REPORTS OF COMMITTEES

[Stage Direction]
Fourth report of standing committee on railways and shipping owned, operated and controlled by the government.-Mr. Mutch.
First report of special committee on war expenditures and economies.-Mr. Isnor.


Hon. ERNEST BERTRAND (Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to
tell the house that the postal authorities in England have agreed to receive parcels of eleven pounds.



REPORTS AND PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. J. MeCANN (Minister of National Revenue):	Mr. Speaker, some time ago' a
committee made up of Mr. R. V. Macauley

Labour Conditions
of the Bell Telephone company, Mr. John McLaren of the Sun Life Assurance company, and Mr. Wood of the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue, was appointed by order in council to survey the organization of the taxation division of the Department of National Revenue in regard1 to serving the public by an adequate number of district offices appropriately located. I now have pleasure in laying on the table that report, along with the appendix.

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to present a measure to amend the Senate and House of Commons Act, to provide for payment of an allowance to each member of the House of Commons for expenses incidental to the discharge of his duties as a member of the House of Commons at the rate of two thousand dollars per year for the period when he is a member, and to provide further that such measure shall be deemed to have come into effect on the sixth day of September, one thousand nine hundred and forty-five.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee at the next sitting to consider the following resolution:
That it is expedient to bring in a measure to authorize the Canadian National Railway Company to issue securities not exceeding $8,800,000 in principle amount to provide the moneys necessary to meet capital expenditures made or capital indebtedness incurred during the calendar year 1945; to authorize the governor in council to guarantee the principal, interest and sinking funds of securities issued by the company for the purpose aforesaid; to authorize the making of temporary loans to the said company secured by such Securities and not exceeding $8,800,090 in principal amount to enable the said company to meet such expenditures and indebtedness; with authority to give financial aid and assistance to other companies of the said national system.
He said: His Excellency the Administrator, having been made acquainted with the subject matter of this resolution, recommends it to the consideration of the house.
Motion agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Mr. G. J. TUSTIN (Prince Edward-Lennox):: Mr. Speaker, now that the ninth victory loan is over I should draw the attention of the Minister of Finance to the fact that Lennox and Addington-Lennox is included in my constituency-finished first out of 62 units in Ontarid, subscribing 202 per cent of their quota. Prince Edward county finished in third place, and there were precious few points between them.



LABOUR CONDITIONS


[Stage Direction]
On the orders of the day:
Hon. HUMPHREY MITCHELL (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, since coming to the house I have received a wire from the Ford Motor Company of Canada extending the deadline from midnight last night in connection with the policy of arbitration to study the dispute existing at Windsor.
Outside of what I have had in the past, I have had no communication indicating the attitude of the employees.


Mr. BRACKEN:: Extending the deadline to
when?


Humphrey Mitchell: It does not say.


Mr. FRED ROSE (Cartier):: In view of the refusal of the Ford Motor company to accept what I consider a conciliatory proposal from the union to reopen the power house, would the minister recommend to the government the appointment of a controller in order to solve this problem? '


Humphrey Mitchell: I have nothing to add to what I said earlier.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY-EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN 1919' STRIKE-REQUEST FOR ROYAL COMMISSION ON PENSION RIGHTS

[Stage Direction]
On the orders erf the dav:
Mr. STANLEY KNOWLES (Winnipeg North Centre):: Has the attention of the Minister of Labour been called to the remarks I made last night with respect to the proposed

Housing Act

appointment of a royal commission to investigate the 1919 Canadian Pacific Railway pension dispute? If so, has he any statement to make to the house?


Humphrey Mitchell: I do not know what dispute my hon. friend is referring to. I have enough disputes on my hands. I cannot get mixed up in every dispute that comes under provincial jurisdiction. In view of the fact that the hon. member comes from Winnipeg, probably the dispute he is referring to-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister should know about it.


Mr. MACKENZIE:: A C.P.R. dispute.


Stanley Howard Knowles: An official of the minister's department has been looking into it for the purpose of giving a report as to whether or not a roval commission would be desirable. The Prime Minister indicated some months ago-


An hon. MEMBER:: Is this a matter of urgency?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, it is. If the minister is not ready to give an answer to-day, he can do so to-morrow.


Humphrey Mitchell: My hon. friend has
referred to urgency. This question arises out of the general strike in Winnipeg which occurred in 1919. As soon as a decision is made, he will be informed and the house along with him.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There is no excuse for such a long delay.



NATIONAL HOUSING ACT


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved the third reading of bill No. 23, to incorporate the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation.
Mr. DONALD M. FLEMING (Eglinton): Mr. Speaker, it is not my intention to discuss this matter at length, .because it has had full consideration. There are, however, one or two observations I should like to make.
In the first place, this is a government bill. The government is asking to be allowed to make a new departure in the form of the administration of our national housing policy. The responsibility for this departure, this new experiment, rests with the government, and we shall hold this new agency to a strict accounting in the carrying out of the policy

that parliament has formulated in the terms of the National Housing Act. We want to see that act made to work in the building of houses to meet the great housing need of this country. We have not put any obstacle in the way of . the government in entering upon this new experiment- in administration. We hope it will work, but we shall hold both the government and this new agency to strict accounting in connection with the administration of the act.
Mr. FRASER:: Is the bill being carried with the amendment?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Yes; it has been
reprinted.
Motion agreed- to; bill read the third time and passed.



INTERIM SUPPLY BILL

[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of supply.
John Bracken: Are we not to have a
statement from the minister?


Mr. ILSLEY:: Mr. Speaker, I am asking
the house for an additional one-twelfth of the main estimates so that accounts coming due by the middle of this month can be paid. I do not know of any other way in which They can be met except by taking this course.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: This would carry us through to when?


James Lorimer Ilsley: The middle of December.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to have
to rise fo make some comments that may be a little critical of the acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley). However, I want to say a word about this proposed interim supply bill and also to make a comment about the statement of principle made yesterday by the Acting Prime Minister.
At this time the Minister of Finance is asking for another month's interim supply on the main estimate. I imagine that is a figure of about $80,000,000.


James Lorimer Ilsley: It is about $29,000,000.


John Bracken: The minister says it is
$29,000,000, but that is not taking into account the part of the expenditures already appropriated by statute. The month's total expenditures will be about $80,000,000, but the amount not already voted is about $29,000,000. I am sure the house would offer very little objection to that proposal were it not for the fact that this is the fourth interim supply bill which has been brought forward by the present gov-

Housing Act
eminent in less than two months. We are now in the eighth month of this fiscal year, and nearly all the money voted has been voted without much discussion. Five months interim supply was voted when this house was called last spring just a month before it had to prorogue and be dissolved. There are now only three months this fall before the Christmas adjournment.
What does it add up to? It adds up to this: Seven months' total expenditures come to some S3,000 million, taking into account what has been appropriated beforehand by statute. We are now being asked for another month's supply. I think the government's request in these circumstances is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history. It is so near the end of the year that we could not consider properly the estimates presented. Why are we in this position? First, because this house was called together late last spring when there was only one month before the life of parliament was to end. Then it was called late this year with only three months before the Christmas holiday.
We are expected to finish work in three months that ordinarily ought to take six months. On top of that, the government has brought forward twice the normal legislative programme and presented it to parliament. In other words, we have twice the work to do in half the time. I suggest that it is asking too much of parliament to do all that work and do it well in that short time. Someone has asked what will be the result if this interim supply passes-which of course it will, because we will offer no objection to it. It will carry the government to the end of ' November and two weeks after that. There are two weeks of grace because the ci vil service is paid in the middle of the month. When that time comes the government can snap its fingers at parliament, leave the estimates for the last few days and rush them through without due consideration, leaving upon the taxpayers of this country a burden almost as great as during the war and four or five times as great as in the year before the war. All this without mature consideration.
In my opinion the government has not treated the House of Commons with due respect. There has been an appearance of fairness, but what is the situation? The government has avoided going into a consideration of the estimates because it feared a discussion of the Windsor strike. It has avoided consideration of the budget because it feared potential insurrection in its own ranks regarding the tariff resolutions which, according to a great metropolitan newspaper, were sneaked into its 47696-131i
budget, by cabinet protectionists. Now it says, having kept the house away from the estimates for the last ten days-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I submit that the use of the word "sneaked" is unparliamentary.


John Bracken: That word was not my word.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: It does not matter; it is now.


John Bracken: I was referring to the word used by the Winnipeg Free Press.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I should like a ruling. It does not make any difference whether the hon. gentleman quotes a word or uses it as his own.


Mr. SPEAKER:: I must say that I understood the leader of the opposition said that the motion was sneaked in, but not by the minister.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, may I state my point of order, as there seems to be some misunderstanding. The hon. gentleman quoted a paper, which he describes as a great metropolitan newspaper, as saying that I "sneaked>" an item into the budget. I raise the point of order that the use of that word is unparliamentary, and that it is immaterial whether the hon. gentleman uses it as his own word or whether he quotes it.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, before you give your ruling perhaps I may be permitted to say a word in answer to what the Acting Prime Minister has had to say. What I said was this-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Read it again.


John Bracken: Yes, I will read it. I said that the tariff resolutions, according to a great metropolitan newspaper, had been sneaked into the budget by the tariff protectionists in the government. Here are the exact words which that paper used:
Seldom before has a single action raised more fundamental issues than the 20 per cent duty on pipe and tube which was sneaked into the Ilsley budget by the cabinet protectionists.
I was quoting what that paper said.


Mr. HOMUTH:: And now it is sneaked out again.


John Bracken: The only practical question before the house is this-[DOT]


James Lorimer Ilsley: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have a ruling, whether it is for or against me. I think I am entitled to a ruling when I raise a point of order.
Housing Act


James Horace King: The hon. minister raised the point of order that the leader of the opposition had said a certain thing. The hon. leader of the opposition has said that he did not use the . expression which was mentioned by the minister, so I wonder whether the minister should not accept the interpretation given by the leader of the opposition. But I would suggest this, in order to give satisfaction to both sides of the house. I would ask the hon. leader of the opposition if he can modify his expression.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I cannot modify what the Winnipeg Free Press had to say on this matter. I am either allowed to quote it or I am not. I was only quoting what that newspaper had said; it was not my own stateiriemt. I was just quoting three or four lines from that newspaper.
The practical question before us now is this:	How much time between now and
prorogation-


James Horace King: Order. As the minister insists upon having a ruling on the point of order, I would say this. The minister gave the impression at the beginning that the words used by the leader of the opposition which hurt the minister were the words of the leader of the opposition himself. From the explanation given by the leader of the opposition, I understand it was an expression used by a newspaper. But that does not mean that if the words were used by the newspaper, instead of by the leader of the opposition himself, they are therefore not unparliamentary if they are actually out of order. If the words are unparliamentary they are unparliamentary whether pronounced by the leader of the opposition or quoted by him from a newspaper, and so I think the leader of the opposition should withdraw.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: No.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I hope the time will never come when I shall refuse to accept your ruling. If you require me to withdraw, I will withdraw, but that will not alter the fact of what the newspaper said.


James Horace King: I do not doubt for a moment that the hon. leader of the opposition was quoting what was written in the newspaper, but I believe that the words quoted from the newspaper are unparliamentary and I give my ruling accordingly.


Mr. GRAYDON:: They are not unparliamentary at all except as referring to an individual.


John Bracken: Mr. Speaker, I readily
accept your ruling. The practical question before us now is this. When interim supply is passed and the government has the money to carry forward to the end of this month, and, so far as the civil service is concerned, for two weeks afterwards, then, as I said, the government can snap its fingers at parliament and proceed to spend1 the money and leave this load on the Canadian people. Again I would ask the government, and I am sure that the Minister of Finance will answer when I ami through:	How much time are we to
be' allowed for consideration of these estimates between now and Christmas? We do ask that a reasonable proportion of time be allowed for the consideration of these huge expenditures, expenditures totalling $14,000,000 a day. I ask only that the house be given reasonable time for their consideration.
Now I come to another point. Before the house votes further supply to this government I think we should have a clarification of certain principles stated by the Acting Prime Minister from his place here yesterday. He stated some principles that I think we should discuss. The issue, it seems to me, is clearly drawn. It is simply this: Which shall prevail, the will of a ministry which has grown autocratic, or the will of the elected1 representatives of the people? This government, without, in my judgment, a shadow of justification, relies on a mere technicality and attempts to deny to the duly elected representatives of the people the right, which they have to investigate every aspect of public affairs. On this issue the decision should not be Left in doubt. [DOT] Yesterday, in an attempt to justify the1 government's position, the Acting Prime Minister enunciated some of the most extraordinary constitutional principles which have been heard in this chamber since confederation. Stung by public criticism from coast to coast of his refusal to allow the representatives of the people to examine all orders in council passed while parliament has been in session, he pronounced certain autocratic principles which have not been heard in any democratic chamber in the last century. He took issue with two statements which I had made on a previous occasion. I will repeat them. I said-Hansard, October 31, 1945, page 1681:
It is a vital principle, which no member will dare to challenge, that this House of Commons has the full and inalienable right to a disclosure of all actions of the executive. It has the right and the duty to review and pass upon all such actions.

Housing Act
The other statement to which he took exception is as follows:
For so long as I hold this seat I am determined to ensure, in so far as lies within my . power, that Canada is governed by this House ' of Commons, by the elected representatives of the Canadian people, and not by the secret diplomacy of the council chamber.
I do not retreat, Mr. Speaker, one single step from the position which I then took. That position is sound and that principle must triumph if responsible government is to prevail in Canada.
Tor a person allegedly espousing Liberal principles, the Acting Prime Minister's suggestion that all authority of the cabinet is received from the crown and not from the House of Commons is to me incomprehensible. However right he may be technically, in actual fact that principle is as dead as Queen Anne. I never expected to live to see the day when a man holding the office of Acting Prime Minister in a Liberal government in Canada would attempt to resurrect it; and I have no hesitation in saying to this house that the Acting Prime Minister's attitude yesterday was a betrayal of much that Liberalism in Canada claims to stand for.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: How do you know?


