books we used; in my own town we celebrated the 24th of May, and other towns celebrated the 1st of July, and on those occasions invariably this Canadian flag and the union jack were flown; we were very proud of our Canadian flag. It was not until I came here as a member of parliament ten years ago that I realized that officially we had no flag. Unofficially, in so far as my province was concerned we certainly had a Canadian flag. So that we start off with that background.
Then there is the fact that this same Canadian red ensign was carried by the Canadian troops in the present war. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) said this afternoon, it has flown for years on Canada's embassies and was used at San Francisco. We are not in the position of starting afresh now without what hundreds of thousands of Canadian people think is the Canadian flag.

Canadian Flag
I would ask hon. members to bear that in mind, and I suggest that it be kept in the minds of the members of the house who serve on this committee! I repeat that the leader of the C.C.F. was a little bit "off the beam" when he made the statement he did this afternoon.	*
The other point which was brought up this afternoon about which I should like to say a few words has to do with his other remarks, which I construed as meaning that he thought the new flag should not have the union jack in it. I may be wrong in taking that meaning, but certainly his speech could be interpreted in that way.
Of course there was no doubt that the hon. member for Temiscouata does not want to have the union jack in the new Canadian flag. He made his position perfectly clear. I thought he dealt with it rather lightheartedly, considering the way many of us feel about this subject. We feel just as deeply about it as he does about his own convictions.


Jean-François Pouliot: Will my hon. friend permit me? I did not speak lightly about it. I spoke lightly of the arms of Canada, which I find crazy; but it is not the union jack; it is the arms of Canada.


Howard Charles Green: Well, the impression I got
was that the hon. member was treating the whole matter in a lighthearted fashion.


Jean-François Pouliot: No, no; I revere the flag.


Howard Charles Green: I am confident I speak for
my great riding of Vancouver South, for the city of Vancouver, and for the province of British Columbia when I say that we are in deadly earnest in insisting that the union jack must be in this new Canadian flag. I do not think there is an hon. member from British Columbia who will question that statement. If there is, I would ask him to rise in his place and speak the other way.


Herbert Alexander Bruce: Nor from Ontario.


Howard Charles Green: I believe that, with the
gallant little province of Prince Edward Island, we have the finest record of enlistments both in this war and in the last.
This belief bf ours that the union jack must . be in the flag goes so deep that I cannot adequately express it.
The same belief is held by the Canadian Legion, the strongest soldier organization in Canada. I have here a copy of the Legionary for the month of August of this year, in which is reported an interview between the dominion officers of the Canadian Legion and our Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). I am going to read it to -hon. members, because I think
it is significant; it shows both the beliefs of the legion and the beliefs of our Prime Minister. It states:
Canadian Flag .
An informal discussion, in which all present participated, then took place on the question of a Canadian flag.
As I said, this is a report of an interview between the Prime Minister and the senior officers of the legion.
Prime Minister King was anxious to hear the legion's views on this subject and was told of the dominion convention resolution favouring a distinct flag for Canada, provided that it ' contains the union jack at its top, left-hand quarter, as in the red ensign which is now the official flag of the Canadian army and merchant marine, and which since V-E day has been flown on special occasions from the peace tower of the parliament buildings in Ottawa.
That gives the stand of the legion. I am now going to read the stand of the Prime Minister:
Mr. King assured the legion officers that, so far as he-was concerned, the new Canadian flag should certainly contain the union jack. It might be debatable whether a single maple leaf in the fly would be preferable to the Canadian coat-of-arms at present incorporated in the Canadian red ensign, but it would be unthinkable to have a flag for this dominion that did not contain the union jack.
The other dominions of the commonwealth, our great sister nations, have the union jack in their flags-Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. Canada is the senior dominion. Think of the effect around the world if Canada adopts a flag without a union jack! Think of the effect in every part of the empire and outside the empire if we take a step of that kind! It is all very well to bait the empire and the commonwealth and1 make jocular remarks in this house and outside, but the cold, hard fact is that Canada needs the empire to-day as she has never needed it before. If there ever comes another world war the chances are that it will be fought on Canada's territory. It will not be a case of sending an expeditionary force to Europe this time; there will be an expeditionary force coming from the motherland and Australia and New Zealand to help us defend this country. Do not let us run away with the idea that we can poke fun at the empire without doing damage. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that this is the worst possible time to take any step whatever either in connection with the flag or in any other way that might be construed as weakening the British commonwealth.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: I wholeheartedly support the resolution before the house, because the party for which I speak
Canadian Flag

to-night has advocated it for quite a while. I discussed this matter more than a year ago when I spoke of the necessity for a Canadian flag. In the programme of the Labour-Progressive Party we have this provision: "Adopt an official Canadian flag and proclaim 'O Canada' the ^national anthem of the country." In the second place, I am in favour of this resolution because I come from the province of Quebec, and in that province the people have been for a long time calling for a distinctive Canadian flag-a distinctive flag, not a flag with any adjuncts from other countries.
It is about time we recognized that the world is changing, that it is not static. As a result of this war Canada comes out a powerful country that cannot be tied to any one group. Canada must look for friends and customers throughout the world. We are not an agricultural adjunct of any one empire. We are an agricultural and a great industrial country, and therefore we have to speak with an independent voice. A flag is a symbol of that independent voice.
The British are very fine people, and they have fought heroically in this war and have withstood all sorts of onslaughts. They have their flag. We here in Canada respect them and thank them for all that they have done. But we have done our bit on our part and have also helped them, and we say that we have a right to our own Canadian flag. The union jack is a very fine flag, but I would say that in many instances it has not always stood for the best. I should like to see our flag minus the union jack, so that we shall not be blamed by tens of millions of people for what is done by the imperialist interests in Indonesia. We do not have to be blamed for what they do. We have to speak with an independent voice, and that is why I am fully in accord with the resolution to set up a committee that will study a distinctive Canadian flag.
I wish to protest and protest strongly against the idea that any one flag is a Christian flag or a non-Christian flag. We have heard too much of that language in this house in the past few weeks.


Mr. HANSELL:: You will hear a little more of it.


Fred Rose: We have heard too much of it. The flag is the symbol of all the people, Christian and non-Christian. The world cannot be divided into Christians and non-Christians. We are not declaring war against Mohammedans or Moslems and others. We have to live in peace with them, and this idea that there is a Christian flag or a nonChristian flag is something that we have heard from many who to-day are dead but 
the germs of whose ideas are still being disseminated. Le roi est mort, vive le roi I Goebbels is dead, but his ideology seeps even into this House of Commons.


Mr. JAQUES:: Mr. Speaker, I think that remark is out of order.