John Bracken: I wonder what the old Liberal guard of this house, those that have drunk deeply at the springs of Liberal principles, thought of that attitude. How those words yesterday must baffle and bewilder one of the great crusaders for the supremacy of parliament-the Prime Minister himself. The Acting Prime Minister's words must have come to him as a greater shock than the atomic bomb whose control he is at present discussing.


Mr. ABBOTT:: Who wrote that one


John Bracken: Just a minute; I am sure hon. members would like to hear what their leader has to say on this subject. When he learns of those statements of the Acting Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's mind will assuredly turn back to the shades of Wilkes and Pym and Hampden-yes, and to the shades of William Lyon Mackenzie and Louis Joseph Papineau, sturdy rebels who stood out against this kind of doctrine in our land.
When I am addressing these words to a Liberal administration I am on sound ground. The authorities I quote I am sure hon. members opposite will not deny; at least, not in the absence from this chamber of such an authority as the Prime Minister on every point that has occurred. The pages of Hansard stagger under the weight of the Prime Minister's frequent denunciations of autocracy, under his repeated assertions that the cabinet is but a committee of this house, in every way responsible to this house.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Not a very good one, either.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You can't even make the grade.


John Bracken: Had I the time I could find in Hansard scores, yes, hundreds of statements from the lips of the Prime Minister. Listen to these words of his; I quote now from Hansard of 1920, volume 1, page 31. These are his words:
Mr. Speaker,-	.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Bracken: I hope hon. members will applaud when they have heard this:
-there should be an end to government by order in council.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, applaud a little,, over there.


John Bracken: I quote further:
Because of the extent to which the administration carried on government by order in council during the period of the war, it may be difficult for them to realize that this method of government-the method followed in the old days, 80 years ago-is not the method of government which we have come to regard as free and representative government.


Gordon Graydon: Oh, applaud a little;.don't let him down.


John Bracken: Further:
During the war, government by order in council may have been necessary and may have been tolerated to a large extent by the people; but the time has now come when, if we are to have government in the true sense of the word, that government must be by parliament and through parliament; it must not be by the substitution of the diplomacy of cabinet councils, carried on by cabinet ministers in their secret chambers, for the free discussions and questionings of the ministry in this house in regard to public affairs.


Mr MacNICOL:: That is hard to take! .


John Bracken: When were those words spoken? They were spoken in the first major speech made by the present Prime Minister in the early days of his role as leader of his party and leader of the oppostiion, in this house.


An hon. MEMBER:: It is good doctrine.


John Bracken: Yes, it is good doctrine, doctrine which the present government has depaited from.
Housing Act


Mr. ROWE:: The government have arrived at both places.


John Bracken: Where is that citadel to-day? Can this parliament be styled the citadel of freedom when it is denied even its elementary rights, and denied them with petulance and bad temper?
Later in the same year the Prime Minister had this to say-Hansard, June 30, 1920, page 4540:
X think the time has come when there should be an end to monopoly of control of the affairs of Canada by a cabinet carrying on the country's business in secret councils.
That is from the leader of the hon. member who sits opposite. I continue:
The business of the country should be carried on in the Open on the floor of this parliament in such a manner that the government will be obliged to take into their confidence not only the members of parliament, but the people of the country whose money they are voting to expend.
There, Mr. Speaker, exactly stated, is the principle for which I contend in this house to-day; there is the principle for which I will not cease to contend.
In the session of 1921, tire voice of the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime, Minister, was again raised. This time the question was directly that of accounting for expenditure of public moneys, the identical problem which presents itself to us to-day. On that occasion what did he say?


Mr. GOLDING:: Why did he have to say t?


Gordon Graydon: For fellows like you.


John Bracken: Why do I have to say it to-day? This is what he said'-Hansard, 1921, page 1292:
Let me say to my right hon. friend and to his government that the people of Canada will hold him and his government accountable for every cent of public money whether it is expended directly by the minister in charge ol a department, or by any corporation or other creature 'which the ministry itself may create foi the purpose of carrying on its business. . . .
It is impossible to imagine that the people of Canada will consent to pay the enormous sums which they are being called upon to provide-
The enormous sum spoken of, was $360 million a year; and now this government is spending ten, twelve, fourteen times that much.

It is impossible to imagine that the people of Canada will consent to pay the enormous sums which they are being called upon to provide by way of taxation for the conducting of these enterprises and will sit silent under the government's refusal to give them any information as to how their money has been spent.
That is the end of the Prime Minister's statement.	#


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


John Bracken: I am glad to see that hon. members opposite support these views. Down through the years similar statements were made by the right hon. gentleman to whom the Acting Prime Minister owes allegiance, but whose views he apparently disregards.
I shall quote only one further statement. Speaking on the address in reply to the speech from the throne on January 29, 1934, the then leader of the opposition, now Prime Minister of Canada, had this to say:
It will be'realized that in what I said this afternoon there has been constant reference to the fact that -the government has proceeded, in practically everything it has done, as if it were an executive wholly independent of the House of Commons-
Note the next few words carefully and contrast them with what the Acting Prime Minister had to say yesterday:
-rather than an executive which derives its powers from and is responsible to the House of Commons.
The Acting Prime Minister yesterday said:
The authority of the government is not delegated by -the House of Commons; the authority ot the government is received from the crown.
That is directly contrary to the Prime Minister's statement, which I have just read, and which continues:
Indeed, the House of Commons has come to be, in the phrase used by ,the Prime Minister himself not so l-ong ago, a sort of rubber stamp for what -the ministry may choose to do, regardless of how its own wishes and desires may be expressed and regardless of how much -those wishes and desires may represent the wishes and desires of the people at large.
Perhaps the Prime Minister's absence, instead of making his finance minister's heart grow fonder, has operated on the -basis of "out of sight, out of mind." These principles which the Prime Minister enunciated are not his alone. They are -those upon which the whole Liberal party stood in the election of 1935 when this government was first elected to office. I quote from the election manifesto of the Liberal party -in that election:
Liberalism stands as always for the principle ot a free parliament and for the supremacy of parliament.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.

Housing Act


John Bracken: I am glad to see that
hon. members opposite agree with us and disagree with the statement of the Acting Prime Minister. Let me continue their statement of policy at that time:
To this end it would repeal the legislation enacted by the present administration, which deprives parliament of its control over expenditures and taxation and invests the executive with unwarranted, arbitrary powers, as for example: 1. legislation permitting the executive to enact measures by order in council for peace, order and good government: and 2, legislation providing the executive with a "blank cheque" for expenditure of this kind.
A good many measures, Mr. Speaker, that have been passed this year by this house have been blank cheques. I could produce many other authorities, the words of many other leaders, but I have confined myself to the words of the right hon. gentleman who leads this government, believing that hon. gentlemen opposite would be more prepared to take into sympathetic consideration words which fell from his lips and which I have quoted.
I repeat, the issue is clear. This parliament is a democratic institution or it is not. If this administration has nothing to hide, then let it be frank and open with the representatives of the people. Let there be an end once for all of the refusal of information to which both parliament and the people are entitled.
In view of the statements made yesterday I thought it was necessary that these comments be made. With respect to the measure now moved by the Minister of Finance, let me say that I ask only one question. How much time is the government going to allocate for the discussion of these estimates before parliament prorogues?


Mr. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):: We
have been reminded this afternoon that time is precious. I am going to be brief because I believe that example is better than precept.
With regard to the request made by the Minister of Finance, necessitated by the state of business of the house, we are prepared to facilitate the granting of one-twelfth supply. I must say, however, I agree with the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) in that we are unable to devote to these important matters the amount of discussion which they warrant. My opinion is, and I expressed it yesterday, that it is time the house itself, and not merely the government, took responsibility for the delay in considering the public business of the country. It is time that we decided, owing to the pressure of business, to expedite the business of the 'house by agreeing that a certain time shall be given to the
discussion of certain problems, and I believe that the major portion of our time should be given to the consideration of the estimates upon which future policy and not past policy is based.
May I add just one word to what the leader of the opposition has said regarding yesterday's statement by the Acting Prime Minister. Yesterday I made the statement that 1 thought his views were entirely wrong.
I am more sure of that than ever to-day. It ' is true that the British North America Act states that the power of the executive shall derive from Her Majesty, Queen Victoria, or words to that effect. But let me remind the house that Queen Victoria has been dead now for nearly fifty years.


An hon. MEMBER:: No.


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes. A fiction
written into old acts of parliament cannot exercise real control in these days. I was interested in the long statement of the views of the Prime Minister which the leader of the opposition placed before the house. But may I suggest this-I remembered it when I sat down yesterday. Perhaps the most striking refutation of the view expressed yesterday by the Acting Prime Minister was the election campaign of the present Prime Minister in the year 1926, when he fought the election very largely on a constitutional issue. That constitutional issue, if you remember it, was that, not the governor general but the situation in this house, should decide who should be called upon to govern, whose advice-


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: That is a different thing entirely..


Major James William Coldwell: Oh, yes-whose advice the governor general should accept. May I say I am not in agreement with the phraseology used by the leader of the opposition; I think there is a confusion in it when he says the cabinet is a committee of this house. I do not think that is the constitutional position of the cabinet. I think it is an executive, responsible to this house-


James Lorimer Ilsley: Hear, hear.


Major James William Coldwell: -which is slightly different from a committee of this house. That is responsible government, it seems to me. But may I suggest that we go on with the business of the house; and I am quite sure that the progressive people of this country will never admit that any real power is derived from the crown. Real power is derived from the people of Canada.


James Lorimer Ilsley: We have had. two speeches
this afternoon from the leaders of the
Housing Act

Progressive Conservative party (Mr. Bracken) and of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) respectively, and I should like to say a few words about those speeches. To begin with, I congratulate the leader of the Progressive Conservative party on the work he has done in reading the speeches of the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). They were good speeches. They were speeches with every word and every sentence of which I agree. They were speeches with which my remarks yesterday were in complete agreement, and they were speeches which I think it is fortunate to have brought to the attention of the house.
I listened carefully to the citations read to see whether there was anything in them with which I disagreed, or to which I could take exception, or which contradicted anything I said yesterday. There was only one sentence which might arguably be said to be in conflict with something I said yesterday. I said that the authority of the executive is received from the crown, is delegated to the executive from the crown rather than from the House of Commons. There is a sentence in one of the speeches of the Prime Minister read to us this afternoon, which says that the power of the executive is derived from the House of Commons. Power of the executive may be said to be derived from the House of Commons in one sense. That sense is this, that at all times the government must see that it possesses the confidence of the House of Commons, otherwise it must retire from office. I stated that yesterday; I stated it as emphatically as I could. No one in modern times would ever have the temerity to say anything else. If hon. gentlemen will read my remarks of yesterday from beginning to end they will see that I made it most clear, I think repeatedly so, that the government is responsible to parliament and that the House of Commons at all times has the power, by an expression of its voice, to withdraw its confidence from the government, in which event the government has to resign. Everything I said yesterday was constitutionally correct. It was technically correct, and it was in spirit correct. The contention of the leader of the C.C.F. party that the constitution has changed since the British North America Act was passed with regard to the source of the powers of the executive is unwarranted.


Major James William Coldwell: I said it was a fiction written into the act.
Mr. ILS'LEY: It is not a fiction. The section of the British North America Act which I quoted was this:

The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the queen.
That is, in the crown. The words "the queen" are not used in any personal sense; and any talk about the queen having been dead for forty or fifty years is entirely irrelevant. .The crown is a continuing entity. The crown is the head of the executive of Canada. The members of the cabinet of Canada, the government of Canada, are the crown's advisers, sworn in as members of His Majesty's privy council, and they derive their authority from the act. But as I have said, they must, at all times, be able to command a majority in this House of Commons. In that way the House of Commons has a control over His Majesty's advisers which it can exercise at any time.
I said yesterday the duties of this House of Commons were three. The first is to control expenditure. Listening to the leader of the Progressive Conservative party this afternoon one would think that yesterday I had combatted' the contention that it was the function and duty of the House of Commons to control expenditures. Why, Mr. Speaker, that is its primary function; it is one of its main functions.


Gordon Knapman Fraser: You objected to scrutiny.


James Lorimer Ilsley: I never objected to the control of expenditures by the House of Commons; never. '


Karl Kenneth Homuth: Mr. Speaker-


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Sit down.


Karl Kenneth Homuth: I rise to a point of order. Will the- minister say he did not deny the right of publicity in connection with the expenditures of the government?


James Horace King: There is no point of
order.