Fred Rose: So was the remark about the Christian flag. The swastika was also a flag and it represented a system of barbarism and persecution. We want a flag that will represent a free people and a prosperous people in a country in which everyone has an opportunity.
Mr. JOHN R. MacNICOL (Davenport): I am not going to speak at any length on this occasion; I will reserve my arguments for the committee, because I will certainly go before any committee that has to deal with the question of a flag for Canada and present the strongest arguments I can to show that any flag this country has must have the union jack in the upper left-hand corner next the staff. I felt encouraged after listening to what the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) read as having been said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) recently-I have forgotten where-in which statement he declared that he could not conceive of a Canadian flag without having the union jack prominently thereon. I am very glad to hear that because, if the Prime Minister holds that view, he will have, apart from a few, the unanimous support of the house.
When this question came up here in 1938, nearly eight years ago,- that was not the Prime Minister's stand; he took a strong stand in the opposite direction on that occasion. I will read what he said shortly after I had made an address. At page 438 of Hansard of February 14, 1938, the Prime Minister said:
I would conclude this part of what I have to say with the observation that the continued use of the union jack gives a false impression abroad, and particularly in the country immediately adjoining. The use of the union jack on anything that is distinctively Canadian in the United States does not help to emphasize the individuality of this country or its distinct nationality; it helps to submerge them altogether.
Having in mind what the Prime Minister said on that occasion, and not having heard what the Prime Minister said recently, I was happy to hear the quotation read; and as I said a few moments ago, I feel encouraged that when the proposed flag comes back from the committee which is to be set up it will have the union jack on it.
We thought this afternoon that the amendment suggested by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), which called for the

Canadian Flag
flag now flying on the flag staff of the peace tower, would receive genera! support. I for one felt that I was going a long way to accept that change from what we have had. I have always been, and still am, a strong advocate of the union jack. I know that even if we do have some other official flag, we shall still have the right, as they have in South Africa, to fly the union jack. We shall still have the right to fly it because it is an empire flag. We can then fly any other flag that is chosen by the committee with the union jack thereon.
If the committee brought back a flag that did not contain the union jack-and I warn my hon. friends over there who seem to be very strong against the union jack being on the flag; I am not finding fault with their views; they have a right to their opinion as I have to mine-I shall go to the limit to fight before any committee to see that the union jack shall be on any Canadian flag.
I represent a riding, than which there is no riding in Canada which has sent more soldiers overseas in this war or in the last war. There may have been other ridings which have sent as many, but none sent more. I doubt whether any riding in Canada has lost as many of its brilliant young sons, many of whom I knew, as my riding. Almost every house on my street, which consists of the finest people in the land-there are just as good elsewhere, but none better-has lost a son, boys whom I knew myself. No riding has made a greater sacrifice and I will fight for them. They would not stand for a flag without the union jack being on it. What are you to have on the flag? I am not going to take the line I took on forjner occasions. We are told we are to have a distinctive flag. What is your distinction to be? What are you to have on the flag? I have here about fifty-seven varieties, like Heinz pickles, and every one of them different. They have that right. Everyone who has put in a design wants to make a flag. As I said, I have fifty-seven varieties, and I call them Heinz pickles flags. Few of them stand for anything. Few of them really represent anything. Flags come from a long, long history and on them there should be something representing the people of the country.
I heard here to-night that there should not be any crosses on the flag Well, there will be some crosses on the flag, Mr. Speaker. I have in my veins Scotch and Irish blood; I will not stand for the Cross of St. Andrew or the Cross of St. Patrick being taken off the flag, and I am sure that the people who have English blood in their veins in this house will not stand for St. George's Cross
being taken off the flag. I believe a combination of these three crosses, which appear on the present union jack, should appear on a Canadian flag.
I cannot understand my hon. friends across the way. If we people who have Scotch, English, Welsh and Irish blood in our veins were wanting to do away with the union jack I would not be surprised at their objection, because all these crosses came from France. William the Conqueror brought one of them with him. St. George's Cross also came from across the channel. The French kings brought the other crosses with them; and the coat-of-arms that was made so much fun of this afternoon by my good friend the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot), for whom I have a high regard and a very warm feeling, also came from France. I must say he has a perfect right to make fun if he desires and he is perfect at doing that; he did well, but I must tell him that those lions were brought to England by the French kings, too.


Jean-François Pouliot: It is the flag of Great Britain.


John Ritchie MacNicol: If we people who have English, Scotch or Irish blood in our veins were kicking against the crosses or the lions there would be some excuse for their taking the opposite stand. But there is no excuse for anyone with French blood in their veins kicking against them because they came from France.


Jean-François Pouliot: May I ask the hon. member one question?


John Ritchie MacNicol: As the house knows, they were imposed on the Anglo-Saxons after the French kings came, of whom we had quite a number. There was William I and William II, Henry, Stephen, Richard I and Richard II, and so on. They were all French kings, and their wives nearly all French women. It was four or five hundred years before the kings began to speak English in England. These French kings were good kings and their wives were very good women. They brought these French crosses and the French lions with them. We are not kicking about that. We are glad that they came to England; we are glad that they improved our English language. Half our language consists of French words, but we are not kicking about that. If it had not been for those French words I do not know what kind of language we would have to-day. We ire grateful to the French.


Mr. REID:: St. Andrew's Cross did not come from France.
Canadian Flag


John Ritchie MacNicol: I cannot understand why my hon. friends over there are so violently opposed to anything British appearing on the Canadian flag.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, I rise to a question of privilege.


John Ritchie MacNicol: You can do that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have the greatest regard for the hon. member for Davenport.


John Ritchie MacNicol: What is the question of privilege?	[DOT]


Jean-François Pouliot: I cannot let him proceed farther and insinuate that I am opposed to the British flag.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I did not say that.


Jean-François Pouliot: I do not want him to say that, and I do not want-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I have the floor on a question of privilege.


John Ritchie MacNicol: The hon. member is stating something that' I did not say.


Jean-François Pouliot: My hon. friend is too lair-


William Ross Macdonald: Order.


John Ritchie MacNicol: I will repeat wliat I said, Mr. Speaker. What I said was that my hon. friends over there appear to be violently opposed to anything British being on the flag. The only thing British on the flag is the three crosses and the four lions-


Jean-François Pouliot: It is not that at all.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: I rise to a question of privilege.


William Ross Macdonald: Order. If the hon. member for Davenport has misquoted the hon. member for Temiseouata, the hon. member for Temiseouata can correct what was said, but that is all. He must not enter into a debate, because-


Jean-François Pouliot: The only thing that was said, Mr. Speaker, was just a word of praise to the hon. gentleman.


Arza Clair Casselman: Order. Sit down. The Speaker is on his feet.


Jean-François Pouliot: If my hon. friend permits-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker-


William Ross Macdonald: I have made a ruling that if the hon. member for Temis-couata has been misquoted he may correct the misquotation.


Jean-François Pouliot: That is what I am doing, sir.


John Ritchie MacNicol: As a matter of fact I did not-


Jean-François Pouliot: May I tell my hon. friend that I am not at all opposed-


William Ross Macdonald: Order. Order must be maintained in the house. The hon. member for Temiseouata can correct anything that was said that was in any way incorrectly quoted.


Jean-François Pouliot: I wish to correct the imputation that has been made about me by the hon. member for Davenport that I was opposed to anything British on the Canadian flag. My contention was that the flag represents the country, and the union flag represents another country. I submit that the union flag is not to be on the Canadian flag itself because it is the flag of another country.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order. It is the flag of the empire.


William Ross Macdonald: The hon. member for Davenport now has the floor. May I point out to hon. members that no questions ran be asked of the member who has the floor without his consent.


Jean-François Pouliot: I did not ask a question; I rose on a question of privilege.


John Ritchie MacNicol: When my hon. friend
was concluding what he said just a moment ago I took it, as I presume everyone else took it, that he was opposed to the union jack or any part of the union jack being on the Canadian .flag.


Jean-François Pouliot: Or the French tricolour,
either.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, I am not arguing
what should be on it-


Jean-François Pouliot: You might state what
should not be on it.


William Ross Macdonald: May I again
remind hon. members that conversations must not take place between them. Each hon. member when rising must address the Chair.


John Ritchie MacNicol: Well, Mr. Speaker, this
argument commenced when I started to ask what would be on the flag, but I will forget about that for a moment.
On twelve of the principal national flags in the world there are horizontal bars, each flag having three. I will not support any flag that has only horizontal bars on it; red, white and blue; red, white and black; yellow, pink and green or anything else. Five of them

Canadian Flag
have perpendicular bars, and five have perpendicular or horizontal bars with something superimposed. I would not support any flag like that; I would not want to live in a country that had a flag like that. Flags of that kind did not cut much of a figure in the recent war. The flags that cut the figure were the stars and stripes south of the line and the union jack or the Canadian flag north of the line. Those were the flags that won out in the end, not these barred flags, which really represent little.
What I really want to know from these hon. gentlemen who are advocating a distinctive flag is, what do they mean by that and what do they want on it? They are opposed to anything pertaining to the union jack being on it-I have just said that again-but what do they want on it? We on this side of the house will go the limit to see that the union jack is on any flag that flies over this country.
I do not know t-iat there is much more I can say. One thing is certain; I will go before the committee when it is set up to argue that any flag flying over this country shall have on it the union jack in the most prominent place, the upper Left hand corner next to the flag staff. I am not going to take any further time, because if I did I would set out the arguments I am going to advance before the committee.


Mr. T. A. KIDD (Kingston City):: After what was said this afternoon at three o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that I do not agree with all the statements that have been made so far, and for that reason I ask the indulgence of the house for a moment or two to present my views. The resolution as we have it at the moment is as follows:
That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag;
That standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;
That the said committee have power to send for persons, papers and records to aid in the discharge of its functions; and
That a message be sent to the senate to inform their honours that the House of Commons has appointed this committee and to request their # honours to appoint members of the senate to act thereon with the members of the House of Commons as a joint committee of both houses.
This resolution is divided in two parts. First, it states that in the opinion of this house it is expedient that Canada should possess a distinctive national flag; second, that in the opinion of this house a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons should be appointed to consider and report
upon a suitable design for such flag. This is not the first or second time a resolution concerning the flag has appeared on the order paper. If, sir, you turn back the pages of. the debates in this House of Commons you will find that during the 'past twenty years the flag question has come up many times; but there is a difference between the resolution of to-day and those which were presented on previous occasions. This resolution is sponsored by the government. On previous occasions such resolutions were sponsored by private members, as was explained this afternoon by the acting leader of the house (Mr. Mackenzie). In 1938, seven years ago, the resolution was sponsored by Mr. Cameron R. McIntosh, then member for North Battleford. That resolution, which appears at page 411 of Hansard for 1938, was as follows:
That, in the opinion of this house, a special select committee be appointed for the purpose of considering the advisability of adopting a distinctive Canadian flag, representing Canada as a whole, thereby symbolizing the dominion senior partner in the British commonwealth of nations.
This resolution only called for the appointment of a special select committee. Although it became what is called a perennial resolu- [DOT] tion, coming up at many sessions, at no time was it acceptable to the house; in every case it was turned down.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I do not want to interrupt my hon. friend, but was it not allowed to die on the order paper? It was not turned down, as I understand it.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: It was not voted down; that is correct. At page 436 of Hansard for February 14,	1938, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) said:
Difficulties having arisen in Canadian government offices abroad, due to the lack of a distinctive Canadian flag, an order in council dated January 26, 1924, was passed, authorizing the flying of the red ensign, with the Canadian coat-of-arms on the fly. . . .
This reference is brought before the house to let it be known that permission to fly the red ensign from all buildings owned and occupied by the Canadian government and situated outside Canada was authorized by order in council, under the present Prime Minister, and no authority was given by act of parliament. Only a few days ago, when the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Church) asked the government on what authority the red ensign was flown from the parliament buildings, he was told that it was by authority of an order in council passed on September 5, 1945. Permission to fly the red ensign over the parliament buildings to-day has not been granted by an act of parliament.
Canadian Flag

Three years prior to the McIntosh resolution, that is ten years ago, in January, 1935, as will be seen in the debates of the House of Commons for that year at page 199, Mr. Dickie of Nanaimo sponsored the following resolution, which is a little different again:
That, in the opinion of this house, a national flag representing the Dominion of Canada should be adopted.
And that in any design for a Canadian flag the union jack must be conspicuous.
To this motion an amendment was moved by Mr. Arthurs. This resolution was quite specific; it asked that in any design for a Canadian flag the union jack should be conspicuous. The same resolution was brought forward a year later; again it was not accepted by the house. If the resolution now before us is not opposed it will mean that by his silence every hon. member will approve what? That it is expedient for Canada to possess a distinctive national flag. It is for this reason -that I have risen to make it known that in my opinion the flag question should not be injected into the business of this session. This is not the time to change the flag. Only recently, during the present victory loan campaign, the national finance committee released figures showing that 37,963 Canadian service men have been killed since 1939. Some 53,073 Canadian service men have been wounded, and 2,866 Canadians are missing. This means that in this war about 40,000 men have enlisted and given their lives for the principles for which the union jack stands.
In the first world war some 60,000 Canadians gave their lives. This means that in the two world wars over 100,000 of Canada's young manhood paid the supreme sacrifice. When reference is made to the 100,000 Canadians who gave their lives for Canada and the empire, and to those things for which the union jack stands, one must not overlook the fact that there are dozens, scores and hundreds of families who mourn to-day the losses of their sons, husbands and brothers overseas, who fought with the British expeditionary forces, in the army, in the navy, and particularly in the Royal Air Force. Those men gave their lives in Africa, in Malta, in the English channel and in the North sea. Many of those men left to join the empire forces in 1938 and 1939.
It will be noted that the resolution is dated September 27, a date following the opening of this session of parliament. Casualty lists of those who paid the supreme sacrifice are still appearing in the daily press. I hold in my hand one dated in October, containing the names of nearly sixty Canadians who gave their lives for Canada, their country and their flag.