James Lorimer Ilsley: There is no point of order,
or point of privilege; and I think I can say that is so to the knowledge of the hon. gentleman. I have objected in this house to the production of privileged and confidential documents. I have done so properly. I have cited authority after authority in every case when I have done so. I have cited authority to the effect that His Majesty's business [DOT]cannot be conducted with safety and honour if the word of the government is not accepted as to whether it is in the public interest to produce certain confidential or privileged documents. I do not believe there is another legislature or parliament in the British empire where the opposition would force or attempt

Housing Act
to force the production of confidential and privileged documents, stated so to be by His Majesty's advisers.
One would think from the1 quotations read from the speeches by the Prime Minister that the position taken by this party and by the Prime Minister had1 been that all orders in council could be produced); that blanket orders for the production of executive acts of His Majesty's advisers should be agreed to. My hon. friends will search Hansard in vain to find a motion by the Prime Minister for the production of all orders in council passed between certain dates. Om the contrary in 1926, and again in 1936, he very properly took the position that orders of that kind could1 not and should not be passed by the house. While he was in opposition-and he was not very many years in opposition-he never took the position that there should be this attempt to force out into the open confidential documents on a blanket basis; there is not one request for them by the Prime Minister.
Then, the second function of the1 House of Commons-and I referred to it yesterday -is the voting of supply. That is the reason I am here to-day with this motion. I am here to have supply voted. The House of Commons may refuse to vote supply. The power of refusing to vote supply is a power over the executive which tihe House of Commons has, which nobody can deny, which nobody would wish to deny, which nobody would dare to deny.
I understand this afternoon interim supply is to be voted, and that there is no objection to the voting of supply. But certainly anyone who would take the position, or would represent me as taking the position, that in some way we can get money without the House of Commons, is taking a position which cannot in any way be supported.
The third function of the House of Commons is the enactment of legislation. We are here to enact legislation. I wish now to refer to what I said yesterday at the conclusion of my remarks after the hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) had spoken. I said:
Section 9 of the British North America Act reads:
"The executive government and authority of and over Canada is hereby declared to continue and be vested in the queen."
And section 10:
"The provisions of this act referring to the governor general extend and apply to the governor general for the time being of Canada-" 47696-132 .
And from there on the section was not relevant, and I did not quote it. Then I said:	-
The authority of the government is not delegated by the house.
Does anybody here say that authority is delegated by the house? Never in any of the Prime Minister's speeches does he say authority is delegated by the house.
His Majesty's advisers a-Q. sworn in as advisers to the crown. The government is responsible to parliament, which I have admitted in every word of my speech, but that is a different thing from the doctrine that the government is a committee of the House of Commons or that it exercises authority delegated by the House of Commons. That is not so.
I stand by every word I said yesterday. I consider myself as good a Liberal as, and a lot better Liberal than, the leader of the opposition although he was a Liberal for a long time. I have nothing to apologize for in that regard.
If the conduct of the executive does not appeal to the House of Commons, then as I said yesterday-and wish to say again'-we have made fuller disclosure than has been made in any other parliament I remember or of which I have learned. We put everything that we can with safety put before the House of Commons.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Oh, oh.


James Lorimer Ilsley: And when I talk about "safety" I am using the language as Bourinot used it-honour and safety; safety to the public interest.
If the opposition feel that our conduct in any of these respects is irresponsible or reprehensible, then they have their remedy, by moving a vote of want of confidence in the government. Let them go ahead and do so, if they want to. I am reminded of an historical remark attributed to Charles II- "They will never kill me to make James king."


Gordon Graydon: Page Jimmie Gardiner.


Mr. T. L. CHURCH (Broadview) :: Mr. Speaker, the motion of the Minister of Finance is that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the house to go into committee of supply. I object to the system we are now following in this house. A civil war was fought in Great Britain for more than two hundred years to secure for parliament control over expenditures.
Here we are in the thirteenth day of November; the year is nearly out, and yet not one dollar of civil estimates has been voted in committee of supply. Here we are near the end of November; money has been spent, and

Housing Act

we are simply conducting a post mortem. We are asked to spend nearly four billions of dollars a year of the taxpayers' money, with no sympathy whatever for the man who pays the taxes. Are not we who sit in parliament to have some of our rights and privileges restored to us, or has parliament surrendered its functions and powers and rights to the executive? I have complained about this time and again.


James Horace King: Order. The hon. member for Broadview has the floor and there should be order in the chamber.


Thomas Langton Church: I have great sympathy for the Minister of Finance but I also have sympathy with the taxpayers.
If I could have a little order in the chamber, Mr. Speaker, I would be able to continue.
For many years I liiave been a member of the House of Commons and have represented my constituency. I do not expect courtesies or favours from the government-far from it. I am here to watch and to preserve and to maintain the rights of private members to have some check over expenditures.
As I have said, I have sympathy with the Minister of Finance, realizing something of the heavy burdens he is carrying. But I have sympathies, too, for many others back home in the constituencies who are paying the piper and carrying the burden of taxation, one which is reacting heavily upon the poor man and the returned soldier.
Instead of parliament having control over expenditures, and instead of government of the people, by the people and for the people, what have we now? We have government by order in council and by dollar-a-year men. We have, government'by control boards which are spending money like water.
I have been objecting along these lines for a long time. As recently as September 11 of this year I asked about the action being taken by the auditor general. Where is the auditor general? He has no power to veto many of these expenditures, but he should have. On September 11, at a time when the house had been sitting only three or four days, I said, at page 69 of Hansard:
Ait the present time we have virtually no control. All kinds of bodies, over the head ot parliament, are spending money like water. Every principle for which the British nation struggled in the old land since the seventeenth century has been surrendered to the political caucuses. Parliament itself, which came into being to ensure that taxss shall be voted only by those who have to pay them, has become the institution through which those who do not pay them impose them on others.
1 want to emphasize to the committee that powers of legislation older even than the right ox taxpayers to determine the national expendi-

ture have been surrendered, and if we are to
continue this sort of thing the power of parliament will be gone forever. Whole spheres of activity, involving the livelihood of every man, woman and child in this country, have been removed from the jurisdiction of the law and of parliament and reserved for the determination of tribunals, irresponsible, irremovable, governed by no control and subject to no appeal..
X do object, now that the war is over, to the way that business is being conducted over the head of parliament. We are told that parliament is supreme. That is only a myth. If parliament is supreme, why has it not now control over these outside bodies a'nd their expenditures and in the result we will only hold a post mortem as the money is spent.
I object to this vote. I support what my leader has said, and I reaffirm what I said on September 11. I protest that we are spending four billion dollars over the head of parliament, over the head of the taxpayers. For nearly a hundred years the executive have been the servants of the House of Commons; they have been also the servants of the taxpayers who pay the money. We had the War Measures Act, and now that the war is over we are to have a new War Measures Act. With these controls it is impossible for our business men, large or small, to conduct, their business. I do object to our being asked to vote supply, until the middle of December of $29 million more. The sooner we regain our rights, the better it will be. Parliament should have the absolute control of all expenditures.
Motion (Mr. Ilsley) agreed to, and the house went into committee of supply, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that a sum not exceeding $29,769,000.11, being one-twelfth of the several items to be voted, as set forth in the estimates for the fiscal year ending 31st March. 1946, laid before the House of Commons at the present session of parliament, be granted to His Majesty on account for the fiscal year ending 31st March, 1946.


Mr. POULIOT:: Mr. Chairman, I do not
intend to indulge in any controversial matters, my intention being to make some constructive suggestions with regard to the curtailment of expenditures. As I have said repeatedly since the beginning of the session, there is no use talking in the abstract; we must come down to brass tacks. We must find ways and means to reduce expenditures. This might prove a difficult problem if handled improperly, but if hon. members rolled up their sleeves and decided to start to work they might accomplish something.
The only way is to secure charts of the various departments to find out if each branch in the department is of any use to the state.

Housing Act
If a branch is found to be of no use, it should be abolished. If a branch is found to be useful, each civil servant in that branch should be considered on the basis of his usefulness to the state. If his work is nod useful, the only thing to do is to tell him that he has outlived his usefulness. '
The elimination of useless branches or dead branches would represent a lot of money in each case. These branches should be given the benefit of the doubt, but when a branch is found to be useless it should be abolished. When a man in a department is receiving dominion pay for work which is not of any use to the government, he should be fired. By this method we can reduce the load of taxation now upon the shoulders of the Canadian people. It is the only way to do it. The public accounts committee is in session and members are trying to unearth scandals. They may succeed in that, but what will be the benefit? It will be nil.
V hat should be done by members of parliament is to consider the civil service as something that should be improved. I was the chairman of the civil service committee for one session and afterward I wms a member of the committee under the able chairmanship of the present Minister of Public Works. For the first time in the history of parliament I attempted to consider the civil service in relation to its usefulness to the state. They were all scandalized. When I would complain of someone, hon. members would rise and tell me that the man was an honest civil servant.
Then I received visitors. Although I applied the padlock law t.n my room, the lady visitors whom I received were homely rather than comely; they were not good looking at all. They were complaining because nature had not been generous to them, because the fairies had not touched their cradles with their magic wands. I remember one who seemed to be very bright but she was not the kind of girl that the big stores of New York would use in the spring or the fall to display their new clothes. She said, "You know it is unfortunate; I know I am not good looking but I think I have some brains; I do the work of a stenographer grade three and I receive the pay of a clerk grade one; on the other hand, there is a beautiful girl jivith bleached hair who does not even do the work of a clerk grade one and she is paid as a stenographer grade three." She was the receptionist for the boss. I told her that we should have this corrected by the civil service commission. I wrote to the commission and an investigator from the organization branch went to the department and asked the boss 47696-132J
what work this grade three stenographer was doing. The boss said that she was splendid. Of course, she was, but not for her work. Then he asked about the girl who was doing nearly all the work in the branch but who was not as good looking as the other one. He said, "Oh, that poor girl, we keep -her here for charity's sake." The only report made by the investigator was based on the rvord of thfe boss.
" It is unfortunate, but it is impossible to reform the civil service. I will not believe anyone or I will not listen to anyone who is not ready to make a direct suggestion, particularly in connection with any reform. At the end of last wreek I met a former cabinet minister. He told me that as soon as he was sworn in he met his colleagues around the table-this happened quite a long time ago -and they were all told to curtail useless
^ expenditures in their departments. This man was earnest and he said, "I will do that." He returned to his department and checked up and found sixteen who had nothing to do, and he fired them-. "The result," he said, "was as if the sky had fallen down on my head. N-obody else had fired anybody. I was the only one who had ever fired sixteen, and they still blame me for that although it happened a very long time ago."
I said the other day, and I repeat now, that it will take a lot of courage to reform the civil service, because whenever you desire to fire someone who is incompetent, a crowd of friends gather around to tell you: Do not make a fool of yourself, for that man is a good man. Or. as was said to me at the sittings of the civil service committee, he is an honest civil servant. I remember a girl-I never met her. but Dorothy was her name-who had been unsuccessful nine times in passing her examination. Her father was a constable in the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. She was not put on a blacklist. She was still kept on in the office, working there. When I saw her record I asked an official of the civil service commission. "Is it possible to keep on a girl who knows absolutely nothing and is absolutely incompetent?" The civil service commission took action and the girl was fired, and who protested on her behalf? Her chief officer, who said that it would be most unfortunate to fire this voung girl because she was most useful in the office. I leave it to you to decide whether she- was pretty or not-I never met her. That is what happened in that case.
Injustices are most frequent in the civil service. What we have to do is to go with a w'ell-sbarpened axe into all the departments and bring about reform by cutting off all the
Housing Act

dead branches. In these times state charity is substituted for private charity. Private charity did marvels before the war. How is it possible for any member of parliament to do what he could do before the war now that we have so much taxation bearing down upon our shoulders? It is useless just to protest against taxation if we do not take steps to curtail useless expenditure to the rock bottom. And the only way to do that is to cut down useless expenditure in the civil service here in Ottawa and outside. That is the only way.
What happens, for example, in the Department of National Defence? I have been told that at a restaurant in town a C.W.A.C. captain met someone from the National Defence office who was not exactly a brass hat but used to wear a red tab oh his lapel. She said to him, "How is it that you are in civvies to-day?" He answeredf

and this has probably been brought about by the strong denunciations of my friend the hon. member for Fraser Valley-"Well, we are most unpopular as brass bats, so now we have to dress in civvies." The thing to do, and some day I will do it-I will do it on the estimates-is to show what a -lot of useless branches were established by the brass hats under Ralston and McNaughton, and which are .the curse of the Department of National Defence. They have psychiatrists teaching nonsense to the fellows who are there-psychiatrists who are just as crazy as the deputy minister of health himself. They are positively crazy- and we have to pay for them.
When we go home we have to consider expenditures. Why? Because a large proportion of our indemnity is taken away from us in taxes. And why taxes? Taxes to pay for parasites. Is there a member of parliament who would be willing, if there were no taxation on our indemnity cheques to sign cheques for the maintenance of parasites in the Department of National Defence, or any other department here in Ottawa? Would the Minister of National Defence, if there were no taxation to maintain them', be ready to pay the same amount for the maintenance of those people as he is forced to contribute from his indemnity and his salary to-day for their maintenance? And because it is the state that pays them, is that any better. Is it any more logical that we should maintain these parasites just because the state pays them? Canada is the garden of Eden for all those who won't work. It is not necessary to work to have consideration in the public service. That is not important at all. The work of a man or woman in the civil service does not count at all. That is immaterial.
rMr. Pouliot.J
What is important is the staff. Let me illustrate. Suppose that Tom has a staff of one or two men. or girls who work hard and do their work very well, are conscientious and ' useful to the state. They will be ten times less considered than the man who has a staff of thirty girls who knit around him and twenty boys who play chess or arrange their moustaches or chew gum around him. What is essential is the staff, and the larger the staff the more consideration and the more pay. Some people will scream about what I am sajung now. They will say it is blasphemous. But they do not realize that the Canadian people are fed up with bureaucracy. And we cannot get any information from these people. I am a Liberal and I am a radical.
There are big branches that are useless. As I have said in previous years, one of the first branches I would abolish would be a big one; it would be the Bank of Canada. That would mean a big saving to the people of Canada. I should like to have ministerial responsibility restored in the person of the Minister of Finance. I remember the times of Jim Robb. He was just a plain-clothes business man like the member for Victoria (Mr. Mayhew). He was a man of common sense. He did not have to stand up to defend all these bureaucrats who were brought here by R. B. Bennett and who were supported by those two nefarious men, Charlie Dunning and Ralston-and I know what I am talking about. I remember the time when the Bank of Canada was organized, and when a man named Osborne was brought over from England to organize it along the same lines as the Bank of England. Before that our banking system in Canada was very good. Why should be have a Bank of Canada here with Graham Towers in charge as a despot, receiving twice the salary of the Prime Minister of Canada?-and it is impossible to get any information about his travelling expenses, bonuses and so forth. The minister will not deny it. I remember very well complaining in the time of Charlie Dunning of a doorman there. I do not. remember his name, but he always wore a Prince Albert, which seemed silly. He was brought here by Bennett as his valet. I asked what amount was paid to him, and if it was paid from the dominion exchequer. I could not get any answer. Mr. Bennett was very indignant: he said, how could a member ask a question like that about the Bank of Canada? The Prime Minister said the- same thing; he could not understand why I was so indiscreet as to want to know whether it was the state or R. B. Bennett who had paid for the trip of that doorman to Australia or

Housing Act
some other place in the antipodes. And we have reached that point: it is a secret of state. Well, just as well dispense with all that and save the people's money.
Besides that, I complain of the fact that Graham Towers is considered omniscient- not only omnipotent but omniscient. He will be on the housing scheme. The country could not live without Graham Towers. How is it that it prospered before he was born? It is the same thing with the deputy minister of finance, a man whom - I have denounced time and time again, and it was a privilege to denounce him. All these fellows are dangerous, because they are bringing the country to ruin. I can say that, now that the victory loan is over and it has been oversubscribed-and I am very glad. I would not have dared to speak like that before the victory loan was over, because everybody would have said that I am a traitor. But now we can consider business, and I wonder whether members of parliament are ready to put a stop to all this over-expenditure, and go and make a clean-up in the civil service commission-and not only in the civil service commission, for these are minor offenders, but go to the "big bugs", go to the "high-ups" and see what they are doing and what is their usefulness to the state. What will be the answer of the minister, or anybody else in the party? He will say, they are great Canadians.