There are many reasons why in this session of 1945 the Canadian flag should not be interjected into issues before parliament. The flag question is a contentious one, and has been for twenty years. I do not hesitate to say that the tabling of this resolution, as it appears on the order paper, is an error in judgment on the part of the government. I also maintain that it would have been better if the resolution had not been called at this time. It will be noted that it appears in the name of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King), who is to-day absent from the house.
During the leadership of the Prime Minister, when he has occupied seats on both sides of the house, he has never failed to make it known that he was always on the side of those who were anxious to change the flag. If any hon. member cares to have the Prime Minister's views on the flag question, all that is necessary for him to do is to turn back to the pages in the debates of the House of Commons referred to this afternoon by the leader of the house. On February 14, 1938, as reported at page 480 of Hansard, are set out the personal views of the Prime Minister, in thirteen columns of Hansard. At that time the matter was not proceeded with, and it was finally dropped because it was thought undesirable to press it, in view of other business.
To-day reference has been made to the solidarity of the empire. I say in all seriousness that in Canada for many years a certain element has been trying to use its influence to weaken the ties which bind Canada and the empire. They advocate the appointment of Canadian governors general, the doing away with appeals to the privy council, a change in the flag, and a change in Canadian citizenship.
Since the first world war an imperial conference was held in the old country, and also here in Ottawa. During those many years distinguished British citizens have paid visits to Canada. I might refer to half a dozen organizations, including the empire parliamentary association, the press association, the bar association, the association of mining and metallurgy, and visits of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and His Royal Highness Prince George, accompanied by the Prime Minister of Great Britain, and the visits of Their Majesties the King and Queen. Deputations such as these have been coming to Canada year in and year out, May I add that nearly every year since confederation Canadian representatives acting on behalf of the government of Canada have visited the mother country, thus cementing Canada and the empire. In spite of this, nothing has cemented Canada and the empire more effectively than the part this country played during world war I and world war II.

Canadian Flag
In both those wars nearly 100,000 Canadians gave their lives. In the first great war 60,000 were left in Flanders fields, and 40,000 gave their lives in world war II. The bonds of sentiment and friendship welded through the loss of those lives have been much greater than the influence of the various deputations.
Those boys gave their lives for the flag we have to-day. Has parliament a mandate to pull down the union jack? There is a following in Canada to-day who feel that the present government has no mandate to pull down that flag. They say that this is a major question. If so grave a step is to be taken and since this is the first time it appears on the order paper as a government' measure, whatever fact-finding the government may obtain by so doing, no definite move should be made until they have a clear mandate from the Canadian people.
Reference was made this evening to Sir John A. Macdonald by the hon. member for Broadview. It so happens that I have the honour to represent the constituency which at one time he represented, and I should like to enlarge upon that thought. In his election campaign of 1844 Sir John A. Macdonald made a statement to the free and independent electorate of the town of Kingston, and placed before them his manifesto, a copy of which I hold in my hand, but which I shall not read. He was elected on this in 1844:
I therefore need scarcely state my firm belief that the prosperity of Canada depends upon its permanent connection with the mother country, and that I shall resist to the utmost any attemr.t, from whatever quarter it may come, which may tend to weaken that union.
Sir John said that in 1844. Then, what do we find? Forty-seven years later in February, 1891, he was again elected in reaffirming Canada's relationship to the British empire, when he said:
For a century and a half this country has grown and flourished under the protecting aegis of the British crown.
Under the broad folds of the union jack we enjoy the most ample liberty, to govern ourselves as we please, and at the same time we participate in the advantages which flow with the association of the mightiest empire the world has ever seen.
He concluded with this statement:
As for myself my course is clear: A British subject I was born, a British subject I will die.
I referred to that for this reason, that during his half century in public life Sir John A. Macdonald saw many troublesome days. He lived through the years which led up to confederation in 1837 and the troublesome years of 1866 and 1870. Yet during all that time Canadians knew where they stood in their relationship to the British empire.
For a moment I should like to make reference to the Canadian army battle flag. When considering the flag question, one cannot but look back with a certain amount of amusement at the steps taken at the time the flag was given to the first Canadian division when they sailed from Halifax in December, 1939. As to its nomenclature, one is more or less at a loss to know whether to refer to it as the Canadian army battle-flag, the battle-flag of Canada, or the McNaughton flag.
There is no mistake, in fact, that the launching and the production of this flag just at that time, and particularly the method in which it was done, gave those advocates of a new flag for Canada exactly what they wanted. The question to-day is:	Where is the
McNaughton flag? What has become of it?


Mr. CASE:: It is not in North Grey, I can tell you that.


Thomas Ashmore Kidd: Why was it discarded? If at that time it was the wish of the government that it should be Canada's battle-flag, why is it not the flag which is flying over the parliament buildings at the present time? An Ottawa dispatch has this to say with reference to the Canadian flag:
The new flag is claimed to be more striking and gorgeous than any other national emblem. It is laid out on a gleaming white field, featuring the union jack, the fleur-de-lis and maple leaf. It provides, authorities claim, an ensign of proper heraldic significance for Canada.
And again:
If Canada is to have its own flag there could be no more suitable beginning than at this memorable moment and the true place for the flag's baptism is over the camp of Canada's first expeditionary force.
The Montreal Standard of February 17, 1945, makes this comment about the Canadian flag:
This is the flag w'hich now waves proudly over General McNaughton's headquarters in England, having been authorized for use by the Canadian active service force. It was seen for the first time when it flew at the masthead of the O.C.'s ship in the convoy which bore the first contingent to the other side. For the first time Canadians go overseas to fight with their own flag.
That was the sentiment with regard to the flag. I say that this is not the time for Canada to change her flag. The time is most inopportune, because some foreign observers, not understanding, might interpret such an occasion -to the effect that Canada is weakening her stand with the empire. When we think of all that the old flag stands for, all those who have lived under it and those who went away cheerfully to die for it, the principles for which
Canadian Flag

it stands, could we really welcome another? Do you want to desert the union jack, that flag which has never deserted you?
Someone has written that we are all British .subjects and that the proper flag to fly on land to-day is the union jack. It is the flag under which we won our empire and the freedom which we all enjoy. It was under the union jack that Great Britain and the empire stood alone in the dark days of 1940. Just as the Prime Minister was wrong and made an error of judgment in attempting to comply with the wishes of his friends who were desirous of a new Canadian flag in 1925, he has set out now to mend his bridges. What do we find? On September 6, 1945, the speech from the throne carried' the following reference:
The. government has directed that, pending approval by parliament of a particular design, the Canadian red ensign which was the flag carried into battle by the Canadian army, and which was flown from the peace tower on V-K day and Y-J day as a tribute to the valour of our armed forces and to Canada's achievements in war, may be displayed wherever place or occasion makes it desirable to fly a distinctive Canadian flag.
On September 21, the Toronto Globe and Mail carried a dispatch of an interview with the Secretary of State (Mr. Martin) as follows:
Of them all, Mr. Martin said: "They show that Canadians all across the country are keenly interested in a distinctive national flag. You can see that they . . . have put genuine time, thought and skill into their work.
Just at that time the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) saw fit to give the Canadian ensign precedence over the union jack in the literature for the national war finance committee as set out for his present victory loan. These statements and actions are by no means an accident; they are carefully planned and thought out.
Sometimes one hesitates to say very much about the union jack and the British empire, because a certain so-called1 type of Britisher who has come to Canada during the last few years accuses Canadians who take the stand on behalf of Canada and the empire, as being more British than the British, but to that element I would say: You are more Canadian than the Canadians. Can one go so far as to visualize what would happen in Canada should the present union jack be supplemented by a new flag? The same element never fails to mention the statute of Westminster and the British commonwealth of nations. [DOT]
I happened to be in the British isles, and I visited Eire, the south of Ireland, in 1932 when the imperial conference was meeting 
here in Ottawa. One bright spot of that conference was the publicity Canada and Ottawa received in the London papers. Each day the London Times ran an Ottawa column. However, on visiting Dublin I found a most hostile feeling toward Great Britain. Dozens of flags of all the various nations of the world were flying on the docks, but there was one particular flag absent, the union jack. There is no doubt in the world that if this parliament changes the union jack it. would please the element who hold the same views as Mr. de Valera and his followers, and it would be only a short time until the union jack disappeared.
Arguments are being set forth by those who support a new flag for Canada, that Canada should have a new governor general, that our Canadian national anthem should replace "God save the King", and they refer to Australia, South Africa and the Olympic sports. All these points were set forth by the Prime Minister in 1938. Conditions have not changed materially since then, with the exception of the odd few legations which have been opened.
This afternoon the minister referred to various dates upon which this flag question was dealt with, but he did not refer to what occurred in this house two years ago. On July 5, 1943, at page 4332 of Hansard, the following questions were asked by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix):
1.	In the event of a victory for the united nations in Europe, will the Canadian forces take part in the victory parade?
2.	If so, what flag will be used to show their nationality?
1.	Have the United States forces now' in England a national flag?
2.	Have the Australian, New Zealand and South African forces now serving outside of their respective territories a national flag?
3.	Have the British forces now serving outside of England a national flag?
4.	Have the Canadian forces now serving outside of Canadian territory a national flag?
5.	If so, what flag is it? If not, why?
1.	Is the red ensign, in which the Union Jack appears at the top left quarter, near the pole, and the arms of Canada at the fly end, the official flag of Canada?
2.	If so, why is this flag not displayed on the main tower of the parliament buildings?
3.	If not, has Canada a national flag?
I refer to that because it is interesting to note what the Prime Minister said at that time. He is reported on page 4333 of Hansard of July 5, 1943, as follows:
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that in reading over these questions I have asked myself several times whether the hon. member who has asked them does appreciate that at the present time

Canadian Flag
the world is engaged in a war in which the whole future of civilization anil freedom itself is at stake. The questions are not asked for the purpose of securing information, because I have already answered questions with regard to a Canadian flag. They are asked to add fuel to a possible flame of controversy with respect to the flag in a time of war. I refuse to make any further answer to the hon. member with respect to the questions which he has asked in regard to the flag.
At this time surely hon. members of parliament must realize that there is a condition existing in the world that is more serious than any that has ever existed heretofore. They must further, if they are at all appreciative of what is reported in the press from day to day, realize that events the like of which none of us is able to contemplate are likely to take place in the course of a very few days, if I may go that far. In these circumstances, Mr. Speaker, is this country to have a flag controversy to be added to the other factors that may make for disunion at a time when above all else unity is required?
So he continued:
I speak with feeling, Mr. Speaker, because I believe that before this summer is over this house will have strong reason to see the wisdom of not permitting anything in the nature of controversy' to anise at this time when there is need for the greatest possible unity on all sides.
The questions brought up by the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency (Mr. LaCroix) and the answers of the Prime Minister are most enlightening. What happened?
One would have considered that the remarks on that occasion by the Prime Minister would have been final, but it is most interesting to see what happened the same afternoon, only a few minutes afterwards.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), who is also member for Quebec East, speaking on an amendment to the British North America Act to postpone the adjustments to representation, interjected the flag issue and spoke at some length, taking that opportunity of making known his views. What did he say? I quote now from Hansard of Monday, July 5, 1943, page 4338:
On the merits, no one can deny that it would be reasonable for the Canadian nation to signify its national status by a distinctive national flag and a distinctive national anthem. Who among us was not deeply moved when he heard Mr. Anthony Eden describe the landing in the British isles of our first expeditionary-force in this war?
He also placed on Hansard Mr. Anthony Eden's description of the Canadians landing in the British isles, as well as an article which appeared in Saturday Night. He further commented, as reported in Hansard, pagr 4338:
. . . desirable as it may be to have a distinctive flag and a distinctive anthem, the selection of the flag and the selection of the anthem would) he apt to give rise to such differences of opinion and such debates that it seems the
counsel of wisdom not to take our minds off the problems of the war in these critical days to devote the necessary time and attention to debates about matters which, though they are important, are nevertheless of concern only to ourselves.
My particular reason for bringing this to the attention of the house is this. Here we have the hon. member for Quebec-Montmorency placing this question on the order paper, and the hon. member for Quebec East going out of his way to express his views. Are we to understand that it is from this quarter that pressure is being put upon the Prime Minister to take the action he now does?
The Minister of Justice seemed delighted with the idea of placing on Hansard a comment to this effect:
If the strains of "0 Canada" announcing to the British people that Canada was fighting by their side, were a noble and inspiring element in one of the great scenes of history, why should not a Canadian flag, proclaiming to all the world the same announcement eves before the music broke, have been equally noble and inspiring?
May I say to the Minister of Justice that I differ from his view. I hesitate to be personal in my remarks, *but the fact that in 1914-thirty-one years ago-and at that time you, sir, were thirty-one years younger than you are to-day-the first men to leave Quebec city were those who had the honour to serve in the Eighth Royal regiment under the command of Colonel (later Sir) David Watson. These men from Quebec city were brought together to form the old original Second Battalion, First Division, with whom I had the honour to serve.
With these men from Quebec city in the Eighth Royal regiment we all went through Valcartier and Salisbury Plains, boarded the steamer Cassandra of the Donaldson lines, sailed with the first convoy across the Atlantic, landed at Plymouth, and the boys from Quebec and Ontario went down the same gangplank together. In those days it was "God Save the King" and the union jack.
The trouble in Canada has been that the demand for a new flag has been most vehemently urged by Canadians who have no sentimental attachment to the British isles and are inclined to be more critical of England than of any other country.
Does the Prime Minister intend to pass further orders in council re the flag? Does he intend to make his desire for a new flag retroactive? Who is asking for a new flag? The women's organizations, the Canadian Legion and the Canadian Corps Association have not embarked on a campaign for a new flag. Business houses and service centres find
Canadian Flag

it possible to continue doing business without a "distinctive flag." Veterans and returned soldiers are not asking for the union jack to be done away with. Why should the Prime Minister, on the authority of an order in council, replace the union jack by the red: ensign at the opening of parliament, when he designated the red 'ensign as a makeshift flag? There is no doubt in the world that the introduction of the resolution is nothing more than another one of those election promises of the Prime Minister, made to those supporters of his who year in and year out have been on his doorstep seeking this change. So that I would make these general observations on the subject.
It is difficult to understand the anxiety of the government to launch this question of a new Canadian flag at this time. The government has in the past six years been very diligent in proclaiming its desire to preserve "Canadian unity".
No subject will rend the nation from the Atlantic to the Pacific as completely as the discussion of this subject at this time. Why is it necessary? There is sufficient confusion at present. It is probable that the whole matter will be misunderstood and be pointed to as evidence that Canada is taking advantage of her present success to weaken imperial ties.
The union jack has served through three wars: the South African, the first world war of 1914-18, and 1939-45. We are proud of the position won by our fighting men in these wars and their service was always under the union jack.
In churches, in public buildings, in memorial halls, the union jack has been placed to represent the sentiments of all who have served and made sacrifices, even unto life itself. Is this the time to raise any discussion as to whether it should be replaced by a flag .that has had no association with these efforts?
One of our greatest dangers to-day is that we as legislators may misunderstand the feelings of those who have served and make wrong use of the service that they have rendered. I submit that this subject should be left until they are once more back in Canadian life and are prepared to act in regard to this matter.
It may be stated that the use of the red ensign during this war indicates the present need of a change. As a matter of fact, it was used as a map location and designated the position of the Canadian army much in the same way as the patches designated the division to which a soldier belonged.