James Lorimer Ilsley: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I thought so. I knew he would do that. Although I am not a mind reader, it has been told me so often that I am accustomed to it. I know what is going on there. Are we not great Canadians? But I will suffer; it is not we who receive $35,000 a year. We work; we are the shock absorbers for the policies of the government; we are shock absorbers for all those notions drafted by these cranks and imposed on us, and we have not the right to criticize them. Well, well, that is enough!
At a meeting on behalf of the victory loan I said that I would be a watch-dog of the treasury in the house. How 'is it that the Russians are laughed at because of the icons which they have almost all over their walls? Here we have icons which are much more costly than those one might have found encrusted with jewels in Russian houses during the old Czarist regime.
I shall be called unfair. I shall be called unpatriotic. I shall be called dumb. I shall be told that I have not enough intelligence to understand the great services these people are rendering to this country. I shall be told
all that. Perhaps those who will tell me that will be right. I am very modest when I am called a lunatic, because I say to myself, perhaps he is one who calls me one, and therefore there is no use arguing with him.
But now, sir, we are told to do something. What has to be done must be done in committee, and it must be done in the private offices if hon. members want to cheek expenditures. They will have to examine the reports of the departments, but they should also have charts of all departments and of the Bank of Canada. They should mark the connection of the Bank of Canada with the Bank of England and with the Bank of International Settlements of Basle, Switzerland, and concern themselves about the man who is in charge there. One of our colleagues once referred to him as a Jew. The question is not whether that man is a Jew, a French Canadian, a Roman Catholic or a Mohammedan. That is not the point. The point is that that man was chosen by Sir Otto Nie-meyer, of ill fame, as well as Montagu Norman, at the time that the representatives of Great Britain were meeting German representatives during the war at the Bank of International Settlements at Basle. A long time ago Vespasian said that money has no odour. We may say that too, because money runs from us and we see so little of it that we can hardly smell it. But those gangsters of international finance-Montagu Norman, Niemeyer, Rasminsky here in Ottawa, are all alike; they are dangerous.


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Hear, hear.


Jean-François Pouliot: I hear my friends of the Social Credit group say "hear hear". I appreciate it. But I regret very much that when I was alone in denouncing Dunning and Ralston in this chamber, while the hon. member for Lethbridge said "hear hear" he never supported me by naming those who should have been called' by. name. Get rid of them.
At the present time, sir, I will not move anything; I know that my .motion would be defeated. But I express the wish to all hon. members, from the acting leader of the government down to the humblest member-who is myself-that all members of parliament join in undertaking constructive reform for the welfare of the country at large. I wonder whether members of parliament would, be ready to t?.ke the charts of all departments, and study them, and examine as to what is the usefulness, of each branch and what is the usefulness of each civil servant or dominion employee who works in it.
In 1938 the seas were very high at the sittings of the parliamentary committee on the civil
Interim Supply

service; a.t times navigation was most difficult. But fifteen days before the report came I notified the Liberal caucus that we would have a unanimous report. We had it. The main recommendation of that report was to have a standing civil service committee of the House of Commons. There is a similar committee for the senate; it has not been sitting lately, and. I do not wish to put the blame on the senate or anyone else; but the fact is that that committee has not held any sittings. There should be a committee of the house with which any civil servant could lodge his complaint without any fear of his superior officer. That proposal was carried unanimously. The following year, under the chairmanship of the Minister of Public Works, the same committee came out with the same recommendation. That recommendation, if adopted, would have had a very good effect on the relations between civil servants and their chiefs, but it was not adopted. It was held fon a time, because of the war, we were told. But now, after V-E day and V-J day, I would suggest to the government that the proposal be put into effect and that the rules be amended- by abolishing, for instance, the useless debates committee, of which I have been chairman for many years, which has never sat, and which was never instructed to sit, and having a standing committee on the civil service. Then members from the different parties and groups could meet together to protect long-suffering civil servants and do something to eradicate parasites from the civil service, thereby saving money to the Canadian taxpayer.
Motion agreed' to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in.



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Hon. J. L. ILSLEY (Minister of Finance) moved that the house go into committee of ways and means.
Motion agreed to and the house went inito committee, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
James Lorimer Ilsley: Resolved, that towards making good the supply granted to His Majesty on account of certain expenses of the public service for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1946, the sum of $29,769,000.11 be granted out of the consolidated revenue fund of Canada.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Resolution reported, read the second time and concurred in. Mr. Ilsley thereupon moved for leave to introduce bill No. 93, for grant-

ing to His Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of the financial year ending the 31st March, 1946.
Motion agreed to, bill read the first and second times and the house went into committee thereon, Mr. Macdonald (Brantford City) in the chair.
On section 1-Short title.
Section agreed to.
Sections 2 and 3 agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.


[Stage Direction]
The house resumed, from Thursday, November 8, consideration of the motion of 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 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.
Mr. E. G. HANSELL (Macleod):: Mr. Speaker, I had not supposed this resolution would be debated to auy great extent. I personally had not intended to make any remarks until the committee was set up. I believe I am to be one of the members of that committee, and I had decided to reserve what I have to say until the committee commences its work. But during the discussion the other afternoon on this resolution to set up a committee in connection with a Canadian flag certain remarks were made which I believe should not go unanswered. I refer particularly to the speech made by the hon. member for Cartier (Mr. Rose). I recognize that the hon. member has a right to speak in this house, having been duly elected by his constituents. I feel thankful that we live in a democracy with free speech, so that in this parliament my hon. friend is able to say the things that are upon his heart. That is one privilege our democratic system gives to every member of parliament. I do not think I would have taken so much notice of what the hon. gentleman said if he had said it as a private

Canadian Flag
member. Anything I say this afternoon I say upon my own responsibility as a private member of this house. But the hon. gentleman commenced his speech with these words, which appear at page 1961 of Hansard:
I wholeheartedly support the resolution before the house, because the party for which I speak to-night has advocated it for quite a while.
The hon. gentleman was speaking for his party, and I am convinced that his speech requires an answer. I do not know that this answer rightfully should be given by a private member, but I anticipate that the government are not going to reply, and I do so because he, speaks in the name of a group of people who are bidding for power to run this country. When people bid for power to run a country in some mysterious way or another they bid for power to run the lives of the people in that country, at least in so far as the people are affected by legislation passed by parliament.
May I interject here that anything I say is not directed against my hon. friend personally. I regard him as my friend; I want to be his friend, and I can assure him that my remarks are directed against the philosophy held by his party in this country. He went on to say:
The union, jack is a very fine flag, but I would say that in many instances it has not always stood for the best.
When that statement is made by one who speaks for a party, then I say it should be challenged. I believe my hon. friend must not confuse the great principles of freedom and justice for which the union jack has always stood with the actions of short-sighted, bungling politicians who may have held the reins of office at one time or another. There is all the difference in the world .between the two. Let him criticize, if he wishes, any government, any set of men or any individual in public .office; but when he attributes anything of this kind to the union jack itself I say he is at least going too far when he says it has not always stood for the best. I challenge him to declare when the union jack has not always stood for the best. As far as I am concerned the union jack stands for freedom, the freedom enjoyed by us in Canada and anywhere that flag flies. It stands for justice. There is a great deal of injustice in this old world, injustice that has been imposed upon races of people by others holding various philosophies, but surely those injustices cannot be attributed to the symbol which may be contained within that design known to us as the union jack. I quote further from the remarks of the hon. member, on the same page:
I should like to see our flag minus the union jack. . . .
My hon. friend followed those words with arguments which, if examined, I am sure will show that what he said was proof positive that the union jack should be on our national flag. What he objects to in his following remarks is that anyone should ever call the union jack a Christian flag. Well, if we do not have a flag which stands symbolically for the great principles of Christianity, then we might as well not have a flag at all. Personally, my contention is-and it was the contention of the non. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Blackmore) when he spoke that afternoon- that the union jack containing the three crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick was symbolic of the great Christian principles for which the British people have stood across the centuries. That speech by the hon. member for Lethbridge seemed to irk the hon. member for Cartier.


Fred Rose: I definitely did not like the
hon. member's explanations respecting Chris-' tianity.


Ernest George Hansell: Well, I cannot answer the hon. member on that point, because I do not know just what he is talking about.


Fred Rose: The hon. member's speech of
a few weeks ago; the hon. member should remember that.


Ernest George Hansell: Oh, I see. Yes, that is true. I understand what the hon. member means. You see, Mr. Speaker, he protests this flag's being called a Christian flag. These were his words:
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.


Fred Rose: From the hon. member.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes, I see. He talks about a Christian flag, and then connects remarks I made weeks before the debate on the flag took place. That is exactly the thing I am coming to. That, you see, was a dead giveaway, because what the hon. member is trying to do here is to say that in taking the union jack off the flag he does not want any semblance of Christianity to remain on it.


Fred Rose: That is quite an interpretation!


Ernest George Hansell: That is a dead give-away. What does he say?
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.
What was said respecting the flag by the hon. member for Lethbridge was said on the
Canadian Flag

same day the hon. member for Cartier addressed the house. What he refers to and connects with the flag is something said in an earlier debate. It is obvious that he is referring to the speech I made a week or two ago in which I said there was a complete distinction between Christian democracy and totalitarianism. I maintain that, and I still say there is a difference. I still say that anything in the philosophy of totalitarianism which attempts to subjugate the individual to the state, taking away from that individual his God-given freedom, 'is not my understanding of the proper concept, of Christian democracy. What I want is something on that flag which will symbolize Christian democracy, and I believe we find that symbolism in the union jack, with its crosses of St. George, St. Andrew and St. Patrick.


Fred Rose: What about the millions in the far east who are not Christians?


Ernest George Hansell: Apparently the hon-. member wants to take the union jack from any proposed Canadian flag. On my own responsibility I say that what he desires to do is to take from that flag any symbolism of Christianity. Not only would communism tear the Christian crosses from the Canadian flag but it would obliterate Christianity from our shores. I make that statement; it may be a strong one, but I am not going to pull my punches on that score.
I hold in my hand a report of a special committee of the state legislature of California, set up for the purpose of investigating unAmerican activities in that state. Anv hon. member can obtain this valuable document from the secretary of state at Sacramento, California, and I suggest it should be in the library of all hon. members. The report which was submitted as a result of the sittings of that committee contains this at page 68:
The following compilation of the communist philosophy, sources and background is included in this report, with the hope that the members of the legislature will be encouraged to pursue the subject further.
Then, on the matter of religion I read the following from page 73:
Atheism is an integral part of Marxism. Consequently a class-conscious Marxist party must carry on propaganda in favour of atheism.
And further on:
One of the most important tasks of the cultural revolution affecting the wide masses is the task of systematically and unswervingly combatting religion, the opium of the people.


Fred Rose: And you had to go all the way. to California to get that.


Ernest George Hansell: Then I read further- because the hon. member refers in his speech to something that is interesting.


Fred Rose: I will deal with that.


Ernest George Hansell: My hon. friend is saying he is going to deal with this matter.


Fred Rose: Yes. I will deal with the loyalty of social crediters in Quebec, and their patriotism there.


Ernest George Hansell: It is my hon. friend's privilege to deal with th^t: I am not saying he cannot. But right now I am dealing with his speech.


Fred Rose: What has all this to do with the flag?


Ernest George Hansell: It has a lot to do with the flag, because I am analysing my hon. friend's speech on the subject.


An hon. MEMBER:: Do it in committee.


Ernest George Hansell: At page 1961 of Hansard the hon. member said:
We have heard too much of it. The flag is the symbol of all the people, Christian and non-Ohristian..


Fred Rose: And that is right. Many Jewish boys died in this war-and they did not die for a Christian flag. They fought for Canada.


Ernest George Hansell: He continued:
The world cannot be divided into Christians and non-Christians. We are no-t 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.
The point I -want to put over is this: My hon. friend says that there must be no distinction between Christians and non-Christians. I think that flag stands for that. Our own flag stands for freedom of religious worship. Aly hon. friend and I and the rest of us enjoy that freedom of worship because we live in a Christian democracy over which so far the union jack has flown.


Fred Rose: They enjoy religious freedom in China and elsewhere.


Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER:: There must not be so many interruptions. It is improper to interrupt an hon. member when he is speaking. He can be interrupted only when he permits a question to be asked.


Ernest George Hansell: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then in the same report on un-American activities in the state of California, at page-73, I read:

Canadian Flag
A Marxist must place the success of the strike movement above all else, must definitely oppose the division of the workers in this struggle into atheists and Christians, must fight resolutely against such a division.
You see how that lines up with my hon. friend's remarks which, of course, he has the right to make.


Fred Rose: What has that to do with the flag?


Some hon. MEMBERS:: Order.


Ernest George Hansell: The hon. member said:
We are not declaring war against Mohammedans or Moslems and others.
Certainly we are not. The Mohammedan or Moslem is entitled to live in Canada and worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience while he is living under a flag containing three Christian crosses. It is a favourite pastime of the party my hon. friend represents to attack all those who are outspokenly opposed to communism and to brand them as being fascists and pro-nazis. You see what is being done here. He said:
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! Goebbels is dead, but his ideology seeps even into this House of Commons.
Let my hon. friend say who in this House of Commons is the channel through which this ideology is flowing. Who was it in the early days of the war that wanted a war policy that would go out and, if possible, deliver a knock-out blow to nazism and fascism in Europe? Where was my friend in those days? As I say, they have a habit of referring to all those who are opposed to their philosophy as being pro-nazis and fascists. Just the other day I picked up a paper called the Canadian Tribune which, I suggest, is the official organ of the communist-fascist smear bund. There were twenty-five members of parliament who were interested in displaced Ukrainians in Europe and who wired the Prime Minister to use what influence he had to bring justice to these people who were to be repatriated. What did this smear bund have to say about those twenty-five members? The title was, "Twenty-five anti-soviet pro-nazi M.P.'s," and then the editorial goes on to give the names of those who sent that telegram.


Fred Rose: That is a long way from the flag, is it not?


Ernest George Hansell: If my hon. friend accuses us of being the instrument through which nazi ideology seeps into this house I will take that charge and throw it back in the teeth of his
party. I have a piece of advertising which they used away back in 1941 when this country declared; war on nazism and fascism. What did they say then? It is entitled, "But ah! The graves the graves." I will not read it all because time will not permit. It continues:
And Hanson,

They were referring to the leader of the opposition at that time.
-his successor, is preparing again to-day to fill not 62,000 graves as in the last war, but hundreds of thousands, in order to secure the British imperialist domination of the world, in which domination the Canadian capitalists have a vital, profit-hungry interest.
Then a little further down in the same advertisement:
The people of Canada must, now, before it is too late, nip this scheme in the bud. Canadians are opposed to- conscription for overseas service. They know it means certain death in the invasion of Europe by the British imperialists. . . .


Fred Rose: Is my name there?


Ernest George Hansell: Who was it that was calling for a second front a few years later? That advertisement was put out by the central committee, communist party of Canada, young communist league of Canada. Then I have another advertisement which was put out by the Toronto district committee, communist party of Canada. This is entitled, "An appeal to patriotic workers." I ask hon. gentlemen to tell me, after hearing this, if they have ever heard any smear that is any more smeary than this. It starts off by saying, "Your country calls on you to sacrifice." I will not go through it all. Then they tell them what to do, in satire, when they say:
Buy war savings stamps. Contribute generously to the Red Cross. . . .
I want hon. members to notice that the Red Cross which this advertisement smears is on the union jack.	_
Contribute generously to the Red Cross, the war service appeal, the humane society and the Churchill fund to buy monocles for underprivileged British aristocrats and corsets for refugee Polish officers. If you have any money left, put it in an envelope and send it to Ottawa. You'll get a beautiful receipt in return, with a coloured photograph of Nev. Chamberlain signing the Munich pact. If you send $25 or more, you will receive a handsome goldbrick, tastefully engraved with quotations from speeches by Mackenzie King in which he promised that Canada would not be involved in future European wars.
Don't buy that new radio! The old one is good enough to listen to war propaganda. Make your wife go without summer clothes! Let the kids wear flour sacks: They get more sun that way. Stop smoking! Give up drinking! Stop eating! In this way you can free yourself from the pangs of indigestion. And you will get useo
Canadian Flag

to starving, so that after the war when you are on the breadline you won't notice any difference.
I agree with some of those sentiments, but the funny thing is, and this is what I am trying to put over, that this organization that brands everyone who does not agree with its philosophy as being pro-nazi now, what was it doing then? That is the kind of advertising it was spreading throughout this country. I am not blaming my hon. friend because he is my friend; I blame his party.


Mr. REID:: What would you do to your enemy?


Ernest George Hansell: Here is another advertisement that is really a honey, Mr. Speaker. This is from the literature they put out in the 1940 election. I am quoting from the 1940 election manifesto of the communist party of Canada:
Under the virtual military dictatorship, established by the War Measures Act, the King government and the main capitalist groups in agreement with Chamberlain, desire to caTry through a mock election before the Canadian people gather their forces sufficiently to fight back against their criminal war.
I say that if it was a criminal war in 1940, it was a criminal war in 1945.


Mr. BLACKMORE:: Or in 1941 after
Russia was attacked.


Ernest George Hansell: Or in 1941, because we were fighting for the defeat of nazism in Europe.


Thomas Reid: What changed their attitude?


Ernest George Hansell: That is another story. I quote again from their manifesto:
They aim to secure a fake "mandate" to rule over you for the next five years and carry through their criminal war policy.


John Horne Blackmore: Plenty of Goebbels
there.


Ernest George Hansell: Yes. It goes on:
When the time arrived for the madman, Hitler, to fulfil hi's role as "saviour of world civilization from Bolshevism", German imperialism could not make up its mind to risk its neck in war against the mighty Soviet Union and place its imperialist interests at the mercy of its rivals;^ it decided, rather, to establish peaceful relations with the Soviet Union.
Well, if it decided to establish peaceful relations with the Soviet Union, the Soviet Union decided to establish peaceful relations with Hitler, and therefore communism in those days was pro-nazi. It goes on:
The British and French imperialists and the Canadian as well, seeing they had miscalculated on the German Soviet collision, dropped the mask of "non-intervention" behind which they had instigated war. . . .

In the elections, they will tell you they are fignting for the well-being of peoples in Europe. T>o not believe such bare-faced lies!
, Then listen to this:
They will tell you that they threw the nation into war because of "Hitler's recurring violation of treaties". What an appalling he!
Who were the pro-nazis then? I quote again:
They tell you they are waging war' for "democracy". This is the most despicable lie of all. ... In the face of all truth, they think the Canadian people are so gullible as to believe their brazen lies about "War for democracy".
I could go on quoting a lot more, but I am not going to run over my time, Mr. Speaker. Who were the pro-nazis then? I say once again that what I have said to-day is against the philosophy of communism, in contradistinction to what I believe the people * of Canada want, namely, an effective Christian democracy, with a flag that will symbolize that same Christian democracy. I simply state my own convictions. Whatever design is eventually decided upon for the flag, let us have the union jack in it anyway, for I believe that the union jack does stand-I am not saying that other flags do not-for those great principles of freedom and justice which my hon. friend and his party and myself and all parties in Canada enjoy under that flag.


Mr. J. G. DIEFENBAKER (Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I intend to read once more the resolution that is before the house:
Resolved, 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.
As far as that resolution is concerned, it consists of two parts: first, a declaration that it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag, and second, that a committee be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag.
I intend to discuss this resolution this afternoon as dispassionately as it was discussed by the minister when he introduced .it. There is no subject on which one could speak that gives greater opportunities for exalted expression of sentiments than the flag. The hon. member who preceded me made eloquent reference to the union jack and suggested that it should have >a prominent place in any national flag that should be designed for Canada. I express those Same sentiments. One hundred and fifty years ago on my father's side my ancestors came to this country in order to seek freedom under the union jack. My maternal ancestors

Canadian Flag
came to the Red river as Selkirk settlers. They came to this country which had as its emblem the union jack.
I am not going into a discussion to-day on the merits or demerits of other viewpoints. But after listening to the minister making the speech he did the other day, in well-chosen and restrained language, it seemed to me he indicated that he believed that the red ensign should be declared officially what it has been unofficially before, the flag of this dominion; for he stated that the red ensign was accepted officially as Canada's national flag from confederation to about 1904; it had been Canada's official flag abroad since 1924; it was flown, he said, at the Quebec conference; it was flown as well at San Francisco; and finally, on September 5 of this year, by an order in council, provision was made that it should be flown over these parliament buildings until such time as a national flag should be decided upon.
There have been motions on this subject on previous occasions. Various motions were made by Mr. Cameron McIntosh, who on more than one occasion said that if a national flag were chosen for Canada the union jack should have a prominent place on that flag. Then in 1938 Mr. Dickie, a Conservative member, moved the resolution to which the minister made reference in his address, 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. That, therefore, was the viewpoint not only of a Liberal but also of a Conservative.
In my opinion, sir, any flag which is determined upon for Canada must embody two ideas: one, Canada as a nation with a distinctive flag; the other, Canada within the empire.
When some contend that to preserve the union jack would preserve an emblem of conquest, let me tell them that rather is it the emblem of freedom and tolerance which has brought millions of people from all parts of the world to Canada to seek freedom under its folds.
May I also point out that South Africa has had her experience in this respect. South Africa's white population divided as between the Dutch and the English. In 1927, debate took place in the house of assembly in South Africa which it would be well for hon. members to read and ponder. I spent several hours reading the debates in the South African house of assembly. On the one hand was General Hertzog, then the prime minister, whose attitude was that any flag for South Africa should have no reference to the union jack because it would be emblematic of conquest. On the other hand was- General, now
Field Marshal. Jan Christian Smuts, whose attitude was that there was no suggestion of conquest in the acceptance of the union jack He said:
If anyone says after what has happened at the imperial conference and the acceptance by the people of this country of what has been done there, that the union jack means the superiority or dominion of one race, I" fail to follow that, or to see the logic of that statement.
That was the attitude of that great leader of empire. His views were opposed by Hertzog, who in unmeasured language condemned all who would have the union jack upon the flag of South Africa.
I do not think it is necessary to discuss to-day whether Canada should have a national flag. There are those who say that'it means separation from the empire. When I was at the Olympic games in 1936, one thing which impressed me was that, regardless of what Canada's position might be in those games, I was never able to determine where Canada was in any of the races, because we had no flag. The Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, now Viscount Bennett, of whom no one can say that he lacks faith in or love of this country or love of the empire, said in 1938:
Upon the large question I expressed an opinion in the house some years ago that I believed it was desirable, as I do to-night, that the country should have some flag by which it can distinguish itself from other parts of the world.
I cannot see eve-to-eye with those who say we must not have a national flag. On the other hand I cannot see eye-to-eye-and my sentiments so carry me that I must be restrained when I say this-with those who would deny the union jack a permanent and a prominent place on the flag of this country; and the place of honour on any flag is the upper quarter. I stand to-day where Mr. Bennett stood in 1938. I do not deny to any group in parliament the authority, but I challenge their right, considering the need of maintaining our unity to father a flag which, in omitting the union jack, will disrupt and divide this dominion. Some say, why not compromise? I will compromise on anything, but, speaking for myself, not to the extent of the removal of the union jack from our national flag.
When Cameron McIntosh introduced his resolution from year to year, he asked that- ... 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-	.
And I accentuate these words:
-symbolizing the dominion senior partner in the British commonwealth of nations.
Canadian Flag

Having said that much, I come to a specific question, and generally in regard to the pledge which was given by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) to the Canadian Legion some time prior to August last. I noticed, when the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) the other night read what the Prime Minister said, that some in the house did not applaud it. The Prime Minister, according to the Legionary, said this:
It would be unthinkable to have a flag for this dominion that did not contain the union jack.
And he-
. . . assured the legion officers that, so far as he was concerned, the new Canadian flag should certainly contain the union jack.
A year ago, on August 11, 1944, during the debate on foreign affairs only two speakers took part. Most considerately-and I have always found it so-this house gave me an opportunity to speak on foreign affairs; the Prime Minister set aside on hoar to give me that opportunity; and on that occasion I advocated what I had advocated both in 1940 and for twenty-five years, namely, that we should have an unhyphenated Canadian nationality based not on racial origin but on service to this country in war and in peace. That was my idea of citizenship, and the Prime Minister on that occasion said that he would undertake at the earliest possible moment to introduce a bill into parliament in order to ensure the principles of Canadian nationality which, I may add, though accepted in the past in theory, were never accepted in fact. Then he said, at page 6276 of Hansard of August 11, 1944:
And not only do I wish to see our people recognized as Canadians, but I also wish to see a Canadian flag recognized in this country. I would like to see the flag that our Canadian men are fighting under to-day. We have a Canadian flag unfurled in battle to-day by our very brave men in Italy and in France. I think in time the people of this country of Canada wil say we want to have as a Canadian flag the flag they are carrying in battle to-day.
That is what he said in 1944, and according to the minister that flag was the red ensign; for at page 1935 of Hansard of November 8 of this year, he said:
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.
So that when an amendment was moved by hon. members on this side of the house the other day, the idea behind it was that instead of putting this matter into the cockpit of a committee where there may be engendered passions such as resulted from the

placing of a similar question in committee in South Africa, we suggested that the government face the issue as a government and by a bill in that behalf officialize the non-official red ensign, which- has been accepted as our flag since 1867. That is why we did that. If you read the debates in South Africa with General Hertzog and General Smuts on opposite sides of the question, you will have revealed the bitterness that was engendered. I ask this parliament therefore, with all the force at my command, to be careful about the submission of a matter such as this to a committee. We have been restrained in our language here; but there I am fearful that instead of the cause of Canadian unity being advanced it will be in fact retarded.
If the Prime Minister were here I would ask him specifically one simple question: Will you give us your solemn pledge that, regardless of what recommendation may come out of the committee, the flag which will be made official for Canada will have the union jack in a prominent place? The minister, in his excellent speech, went so far as to leave one with the impression that three or four more words would have completed that speech with an expression on his part that apparently he felt that the red ensign, the Canadian red ensign, should be made official.
I am going to ask the Acting Prime Minister, in whose name the resolution stands, and the Minister of Veterans Affairs, who brought it to the attention of the house and explained its purport, to give us an answer on this very important question, an answer which I believe is demanded all over the dominion to-day by the men and women who served in the armed forces in two wars, and by the vast majority of the people scattered across Canada-the answer that the union jack will have the prominent place. They are fearful; they are anxious; they are asking us in this parliament not to do anything at this time which will in any way cause any division between our people.
I believe in compromise. Many take the view that only the union jack should be the flag; we say, "No, we will go with you in the interests of Canadian unity. We will have a Canadian national flag. But we are asking, when we compromise, that we be not asked to give away that portion of the flag on which our people came to this country to seek freedom and liberty."


Mr. McCANN:: Who asks that?