It was a matter of great surprise to many people and created doubts in their minds when the red ensign and not the union jack was used over the parliament buildings at the opening of parliament.
It was only a few years ago that our Prime Minister designated the red ensign as a "makeshift flag". Is it now being used for the same purpose ?
I submit that no good purpose will be served at this present time by distracting the minds of the Canadian people with such a discussion as will assuredly lead to much bitterness.
The fact that this resolution has been tabled as a government measure makes it difficult if not impossible for government supporters in all parties to take any other position than a party view of it.
This should be opposed by all citizens independent of party allegiance.
In closing, may I say that I know of no place in the British empire more sacred than the grave of the Unknown Soldier at Westminster. Those who have been there will have seen the tablet, and on it the inscription:
For God
For King and Country
For Loved Ones-Home and Empire
For the Sacred cause of Justice and Freedom of the World
1930-Nov. 11th.
The tablet is there. The flag is there. At the first column to the left you will see the old union jack of the empire; and when inquiries are made, where did the union jack come from? You are told that it is known as the padre's flag, the flag wrapped around many of the soldiers of the last war who paid the supreme sacrifice.


Mr. J. H. FERGUSON (Simcoe North):: In my opinion the members of this house have heard to-day some of the worst words of sacrilege ever spoken with reference to that great flag known as the union jack. It has been used to-day to bring about the cessation of a necessary effort to stop a serious strike, to relieve men and women depending upon those who served in the armed forces, to bring loved ones back to the country, to keep men from working who should be employed now and who were in the armed forces of Canada. That great flag has been.used for that purpose to-day.
What ulterior motive is behind all this I am not sure. This flag, the union jack which it is suggested now should be changed for another one, is the very symbol which this country is looking for at the present time to establish firmly the unity that we hear spoken of so flippantly in this house from time to

Canadian Flag
time. I listened carefully to what the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr., Coldwell) said, and I hope I am speaking loud enough for him to-night. He declared that Canada needed a new flag and a new national anthem. Let me remind the hon. gentleman that there are people in this country who were living here long before he thought of coming to Canada and were satisfied with that flag and that national anthem.
Let me briefly go over the history of that flag so far as we in Canada are concerned. We expect in this country to build a great nation wherein there will be freedom for all, including freedom of enterprise, and we can achieve this purpose only by recalling the traditions associated with that flag and the part which our forefathers played in preserving it for us. Let me say to French-Canadian members whose ancestry in this country goes back a hundred years or more, that no man in this house with such an ancestry, dating back four or five generations, should forget the facts connected with the flag.
That bit of bunting known as the union jack is the flag that united this country and united it in a most peculiar manner. It was the flag that was carried up the heights of Abraham where two armies under two generals, French and British, met. They fought a great battle. One was defeated and one victorious, and at that time there was created in this dominion a spirit of unity which unfortunately in the past thirty years has disintegrated, at least to a considerable degree. That unity which was created on the plains of Abraham between your forefathers and mine served us on the St. Lawrence river, at Fort York and on Queenston Heights, even while the British overseas were [DOT] fighting Napoleon. At that time your ancestors and mine united to fight, the common enemy and keep this country free for uS all under the union jack.


Mr. KNOWLES:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the hon. gentleman should address the Chair.


Julian Harcourt Ferguson: I will address the Chair, Mr. Speaker, but my words concerning the union jack will be no less sincere. The unity which some hon. members and new arrivals in Canada are endeavouring to break asunder is that unity for the preservation of which I appeal to members of this house who are descendants of those gallant French Canadians. Some hon. members know that what I say is right because we have discussed it between ourselves outside this house. They know that their forefathers and ours fought
under that same flag. If they want a new flag to-day I pray that the symbol of unity which was preserved on the plains of Abraham be retained in a prominent position on that flag, so that the descendants of those gallant Frenchman and myself, as a decendant of the British, may look with pride upon that flag as the symbol which binds us together in a great dominion.
The people who emigrated to this country from parts of Europe have lived here for sixty or seventy years-Poles, Scandinavians and others-and 'in the last war as well as in this one they did not ask, "What is your religion and from whom are you descended?" They rallied to the flag and went overseas, and their record speaks for itself. In this war when Canada faced a crisis, when France had thrown down her arms and the people of those little islands over there were facing a vast army of destruction, we in this country had a rallying symbol, the union jack, and people of all nationalities who had contributed to the building up of this part of the north American continent volunteered, went overseas and died.
We have now a task to fulfil and, as a mark of our appreciation of their sacrifices, we must go on and build up Canada in that spirit of unity. We cannot do it if the Canadian people or those who are now in power advocate a flag that has no evidence of the traditions under which this country has been built up. We must display that union jack prominently, putting an end to our petty prejudices and doing all we can to promote peace. If we carry on with that flag as our symbol for right, we cannot help but to succeed. I say to every member of the house who will be going back to his constituency, whether in Ontario or in British Columbia or in any other province: Think hard; think well before you acquiesce in the abolition of the union jack, our national flag.


Norman Jaques: I have no wish to add to the "57" varieties, nor do I wish to cast reflection on any member of this house, but I cannot help asking myself whether there is a hidden meaning behind or underneath this demand for a national flag and a national anthem, because I know very well that the main drive for these national emblems proceeds from those very people who are opposed to nationalism to-day, and are determined to internationalize this country and all other countries^
Let me go back a few years. I think it was in April of 1943, at a meeting which was held in Ottawa, that the editor of Saturday Night, one of the leading weeklies of this country, advocated that the loyalty of the
Canadian Flag

people of Canada should be weaned away from the crown to something wider than the crown, than Canada, than the empire, or even than democracy. I remember rising in my place in this house and denouncing that statement. What did I earn for myself? From one end of Canada to the other I was abused by many of these very people who now demand a Canadian national flag and anthem. One week after I made my protest Secretary Henry Morgenthau disclosed-and I shall now quote from the press dispatch from Washington, which is as follows:
Secretary Henry Morgenthau disclosed today-
That was one week after the meeting was held here in Ottawa.

comprehensive administration plans to stabilize post-war currencies and fix their value in terms of gold. The plans involve-
, I shall read just the last paragraph:
Both plans entail the establishment of a stabilization fund to be managed by an international bank, vitally important because it would mean that participating countries would lose control over the value of their currencies. . . . This control would be vested in the bank, not in a parliament or a congress, and if a country wanted the rate lowered or increased it could only appeal to the bank, not take action itself.
It was explained at that meeting in Ottawa that we must surrender our control over our finances, natural resources, immigration and several other things. It is these people who to-day are so keen on a Canadian flag and a Canadian national anthem. Only last February a secret meeting in Chatham House, London, England, was attended by, among others, the editor of the Winnipeg Free Press, which was more outspoken than anybody else in denouncing me in 1943 when I objected to the surrender of Canadian sovereignty-


Pierre Gauthier: You had
good publicity.