John George Diefenbaker: I am glad the minister is in a position to tell us that the union jack is to be on that flag. He says, who asks that?

Canadian Flag


James Joseph McCann: Who asks that it be discarded?


John George Diefenbaker: Has he not received any number of plans on special occasions for flags on which the union jack does not appear?


James Joseph McCann: Not one.


John George Diefenbaker: Well, all I can say-


James Joseph McCann: Not one.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister has certainly been isolated by those who have been propagandizing members of parliament in that connection.
At six o'clock the house took recess.
After Recess
The house resumed at eight o'clock.


John George Diefenbaker: Before the six
o'clock recess, Mr. Speaker, I had discussed the first part of the resolution, which states that in the opinion of this house it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag. I do not intend to carry on any further discussion in regard to that portion of the resolution. I have already placed before the house the question I asked of the government, the answer to which would do much to allay a feeling that is to-diay in the hearts of many people in this country, namely that, having regard to the large number of designs for a new Canadian flag, this committee might very well arrive at a conclusion and recommend to this house a flag design upon which the union jack does not appear. On the part of the opposition we take a very strong stand on this question. We do not believe we deserve the criticism so often leveled against us, that we still regard Canada's position as colonial. That is not our attitude. Far from it. Our attitude is that at a time when we are beginning to realize more and more the necessity of the maintenance of the empire connection in the interests of our survival, in cooperation with the United States and our other allies, certainly is no time when a message should go out from any committee of this parliament or otherwise that we are going to permit the removal or the ostracism of the union jack from the national flag.
I know that view is shared by many hon. members, some on the other side of the house. I was quite amazed to hear the remarks of the leader of the C.C.F. party (Mr. Coldwell) the other da}'. I wish he were in the house
at the moment, so that if I misinterpret him he might correct my interpretation. If I understood him aright, however, having regard to his proposals for the discontinuance of appeals to the privy council, for the power to amend our own constitution, and finally for the establishment in Canada of a distinctive flag, I took from his words that his party stood for the establishment of a national flag upon which the union jack would not appear.


Mr. WRIGHT:: I beg to state that the hon. gentleman is drawing an entirely erroneous conclusion from what was said.


John George Diefenbaker: When the hon.
member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) made that suggestion the other day, at a -ime when the leader of the C.C.F. party was present, there was no denial from that hon. gentleman. Apparently the hon. member for Mel fort (Mr. Wright) is in a better position to place an interpretation upon the remarks of his leader than his leader was, when he had the opportunity the other day. These were his words, as reported at page 1939 of Hansard for November 8, 1945:
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.


Percy Ellis Wright: There is no mention of the union jack.


Mr. MacINNIS:: Is not the union jack on the red ensign? The hon. gentleman would not say anything about the coat of arms, so would that not give a clue as to what he was saying?


John George Diefenbaker: I think, Mr. Speaker, hon. members of the C.C.F. have done some' back-tracking since that speech of their leader.


Percy Ellis Wright: People should not draw upon their imaginations.


Mr. ROSS (St. Paul's):: They have backed up again, just as they backed up when it came to the question of supporting the empire in the last war.


John George Diefenbaker: I do not want to get into a controversy with my hon. friends of the C.C.F. in regard to matters of the imagination, because they are too highly qualified in that field, from their pictures of the new world that they envisage for me to enter into any competition with them.


Angus MacInnis: But when it comes to wrapping the flag around you we cannot qualify.
Canadian Flag


John George Diefenbaker: That is always the answer, of course, when, anyone takes a stand as to the necessity of having the union jack as part of the flag of Canada. The answer of the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mr. Maclnnis) is that we are wrapping the flag around ourselves.


Angus MacInnis: Of course; that is what you are doing. Why don't you leave a corner for somebody else, just a little bit?


John George Diefenbaker: I have listened with rapt attention to my hon. friends of the C.C.F., but now for some reason when I point out the meaning of their speeches the other day-


Percy Ellis Wright: You are not pointing out the meaning; that is the trouble.


James Horace King: Order. I should like to remind hon. gentlemen -that when an hon. member has the floor he may not be interrupted without his permission; and, further, that when an hon. member wishes to speak he must address the Chair. It is impossible for the Speaker to follow what is going on in the house if hon. members do not address the Chair.


John George Diefenbaker: Now', Mr. Speaker, I have said what I intended to say in that regard, and I do not think I will carry that controversy any farther. However, I hope the leader of the C.C.F. party will make his stand clear, because it is impossible for anyone reading his speech intelligently to come to an}' conclusion but that in his speech the other day he meant to imply that as far as his party was concerned it intended to dissociate itself from requiring the union jack to be * on the Canadian flag.
I now pass on to the next portion of the resolution, which has to do with the setting up of a committee to recommend designs. I pointed out this afternoon what happened in South Africa when a similar course was followed. As far as population is concerned South Africa is in a similar position to Canada. The government of that country first set up a committee of the assembly with a view to determining a design. So acrimonious were <he debates in that committee that no report was presented, and the matter was concluded at the end of that session. Then a commission was set up, but for some reason that commission was unable to come to any final or generally acceptable conclusion. Finally the government of that country, under the premiership of General Hertzog, brought in a design for a flag under legislation which was
[Mr. Maclnnis.3
known as the South African nationality and flag bill. What they actually did was to combine a measure analogous to the citizenship bill now before this house with the flag bill. Anyone reading the reports of that committee can only conclude how devastating to national unity in the country were the debates and discussions which took place in the committee. Excepting the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. McCann), other hon. members have received many designs, and in the debate we have heard many different opinions. We heard the opinion of the hon. member for Temis-couata (Mr. Pouliot), which was definite and clear; we heard the opinion of the leader of the C.C.F., which the hon. member for Melfort (Mr. Wright) states was definite, and which I state was far from clear. We on this side have our opinion. There are still others with different opinions.
I ask you, sir, what is going to happen if this matter is submitted to a committee, into which will be channeled and tunneled suggestions and designs from all over the country? In my opinion out of that committee, if ever agreement should come-and for the life of me I cannot see how agreement could ever come- would come, at the best, a bizarre and hybrid design.


Mr. MacNICOL:: A monstrosity, likely.


John George Diefenbaker: Does anyone expect that in that committee there will be a higher degree of unanimity than there is in the house among members in various parts of this chamber? I think General Smuts summed the matter up very well when he said that if the matter were left to a committee there would be difficulties, separation and division, with consequent ill-feeling and that, finally, the committee might 'bring to the -house a flag which would be acceptable to few if any members. On that occasion he said:
If you mutilate flags, you lacerate people's feelings, and in the end you alienate all sympathy from the flag which you establish in that way.
In South Africa the matter was sent to a committee where it was debated for several days. Then it came back to the house of assembly, and the bitterness of debate in that assembly has never been exceeded by that of any debate on any issue in the history of the Canadian House of Commons. Finally, out of all this-first a committee, then a commission, then a committee, then a submission of designs to a committee, and finally a bill submitted to the ass'embly, and -by the assembly resubmitted to the committee-came this result: by statute it is provided, not that -the Union of South

Canadian Flag
Africa should have a flag, but that the Union of South Africa shall have two flags. The statute reads as follows:
The flag of the union shall be
(a)	The union jack to denote the association of the Union with the other members of the group of nations constituting the British commonwealth of nations; and
(b)	The national flag of which the design is set out in section 8.
Then the statute goes on to state how they are to be flown. It states:
The union jack shall be flown with the national flag from the houses of parliament and from the principal government buildings in capitals of the union and of the provinces, at the union ports, and on government offices aoroad, and at such other places in the union as the government may determine.
The result is that South Africa has two official flags flying side by side.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: My hon. friend knows that the union jack is upon the national flag, and that the union jack is flown alongside of it for other purposes.


John George Diefenbaker: True.


Gordon Graydon: You have to have a microscope to see it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The same as in the flag of'the Irish Free State.


John George Diefenbaker: Out of all this
debate the decision was made that the union would have two flags, first., the union jack and second, the national flag mentioned by the minister. The minister has questioned what I have said, but I would remind him that I have quoted from the statutes of South Africa, 1927-28, chapter 2, sections 7 and 8.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I thought the hon. member had left the impression that the,union jack was not on the national flag of South Africa.


John George Diefenbaker: No.


William Earl Rowe: There is everything on it.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: No: it is just the flag of the Orange Free State, and the union jack. I do not suppose the hon. member has ever seen it. [DOT]


John George Diefenbaker: We are not in disagreement on that. The point I make is that there are two flags for South Africa, the first of which is the union jack, and the second of which is the flag mentioned by the minister, namely the so-called national flag of the union, consisting of three horizontal stripes of equal width from top to bottom, orange, white
and blue, and having on the face of the flag a small union jack, the flag of the Orange Free State, and the Transvaal Vierkleur.
In my opinion, if we in this parliament do not wish to have more than one flag, some indication or some instruction should be given to the committee being-set up. They should have some instruction from parliament in session, setting before them the aim and ideal expected )f them. Otherwise, as I said before, out of this committee-provided the necessary majority could be secured for the purpose-might very well come a recommendation for a national flag which would in no way contain the union jack in a prominent place.
The other dav an amendment was moved and, for reasons which vour Honour knows, that amendment was declared ineffective. Since that time I have had an opportunity of studying the amendment proposed in the assembly of South Africa by General Smuts. So that this parliament will be assured that, whatever design is arrived at by the committee, the House of Commons will know that the national flag evolved will have thereon the union jack occupying a prominent place in the upper left-hand corner. I move, seconded by the hon. member for High Park (Air. McMaster) :
That there be added to the end of the first paragraph of the said resolution the following words:
"Any such design to include the union jack in the upper left-hand quarter."
In moving this amendment we are asking for a declaration bv parliament that the committee shall direct itself to the determination of a national flag, subject to direction from the house that we. the members of the House of Commons, without regard to party, wish that committee, in recommending a design for the flag, to follow its direction in one particular, namely, that the union jack will occupy a prominent position on the flag. The committee will still be free to recommend a national flag which will typify Canada and be symbolic of our ideals and our sacrifices and by giving a place of honor to the union jack will be giving a declaration of our determination to remain within and proud to march as a member of the British commonwealth


James Horace King: Last week on the same resolution an amendment was moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes), which I ruled out of order. This is what I said, as reported on page 1953 of Hansard:
Before calling it six o'clock, I should like to give my ruling on the amendment moved by the hon. member for Nanaimo.
Canadian Flag

And later on:
.[DOT]t 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."
The amendment moved to-night is covered by the same standing order 50, which precludes all amendment of the main question, so that I must rule the amendment out of order.


John Bracken: Is it permissible to make any argument before you give your final ruling?


James Horace King: Unfortunately there is a rule which is well known to the house that a ruling of the Speaker is not debatable.


John Bracken: I should have liked to present some argument as to why your ruling might have been different, but since I am not permitted to do that I must appeal from your ruling.


James Horace King: The Speaker having ruled out of order an amendment moved by the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefen-baker), seconded by the hon. member for High Park (Mr. McMaster), the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) appeals from the Speaker's ruling.
The,house divided on the question: Shall the Speaker's decision be sustained? And the decision of the chair was sustained on the following division:
YEAS Messrs:
Arsenault	Dorion
Baker	Douglas
Beaudoin	Dubois
Belzile	Emmerson
Benidickson	Farquhar
Bertrand (Laurier)	Fontaine
Bertrand (Prescott)	Fournier (Hull)
Boivin	Gauthier (Nipissing)
Bonnier	Gauthier (Portneuf)
Bo-urget	Gibson
Bradette	(Comox-Alberni)
Bridges	Gibson
Brown	(Hamilton West)
Cardin	Gladstone
Chevrier	Glen
Clark	Golding
Claxton	Gour (Russell)
Cloutier	Gourd (Chapleau)
Cote (Matapedia-	Grant
Matane)	Halle
Cote (St. Johns-	Hamel
Iberville-Napierville)	Harris (Grey-Bruce)
Cote (Verdun)	Healy
Droll	Ilsley
Cruickshank	Isnor
Dechene	Jean
Denis	Jutras
Dion (Lake St. John-	Kirk
Roberval)	LaCrodx

Lafontaine
Lalonde
Langlois
Lapointe
Laurendeau
Leger
McCann
MeCubbin
McCulloch (Pictou)
Macdonald
(Brantford City) Macdonald (Halifax; McDonald (Pontiac) McGarry Mcjlraith Me Ivor Mackenzie MacLean
McNaught
Maloney
Marier
Marquis
Martin
Maybank
Michaud
Mitchell
Mullins
Adamson
Archibald
Argue
Aylesworth
Barrett
Bentley
Black (Cumberland)
Blaekmore
Blair
Boucher
Bowerman
Bradshaw
Brooks
Bruce
Campbell
Casselman
Castleden
Charlton
Church
Cockeram
Coldwell
Coyle
Diefenbaker
Drope
Fair
Fleming
Gillis
Graydon
Green
Harkness
Hatfield
Henderson
Hlynka
Hodgson
Irvine
Jaques
Kidd
Knight
Knowles
Kuhl
Mutch
Nixon
Parent
Pinard
Pouliot
Raymond (Beauharnois-Laprairie)
Raymond (Wright)
Reid
Richard (Ottawa East)
Rinfret
Robinson
(Simcoe East)
Rose
Ross (Hamilton East)
St. Laurent
Smith (York North)
Stuart (Charlotte)
Tremblay
Tucker
Viau
Warren
Weir
Whitman
Winkler
Winters-103.
++NAYS
Messrs:
Lockhart
McCuaig
McCullough
(Assiniboia)
Macdonnell
(Muskoka-Ontario)
McGregor
Maclnnds
McKay
McLure
McMaster
MacNieol
Matthews
(Kootenay East) Menary Merritt Moore Murphy Probe Quelch
Robinson (Bruce)
Ross (St. Paul's)
Rowe
Senn
Skey
Stanfield
Stewart
(Winnipeg North) Stirling St ikes Thatcher Townley-Smith Tustin Webb
White (Hastings-Peterborough) Wright Wylie
Zaplitny-74.