Norman Jaques: -and attended also by
Leslie Roberts, a communist. What was their purpose in meeting in London last February? It was to plot the dissolution of the British empire-to break up the only league of nations that has ever proved its worth.
This afternoon an hon. member spoke of the soul of the nation. I take it that the soul of a nation is its sovereignty. Let us take care that we do not exchange the substance for the shadow; and when we raise a Canadian flag and when we sing a Canadian anthem, let us make sure that there will be a sovereign Canadian people and not merely the helots of a world dictatorship.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I thought I should like to place myself on record in regard to the issue of the flag and what I consider to be possibly one of the most memorable debates that will ever take place in this chamber of the House of Commons. I listened with great interest to the words-I might say inspiring words-of the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Ferguson), who, I happen to know, enlisted as a very young man in the first	great	war and won	for	himself theMilitary	Cross. I have it from	the officersunder whom he served that he was one of the best fighters who ever stood in shoe-leather. I think all who heard him recognize that he deserves	that	compliment.	I	know, Mr. Speaker,	that	what he said	to	us to-night
came indeed from his heart and from his sense of reverence to a great symbol.
May I say to my hon. friends that when we come to deal with the issue of the flag we are talking in the abstract, so to speak. There is to be a reference to a committee of this house to determine a design for a distinctly national flag. In the main I doubt whether we are very far apart in many respects, but there is something about the tradition of the emblem which has served us all down through the ages and under which we have indeed made our progress toward national status. What the flag stands for is what we should be most concerned about. And we do know-and I say this with a depth of sincerity-that the union jack indeed stands for freedom, something upon which we place very* little value indeed. We have never been without our freedom; therefore by comparison we do not know what it means to be a subjugated race, such as has been the lot of some peoples on the continent of Europe.
The hon. member for Simcoe North referred to the Poles, the Czechslovakians, the Scandinavians, and others who came to our shores. They came here because they knew that under the British flag they would find freedom. Wherever that great flag flies, Mr. Speaker, there you will always find, freedom. I have only to remind the house that the slaves of old did not ask for freedom. I do not suppose they knew enough to ask for freedom, but the British people determined that everyone should be free and taxed themselves in order to patrol the seas and stamp out slavery, so that every man might be free. Therefore I say to you to-night, Mr. Speaker, that unless the British people in the great old British isles had been prepared-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Louder.


The ACTING SPEAKER (Mr. Golding):: Order.

Canadian Flag


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Do not ever suppose, Mr. Speaker, that these hon. gentlemen who try to detract from my remarks bother me in the least, because, after all, I have in the depths of my heart something they would do well to possess. If they think I should speak louder I shall be proud indeed to shout from the housetops the remarks I have to make to-night. Let me remind you that but for the [DOT] fact that the British people were prepared to die on their feet rather than take orders on their knees you would not be debating to-night whether we should adopt a new flag for Canada.
Mr. McDONAI.D (Pontiac):	Address the
Chair.


Mr. HAZEN:: You did not.


Mr. McDONALD (Pontiac):: I am not
speaking.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I notice that, because when you are speaking hot air is rising from around your chair. I say to-night, Mr. Speaker, I am reminded of those immortal words by John McCrae, who wrote in part:
To you from failing hands we throw The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die,
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow In Flanders fields.
Those gallant sons of Canada thought it worth while to lay down their lives under the flag that to-day.we are holding in doubt, and I cannot use any other word. The opposition have offered an amendment which I regret has been ruled out of order. I believe, if it had been permitted, it would have solved our problem and done away with much controversy. It would have given a sense of direction and, I believe, would have met the demands of a majority of the Canadian people. I believe any reference to a committee will only end in misunderstanding and further debate in this chamber. Never in our long history has our tie with the British commonwealth meant so much to us. War with all its terrible realities leaves us with a sense of realism, and we are now on the threshold of possibly the greatest age ever known to mankind, the atomic age. I want to say in all sincerity that anything we might do to-night or to-morrow to weaken our ties with this greatest of all empires we shall live indeed to regret.
I am not unmindful of the sincere manner in which the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) presented this resolution to the House of Commons this afternoon. I am sure all who listened to his remarks were moved by a feeling of his sincerity. As a matter of fact it had not been my good fortune to hear
him speak previously except when making announcements in the house, and I think I can tell my hon. friend that I have never listened to a more impressive address anywhere in this country than the one he delivered here this afternoon. So you may know that anything I have to say to-night is not said in any disciplinary attitude, and I would not want to be misunderstood. I hope we are all sincere. In my years in public life I. have always taken the position that I will not impute improper motives to my fellow men. I treat them as being sincere, and from the remarks of the minister I know he feels this to be a means to an end. So that any differences we have are sincere differences indeed. As I approach this subject, I am only seeking to impress upon hon. members my personal views, but I believe any change which might tend to make Canada's flag more distinctive must indeed include the union jack. As a matter of fact I feel sure we would misunderstand our national standard if it did not relate to our early history, and I think I can go back to the early days of this country, not because I am a student of history but because I should like to be one. I can imagine that great night or morning on the plains of Abraham, when two great armies met, led by two great generals. They asked no quarter and gave none; and from that time we have carried on under the union jack.
I think I can say that my regard for my French-Canadian brethren is very high indeed. Never have I sought to detract from their loyalty or enthusiasm for this great dominion, but at times I have been very critical of the leadership under which they have proceeded. I did raise a point when we were discussing the McNaiighton flag, but nothing I said was intended to express a poor opinion of a great Canadian soldier. As the Minister of Veterans Affairs knows, we met in a memorable battle. I appreciated my adversary, but I appreciated more deeply that he was fighting in a hopeless cause. I consider it a sad thing that a great soldier, who had rendered signal service to his country, should have had to participate in an issue which was so highly controversial in this country. I say this simply to indicate that anything I have said does not detract from my high opinion of the gentleman himself.
I feel sure I shall be understood when I say that Britain has not been in any sense a boastful conqueror. She has always sought to uplift those over whom she has gained control. Think of the progress we have made, the bloodless evolution by means of which, under the guidance of Britain, we have gradually brought ourselves to the status of nationhood.
Canadian Flag