Canadian Flag
(The list of	PAIRS pairs is furnished by the
whips.) Eudes	Messrs: Massey
Pinard	Stokes
Beaudry	Manross
Brunelle	Homuth
Howe	Desmond
Little	White (Middlesex East) Fraser
Picard


John Bracken: I was paired with' the
Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's decision.


Mr. ROSS (Souris):: I was paired with the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Gardiner). Had
I voted, I would1 have voted against the Speaker's decision.


Mr. BREITHAUPT:: I was paired with
the hon. member for Danforth (Mr. Harris). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's decision.


Mr. HACKETT:: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Antoine-Westmount- (Mr. Abbott). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's decision.


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 decision.
_Mr. JACKMAN:	I was paired with the
hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemount tMr. Fournier). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's decision.


Mr. CARDIFF:: I was paired1 with the hon. member for Chateauguay-Huntingdon (Mr. Black). Had I voted, I would have voted against, the Speaker's decision.


Mr. MAYHEW:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. Pearkes). Had I voted, I would1 have voted to sustain^ the Speaker's decision,


Mr. BRYCE:: I was paired with the hon.
member for Portage la Prairie (Mr. Leader). Bad I voted I would h-ave voted against the Speaker's decision.


Mr. RICHARD (Gloucester):: I was paired with the hon. member for St. Johm-Albert (Mr. Bazen). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's decision.


Mr. JOHNSTON:: I was paired with the
hon. member for Halton (Mr. Cleaver). Had I voted, I would have voted against the Speaker's decision.


Mr. SINCLAIR (Ontario):: I was paired
with the hon. member for Durham (Mr. Stephenson). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's decision.


Mr. McDONALD (Parry Sound1):: I was
paired with the hon. member for Oxford (Mr. Daniel). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's decision.


Mt. LESAGE:: I was paired with the hon. member for Kamloops (Mr. Fulton). Had I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's decision.
Mr. BLANCHETTE':	I was paired with
the hon member for Wentworth (Mr. Lennard.) Bad I voted, I would have voted to sustain the Speaker's decision,
Hon. L. S. ST. LAURENT (Minister of Justice): In spite of the fact that- the hon. member for Lake Centre (Mr. Diefenbaker) indicated a desire to have some expression of opinion or speech from the government, I am not rising at this time to speak in the name of the government. The resolution that is before us is, I submit to you, Mr. Speaker, something which should1 be lifted above the plane of partisan politics. This is not a matter of the government or of the opposition. I submit to you, sir, that it is the desire of a great many hon. members of this house to act as Canadians on this question.
We are not asking the house to choose a flag for a party. We are asking that there be chosen a flag for the Canadian people, a flag of the Canadian nation, and I have more confidence in the members of this house who will be designated to form the committee to select an appropriate design than has been implied in many of the speeches we have heard since this motion was brought forward.
I do not wish to make any odious comparisons, but I do not think what may have happened1 years ago in South Africa is a sufficient rock or shoal to deter this nation from setting out upon the course which appeals to the majority as being the proper one. I had hoped, when the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) completed his speech in support of the resolution, that very little more would be said on this matter at this time. It seemed to me that what he had said fairly represented what I hoped would be the feeling on the matter of the majority of those who are interested in this question. Let me remind hon. members of some of the things which he said. For instance:
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.
Canadian Flag

I do not think any member of this honourable house would quarrel with that statement. The union jack is a symbol which represents much that is best in the heritage of all those who derive their traditions and their culture from western Europe. The three colours of the union jack are the three colours under which the whole of western Europe marched, fought and bled from the crusades onward, and the crosses that are now part of the union jack represent much of what we in Canada, from whatever race we spring, all honour as precious and good in our heritage.
The hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol) pointed out the other day that the white field was the flag carried by William the Conqueror from Normandy to the British isles. The red cross on that white field, the Cross of St. George, was the cross which the English crusaders brought back from an expedition from which I think most of the members of this house derive some pride because of the purpose on which those noble crusaders were bent at that time. That was their way of expressing the ideals prompted by the generous impulses of their nature. And when the Cross of St. Andrew on the blue field reached Scotland it was brought there, according to my recollection of history as I learned it, by members of the Bruce family, also from Normandy; and the Cross of St. Andrew was joined with the Cross of St. George on the same field. The Cros3 of St. Patrick, a white cross-I believe it was originally a golden cross that replaced the harp on the banner of that isle -was joined1 .with the others-the white Cross of St. Patrick with the similar diagonal Cross of St. Andrew with, superimposed upon them, the Cross of St. George.
From what we learned many years ago, the blue was the blue of the mantle of St. Martin, carried for the first time as a relic, a sacred standard to inspire the troops of Clovis and afterwards of Charles the Great. The red had the same religious origin. It was taken from the mantle or tunic of St. Denis. These colours, were the colours associated with the Christian civilization as it developed1 in western Europe.
I do not believe that any of us in this country at this time regard the union jack as oeing a symbol of conquest or a symbol of subjugation. It is under the union jack that the institutions of this Canadian nation have grown and developed and have brought us to the point where now, and for a good many years now, the dominion is and has been an autonomous state subject in no phase of its domestic or of its external affairs to any other

authority than this Canadian parliament.
The minister added:
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 can 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.
The minister did not stop there. Lest there be any possibility of misconstruction of those words he went on to say:
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.
May I interject the hope that this example may be followed by the nations of the world. If it is, I think we shall have reason to be happy and proud of the organization so recently set up. The minister went on:
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 l-onging 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 t-ha-t all other-nations have joined to create a force in their national life, the symbolism of a national flag.
It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, there is nothing in those words with which any hon. member can disagree, and that is all the first part of this resolution asks this house to express:	"That in the opinion of this house it
is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag." I hope that can be unanimously accepted by the members of this house. The resolution then goes on to suggest that a committee of members of this house be appointed to join with members from the other place to choose a proper design for such a flag. The hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Green) cited the other day what had been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) as his own feeling in the matter, and I think the words can well bear repetition:
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.

Canadian Flag
I have not been here very long, but I have been a good many years in Canada; and my experience has been that there are a good many people in Canada who usually share the views of the Prime Minister. It has not been his experience to find himself in any small minority upon Canadian affairs. If a committee is chosen to select a suitable design for a flag that will be a distinctive national flag for Canada, I would be very much surprised and, I may add, disappointed if a.majority of that committee did not have the same feeling about it that the Prime Minister expressed in his declaration to this delegation from the legion.
The purpose for which it is suggested there should be a distinctive national flag is, I think, a laudable one; 'to have a symbol that all Canadians can look upon as distinctively their own, not because they want to discard the union jack, but because the union jack is not distinctively their own and because they feel that their nation has now reached the stature in t'he family of nations that requires it to have something which can be regarded as its own. Whether that would be accomplished by the coat of arms in the fly of the Canadian ensign or whether a single maple leaf in the fly would not be preferable is something which may be debatable. The object of this resolution is not to give instructions to a committee but to select a committee representative of all groups in the house to act with members selected from the other house to choose a suitable design. Of course the coat of arms is distinctively Canadian; but I do not think there are many who do not regard the maple leaf as something typically Canadian, and consideration might very well be given to the question as to whether of not the maple leaf is not something that would be at the same time simple, appealing and distinctively Canadian.
The Minister of Veterans Affairs said to you, Mr. Speaker, that he had ideas of his own about what would be a proper design. So has each of us; but so also have a great many people who are not members of this house. I am told that a great many designs have been prepared by Canadians; good Canadians; Canadians anxious to do something for their country; Canadians anxious to be of some service in having selected and adopted a distinctive symbol that can serve as a rallying point for all Canadians. It seems to me it is not going too far to give those Canadians this little mark of consideration, that at least the work they have done, the sincere desire they have exhibited to produce something, should receive the courtesy of being looked at by the members of the committee, of being passed
upon and some consideration being given to the sincere, patriotic feelings of those who took the trouble to prepare and forward something for submission. I think that would be small thanks to them for the patriotic motives which have prompted them to go to such pains. If I might be permitted, without being regarded as impertinent, I should like to voice here my own thanks to each and everyone who went to the trouble of thinking of this problem, of giving it some consideration and of putting forth something which he, though he may be alone, felt would be of service to his fellow Canadian citizens.
When all that is done I do not anticipate in that committee the acrimonious debates or discussions that have been looked upon as possible. I would imagine the temper of that committee would be pretty much the temper of the Canadian people. The Canadian people can be roused when there aire those who set out to rouse them, but when they are asked to consider calmly what is in their interest and in the interests of their fellow Canadians they usually come to a pretty fair and reasonable conclusion. I remember predictions made even in this house as to what would happen to me when I went back to Quebec East. But I was able to meet the people of Quebec East, and to say to them that had they known what I knew I was convinced that they would have done as I did. And I got a pretty fair response from them. '
So far as I am concerned, on this motion I am prepared to say now that I for one fully share the views expressed by the Prime Minister to this delegation of legionairies, but that I have sufficient confidence in those of my fellows in the house who will be chosen to serve on the committee to allow them to consider the question and to bring in a recommendation. I am not committing myself -as to what I shall do when their recommendation comes in. But at this time I have sufficient advance confidence in, them to feel that they can be trusted to examine the question, and to bring to the house a recommendation which I hope and! trust will have such an appeal for the great majority of Canadians that it can receive the seal of approval of this house, and hereafter serve as the symbol to which the minister referred in these closing words of his speech, as something:
The children of to-day and, let us pray, the children of to-morrow will strive for and gain a new peace, a new freedom and a new security under the protection of the flag of Canada.


Douglas Gooderham Ross: Mr. Speaker, I should like to have the optimism of the
Canadian Flag

oy having our children and our young people mingling together and learning the true history of their country-and I mean the true history-as well as acquiring a real understanding of our parliamentary institutions both here and in Great Britain and the United States and their traditions.
As I said before, our fathers builded this nation under the union jack. I do not think it is any time now to set up a committee to choose a flag while hundreds of thousands of qur men are overseas and while there is a certain amount of hysteria. The whole question should be postponed until we get back to normal. In any event, Mr. Speaker, everyone knows where I stand. If we are to have a new flag the union jack must fly in it in a place of prominence.


Mr. D. A. CROLL (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, I rise for just a few moments to complete the record on a vital point that was made by two members of the house, the hon. member for Kingston City (Mr. Kidd) in an able presentation and the hon. member'.for Grey North (Mr. Case) in a colourful speech. Both made the point that this government did not have a mandate to deal with this question of the flag. I am to-night going to follow the leadership that was given to-day by the leader of the opposition (Mr. Bracken) and use the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) for my text. This is what he had to say in a speech delivered in the city of Winnipeg on a significant day, May 24, 1945, a speech which received wide publicity:
Another of the symbols we lack is a distinctive national flag. We have a flag-a distinctive flag-which has long been used on our merchant ships at sea. It is the flag which is flown at international conferences and over Canadian diplomatic missions abroad. But, what is of the greatest significance for us to-day, it is the flag which our Canadian troops carried into aattle. It is the flag under whose folds great areas of Europe were liberated. That flag is the Canadian Red Ensign.
At my suggestion, the government directed that, in honour of our lighting men, the red ensign should be flown from the Peace Tower of the. parliament buildings at Ottawa from sunrise on V-E day to sunset on the following Sunday which was the day of thanksgiving for victory. That recognition has, I believe, been greatly appreciated throughout Canada.
I recall all this because I believe the time has come when Canada, like Australia, like New Zealand and like South Africa, should have a distinctive national flag. The need for a distinctive flag is all the greater when we reflect that the Canadian troops who are to serve against Japan are to serve with the forces of the United States. They will wish to carry into battle in the orient the flag they have fought under in Europe.
We shall, of course, always honour the union jack as the symbol of the British commonwealth and empire. What Canada's distinctive national flag should be, what its design should be is, I
 '
believe, a matter which the people themselves, through their representatives in parliament should decide. I feel, however, the decision is one that should not be delayed. May I, therefore, say at once that if on June 11, the present government is continued in office, and I am myself still a member of the House of Commons, 1 shall, at the first session of the next parliament, ask parliament to approve and authorize a distinctive Canadian flag.
I need not point out that the election did take place on June 11, with results that are well known to the country and to the members of the house, and in pursuance of that mandate we find this in the speech from the throne, at page 8 of Hansard of September 6, 1945:
My ministers believe that the position attained by our country among the nations of the world, makes it desirable that Canada, like the other nations of the British commonwealth, should possess a distinctive national flag. You will be asked to appoint a select committee of members oi both bouses of parliament to consider a suitable design for a Canadian flag.
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-E day and V-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.
That, Mr. Speaker, is the record.
I should like to say that I belong to the "red duster" school because the union jack has peculiar and important significance to me. I want to preserve it. I want to incorporate it in whatever flag we have, for I remember very well that Canadian men and women served for six solid years under the "red duster," fought under it and died under it, and to-day in plots which are forever Canadian, in Britain, in France, in Belgium, in Holland, in Sicily, in Italy and in North Africa they sleep under it in eternal peace. Along with thousands of mv comrades I want to remember them as I left them in those eventful days and nights when we parted company. I want to recall the plots, the rows of crosses and the inscriptions, the quiet countryside and the flowers and the "red duster" flying overhead, proclaiming to all people that these are Canadians.
To this house may I say: let parliamentarians speak; let committees meet. The deed is done; the decision. I believe, has been made; and in good time that which they wanted will become our decision.


Mr. A. J. BROOKS (Royal):: I feel that it would not be right to take much of the time of the house to-night, particularly after the long debate we have had; in fact there does not seem to be very much left to say.