To-day we stand on the threshold of the greatest age mankind has ever experienced, an age of wizardry and invention, an age of advancement which knows no limit. I view the future with reasonable optimism, because I believe Canadians generally can afford to be reasonably optimistic. I view it indeed with some degree of scepticism, but I feel reasonably secure in the knowledge that back of this young nation is the great British empire. I do not use the expression "young nation" in the sense of the years of our nationhood. I refer rather to the vastness of this country, with a comparatively small population, a country which is indeed the envy of all, and the prize of the world. I view the future with a sense of security, so long as we have back of us the great British empire and the commonwealth of British nations.
The hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Kidd) referred to election promises. I believe I can speak with some sense of appreciation in respect of this problem, so far as Ontario is concerned. Had there been any promise during the election campaign in Ontario to change the flag, there would have been fewer members on the Liberal side of the house than there are to-night. No such promise was made in my riding. However, as in respect of other measures which have come before the house I am not greatly concerned about some aspects of the resolution. This afternoon. however, I listened to the leader of the C C.F-Socialist party, when he said, in effect, that he hoped it would be a means to the end of bringing about a change in our national anthem.
I think "God Save the King" is the greatest symbol of empire we shall ever possess. I hope that my children and my children's children, and all who may come hereafter will always rise and sing with robust voice, and with that depth of meaning it has for anyone who has British blood in his veins, "God Save the King". .After all, it is indeed a symbol of empire.
The only part of the resolution which concerns me is that part which states that in the opinion of the house it is expedient that Canada should possess a distinctive national flag. With the volume of legislation before us, with the apparent unrest in the country, with the grave national problems to be solved, and with our troops marching home under this great banner, I cannot for the life of me understand why a resolution should be prefaced with the observation that it is expedient that at this time Canada should possess a distinctive national flag.
I feel-and I think many hon. members will agree with me-that if we are to con-

sider this problem there is plenty of time in the days to come to do so. When our feelings are less agitated, when we have more stability of outlook than we have at the present time in respect of the issue of a national flag, we may consider this matter.
I always think of the great old union jack with its white for purity, blue for loyalty and red for sacrifice. One day I listened to a speaker who referred to the stars and stripes as an emblem emblazoned with the light of the heavens. When I heard that I could not help thinking that our great union jack is emblazoned with the cross, emblematic of the salvation of man. And I can think of no higher ideal to which we might subscribe than one which would seek the salvation of the human race.
While I listened with attention to the minister when he presented the resolution this afternoon, I hope I did not misunderstand him when he referred, in a sense, to the suggestion that the government was not so bigoted that it did not anticipate that the union jack would form part of the flag which might be adopted as a national flag for Canada. While in effect he said that it was too early to deal with the design, I feel that if the house had some guidance from the government which would indicate that any flag decided upon would include the union jack it would relieve much of the suspense we now feel.	.
I say to the house that I shall resist with all the energy I possess any attempt made to remove the union jack from the national flag of Canada. Certainly I shall resist with every atom of my being every attempt made now or at some future date to change our national anthem.
I would not want to be one who in any sense would doubt the sincerity of hon. members who have spoken in the debate. I deny to no man the right to express his opinion. As a matter of fact I believe that the free exchange of ideas is good for all of us. In this changing age I do not think any of us should be too definitely set in his views, particularly if there is provision for some latitude.
The hon. member for Kingston City referred to the flag issue as it developed in 1938, at a time when there existed the best of good feeling between this great dominion and our motherland. I am not unmindful of the controversy which existed in the early days when the British government sought to have the Canadian government provide facilities for British air training schools in this country. Looking back, I wonder what part that might have played in the great war which followed

Canadian Flag
in its wake, when scores of British airmen and scores of Canadian boys were sacrificed, when we might have had those training facilities established in this land of ours.
I am not in any sense going to charge the responsibility entirely to the Prime Minister. Many hon. members will know that I possess a background which in days gone by sought to admire the Prime Minister. It was only when he departed .from the true ideals of Liberalism that I could no longer follow him.
To-night I am reminded of the statement the Prime Minister made in 1944 when he told the commoners in effect that when he visited Herr Hitler in 1937 the Fuehrer asked him Canada's position in the event of war with Great Britain. He is reported to have replied that we would stand by Great Britain's side. Certainly that is the answer we would have expected him to make. But I ask hon. members: When the British government sought to introduce to Canada training schools for British airmen, were we indeed standing at Britain's side?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I regret that I must
rise to a point of order, because I am grateful to my hon friend for his kind1 remarks about myself. I happened to be Minister of National Defence at that time, and I want to say that the Prime Minister made a full statement on July 1, 1939, or 1940. There was never any request from the British government for the training of pilots refused by the government of the Dominion of Canada.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I am certainly not going to
seek to contradict my hon. friend. I will let the record speak for itself.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I will look up the
record for Monday.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: That is fine. I say that
there were other occasions on which we should have indicated1 our determination to stand by Britain's side. In the dark days of 1940 when France fell and Britain stood alone, the Prime Minister might have appealed to the Canadian people and have said that since the last outpost of civilization' was at stake we should stand at Britain's side.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: We did appeal to the people in 1940 and the people sustained us.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: I am not in any sense detracting from the contribution that Canada made. I want to tell my hon. friend that this nation will suffer for many long years because of the weakness of our manpower policy. It will be said that I am threshing old straw. I wish I could forget it, but there are people in my riding, parents of boys in the riding of Grey North-


James Horace King: I would direct the
attention of the hon. member to the fact that the resolution has no bearing on manpower; it has to db with a Canadian flag.


Wilfrid Garfield Case: Mr. Speaker, I humbly bow
to your ruling, but I must remind hon. members that my reference has a direct relationship to the determination of" the government to introduce a resolution that will seek to change the standard under which Canada's boys fought and died.


Mr. CROLL:: Does the hon. member know that Canadian boys fought and died undfer the red ensign?


Wilfrid Garfield Case: May I say to my hon. friend
that we had that thought in mind when we introduced an amendment this afternoon which, in my opinion, would have satisfied all classes of the Canadian people. I do not want my discussion in any sense- to raise controversy. I hope hon. members will1 understand that I am speaking from a sense of reality and not trying in any way to detract from the contribution which hon. members made in a very trying period in Canada's war history, a time when I was not present in the house. I repeat that I am in no sense detracting from what has been* done.
But I do say that introducing this resolution at this time will bring to this country something that we can ill afford to have happen. The hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Croll) has said that our Canadian boys fought and died. I wish to say in all sincerity that they fought and died under two flags, both of which they loved and cherished; the union jack, emblematic of the empire, and the red ensign, emblematic of their own native land, their beloved dominion.
I think I can say this with some degree of understanding, because I have had representations made to me by Canadian people that they would respect a national flag. However, in the main they believe, and I think it would be accepted, that the red ensign would satisfy them and the majority of the Canadian people. That would end the controversy which we are likely to experience, not only in setting up the committee but in the references to the committee. I am sure the committee will have upwards of one hundred designs submitted to it. The committee will have to agree upon those designs and bring them back to this house, and then t'he controversy will start all over again. I suggest to the minister that they seek to settle this issue on the

Privilege-Mr. Golding

floor of the house now, or allow it to stand for a matter of six months when we shall be able to think of it in less passionate terms.
On motion of Mr. Hansell the debate was adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Friday, November 9, 1945.