Canadian Flag
I was much impressed with the speech of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent). We all listen to him with great pleasure when he speaks; and one thing he said which impressed me very much was that a question of this kind should be raised above the level of partisan politics. We on this side of the house agree with that, and we hope that that will be the spirit in which this matter will be discussed, not only here but in committee.
My main object in rising this evening is that a great section of this dominion may have its views expressed, even though in a humble manner, on this important matter. No one has yet spoken from the three little provinces down by the sea, the maritime provinces. Sometimes we feel, I believe with good reason, that we are the forgotten part of Canada.
Another reason why I shall not speak at any great length to-night is that I believe most hon. members are anxious to get on with the programme of this house. I agree with my leader that included in the programme for this session were many things which could well have been left until some other session. I think we should have concentrated at this time upon getting our men back and providing homes for them, upon rehabilitation and reconversion. We could well have left this matter of the flag, which has been delayed so many years, to the next session or even later. That remark applies also to some other legislation' which has been brought before the house. I was much impressed last evening with the suggestion of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), when he said that we should ration our time here; and the thought occurred to me then, as I am sure it must have struck a great many members, that if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rationed bis own time many valuable hours would have been saved. There is, however, a ray of hope that we may get through the session's work before Christmas. That hope arises-I say it with all kindness-because the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is going to 'the old country in a very short time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I appreciate the compliment.


Alfred Johnson Brooks: In speaking of the maritime provinces, it would be well for us in this country to remember a little of the history of Canada. In 1713 the treaty of Utrecht was signed. Under that treaty, from Acadia were constituted the three provinces of New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island, and part of Maine, Labrador and
Newfoundland also came under the union jack. So that we are the first part of Canada which can claim to have been under the union jack, and the part of Canada which has been under it the longest. We should also remember that, some years before confederation was even considered in other parts of Canada, it was in the little island down by the sea-the garden of the gulf, as the hon. member for Queens (Mr. McLure) would say-that the question of confederation of this great country was first conceived. The seed was there sown, and I believe that the great country which Canada is to-day is due to a great extent to the deliberations which were carried on at that time. So that Canada owes much to the maritime provinces.
If I had time I could point out many other matters for which Canada owes a great debt to our maritime provinces. I should particularly like to point out, as was mentioned this evening by one hon. member, that after and during the American war of independence thousand and tens of thousands of peopje in what were then the Thirteen Colonies left that country-for what purpose? That they might live under the union jack. They came to my own province of New Brunswick; and the city of Saint John-what is known as the "loyalist city" and the first incorporated city in British North America-was built by the United Empire Loyalists. So that we have a lot of history back of our relations with Canada and supporting our desire to see the union jack an important feature of our Canadian flag.
I might also point out many other reasons. During the last war no part of Canada gave, in proportion to population, more men to the Canadian forces than did the maritime provinces. The same thing was true in this war. I might also point out what the ports of Halifax and Saint John have done during this war and the last. Further, so far as victory loans are concerned the maritime provinces have done their share and more than their share. I was quite pleased this afternoon to hear the hon. member for Prince Edwards Lennox (Mr. Tustin) boast of what his constituency had done during the last victory loan. It deserves great credit. Last week, I believe, an hon. member mentioned that he thought his constituency was one of the first in Canada to reach its quota. But I would point out that five days after the victory campaign was opened, the county of Charlotte, New Brunswick, not only reached its quota but exceeded it 'by 136 per cent. I understand that to be a record, not only for New Brunswick but for all Canada, and I know that the
Canadian Flag

hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. Stuart), had he had an opportunity, would have mentioned it.
As far as a flag is concerned, I have not been against all change. I feel that we in this country need a distinctive flag; I have felt that for a good many years. I remember that during .the last war I happened to be in London on armistice day, and saw there the flags of New Zealand, Australia and all other parts of the empire; but the flag of Canada was conspicuous by its absence, and I asked a friend of mine, and in so doing, perhaps, betrayed my ignorance, why it was that the Canadian flag was not flying, and was told that we had1 no Canadian flag.
I must say that I was very much surprised the other evening at the remarks of the hon. member for Charlevoix-Saguenay (Mr. Dorion), an hon. gentleman who is usually very fair in his remarks and for whom I have always had a great deal of respect; I am sorry he is not in the house to-night. What he said at that time was, as reported in Hansard, at page 1959:
While assorting 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 ot 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 in the British commonwealth of nations. -
What are we to take from these remarks? Simply this. For all these years we have had the protection of the British flag and have enjoyed protection in the British empire, and the hon. member suggests that it would not be a good time now for us to ask for complete independence. What he means by complete independence I do not know. As the Minister of Justice pointed out, we are an autonomous nation with complete independence. Why should we remain in the British commonwealth of nations only for such length of time as we need its protection and the moment we feel we no longer need that protection sever all connection with that commonwealth?
I noted the remarks of the member for Cartier (Mr. Rose), who is not in his place to-night. I do not think that after the castigation he received this afternoon from the hon. member for Macleod (Mr. Hansell) there is anything further I wish to say except this, that had he been in many another country of this world and under many another flag than the British he might have had a very serious time during these last four or . five years.
[Mr. BrooksJ
The hon. member who has just spoken referred to the graves of Canadian soldiers in different parts of France, Belgium, Holland and England. I remember during the last war when our troops were marching up through Belgium and France the people there showed respect for the union jack, as I am sure they do to-day. It was the flag which had liberated them in 1918 and which helped again to liberate their countries in 1945. I saw in windows, in stores and in houses flags which were made up of pieces of old cloth- anything the people could get hold of to represent the British flag. They also used coloured paper, which was very scarce. At any rate, they showed their respect for the British flag, the flag that had assisted in their liberation.
As was indicated in our amendment a few days ago, the Canadian ensign would be an acceptable flag for this country. The hon. member for Rosetown-Biggar (Mr. Coldwell) said we needed a distinctive flag. As has been pointed out, however, what more distinctive flag is there than the Canadian ensign? It has the Canadian coat of arms, representing every province in the dominion, . and in the corner the union jack, symbolizing the fact that we are a member of the British commonwealth of nations. I think it would be a most distinctive flag.
The Minister of Justice said he would not object to the maple leaf as part of the flag and I do not think there will be any serious objection in Canada. I might refer once more to the graves of our Canadian soldiers and observe that the maple leaf is the emblem which appears on practically all the crosses that mark the resting place of those men who fought and died for this country and for freedom.
May I say in closing, as a member from the maritime provinces-and I do not presume to speak for all the people of the mari-times-I am safe in saying that the great majority of the people of those three provinces would not stand for the union jack not being included as a prominent feature of our flag.


Mr. JOSEPH IRENEE HAMEL (St. Maurice-Lafleelie) (Translation):: Mr. Speaker,
I think it behooves me to say a few words in this debate. I have two reasons for doing so.
First, I heartily congratulate the government for the timely action they have taken in putting on the order of the day this resolution which recognizes the need of a distinctive national flag, for Canada. Such a reform has been embodied in the platform of our movement ever since its inception. It is not because we have requested it that this measure is

Canadian Flag
desirable, but simply because it answers the earnest wishes of an overwhelming majority of the Canadian citizens, whatever their racial origin may be, and in whatever province they may live. That is clearly evidenced by the statements made in this house, during this and former sessions.
The second reason why I deemed it my. duty to speak in this debate arises from speeches delivered in this house last week. During that debate, certain members of the Progressive Conservative and the Social Credit parties have urged that in such a national flag-which some of them seem to accept with reluctance-an honoured place, or the most prominent place, should be given to the union jack, which is the flag of another country. Mr. Speaker, I respect the views expressed here because I expect my opinions to be received similarly. I have for the union jack all the regard and respect due other people's property, but I am deeply convinced that a flag designed according to the formula suggested by the Progressive Conservative or Social Credit members, far from ensuring friendly understanding in our midst, would remove this possibility for generations to come.
Mr. Speaker, an extremely important section of our people believe that a certain group is willing to sacrifice the most sacred national interests on the altar of a hateful type of imperialism. Who could reasonably claim that this concern is without foundation when it is remembered that, on his departure from our shores, Lord R. B. Bennett, a former leader of the Progressive Conservative party, said: ''I am going back home."


Jean-François Pouliot: Because he pays less taxes in England than in Canada.


Mr.   PIAMEL@: In only one way is it possible to kill at one stroke the mutual suspicion of various groups of Canadians; it is to offer them as a common emblem a flag bearing neither the union jack nor the fleur-de-lis-to which I must confess to some attachment-since, for us Canadians, these two symbols recall days . of obsolete colonialism.
I do not believe, Mr. Speaker, that this house is the proper place to discuss the design of the flag, since we are asked to name a committee for that very purpose. However,
I deem it my duty respectfully to submit to the members of the house that we are wasting our time if, in support of the union jack, we claim as precedents the cases of Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. The conditions in these countries when the matter was under discussion were entirely different 47696-133
from our own. Indeed, the Australians of British extraction make up 99 per cent of the total population of their country; in Canada, it is less than 50 per cent, while the English proper make up only 25-80 per cent and the French element 30 per cent.
In this debate, we must not make the mistake of identifying the union jack with Christianity.* France is a Christian country, as are Belgium and the United States; yet, none of these countries fly the union jack.
May I say, Mr. Speaker, that even though I object to our featuring the union jack on the flag, I consider myself Christian and Catholic and fully intend to remain so.
In addition to being extremely unfair, this argument if pursued may endanger the prestige of parliament since it will bring to light a discrepancy between its words and actions. Indeed, Mr. Speaker, it is risky to call upon our Christian feelings in support of the union jack while keeping at the head of certain departments men who publicly proclaim that the distinction between good and evil is but a myth conceived by priests and politicians.
Speaking not as a French Canadian but as a Canadian, I ask that the.union jack be not featured on our flag.
To show that I am not alone in thinking thus, I will quote before the house the opinion expressed by John S. Ewart, an Englishman:
The _ union jack .	.	. symbolizes British
sovereignty. When that sovereignty ceases in any dominion-that is, when the dominion itself becomes a sovereign state-further appearance of the union jack would be an anachronism and, indeed, a contradiction.
Mr. Chairman, I am speaking on behalf of the generations who have lived in this country in the past and who will live here in future, on behalf of the generation of those under forty, and I say this: the finest trophy which this parliament can offer to the genera^-tion who have suffered the most from the war which has just ended, would be to present them with an exclusively Canadian flag, devoid -of anything which, in the past, has so frequently and so tragically contributed to divide us.
(Text).


Arthur Leroy Smith: May I assure you at the outset, Mr. Speaker, that I intend to trespass upon your time and the time of this house for a matter of only five or six minutes, for I am speaking quite extemporaneously. I am moved to do so by what I thought was the very fine speech this evening of the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent); and I would include also within the purview of my compliment the minister who moved the resolution. To my sorrow and perhaps my shame I was unable to find

Canadian Flag

out which side the hon. member who has just spoken was on, but no matter which side he was on I am still in favour of the resolution.
I would mention only one thing to this house, and it is this. In dealing with this question of the flag I wonder if we really conceive how far that goes. I have in mind the question of Canadian unity. It is very easy to dodge serious questions, but we gain nothing by running away from them. We all know we have had racial difficulties, and I intend to make a suggestion. I have no acrimony; I have no criticism to offer of anyone, but I think I have a constructive suggestion to make to this parliament. I had occasion to make a speech in Ottawa in 1938 I am inclined to think it was at a political convention, because I have been doing that for some time, although, in passing, I may say without very great success. On that occasion I said, and I now repeat, that it would be a sorry day for this country if the pages of our history which record the wonderful things done by the French people were ever torn out. I said that then: I meant it then, and I mean it now'. So that I am offering this broad suggestion to the house. There is onlv one way to cure this schism, this rift in our national life: that is, by all hon. members resolving something like this: That bygones are bygones. Let us not remember what somebody said in 1867 or 1877 or 1887. or anything like that. Let us take a look at this country of ours; let us be forward-looking. Therefore my suggestion is a horizontal cut-off, with no acrimony. Let us all be Canadians at heart.
I know this parliament is dealing with serious problems. We have the business of jobs; we have the business of housing, and so on; but in the long view we have nothing quite as important as the unity of the Canadian people. Jobs will be found; houses will be found, but we all have to live together for a long, long time. So that it seems to me this new parliament is in a unique position to do something. My thought is this, and I will put it in a sentence or two and leave it. We have got ourselves into a bad wav. I am not suggesting for a* moment that the faults are all on one side, because I know they are not. We have all failed; but for that reason, if for no better one, let us all resolve to do one thing. In this new parliament, with a new flag to lead us, let us begin that long and hard climb-because it will be a long and hard climb-and through the difficulties we meet and surmount as one people some day we shall reach the crest of that hill and see a new Canada, view the sunrise of a new day over

a shining, happy and prosperous land, with a people who believe in tolerance because only from tolerance comes understanding.
May I say, in closing, that as far as I am concerned, and I am sure many here will join me, I can put my position in a few words, and I use the language of San Francisco. I say that in this, to me our major undertaking, this parliament must not fail. Yea, more; in this undertaking this parliament dare not fail.


Mr. PIERRE GAUTHIER (Portneuf):: Mr. Speaker, at this time I am not rising in my place to criticize the government. I wish to say just a few words about what is going on in connection with this flag issue.
Let it be understood by every hon. member that when I ask, as a member of parliament, that the house choose a flag absolutely Canadian and distinctive it is not because I am against the union jack, or any other design. Rather it is because I believe that the union jack represents another country-and that is all. I am not fighting against the union jack.
I am of French descent; yet I do not ask for the fleur-de-lis. I am asking for Canadian things. I find inspiration enough in the vast prairies of the west, in my magnificent St. Lawrence river, in the great lakes, in my Laurentides, or in the rocky mountains-in everything that is Canadian-to translate that inspiration into a flag absolutely distinct from that of any other nation. That is what I am fighting for: that is what I shall be fighting for, to the end.
Much has been said about the red ensign and about the union jack. Some have said that this was not the. proper time for the sponsoring of this resolution iby the government. Certainly, if there ever were a proper time to bring this flag issue before parliament, it is the period following the magnificent effort of Canada, the period following, as Mr. Churchill said, the amazing effort of Canada during the war. Canada must be proud enough, and all Canadians must know and believe that we are strong enough and self-conscious enough to believe and to think it is time for us to have a real, and distinctive flag.
Why all the talk about the union jack on our flag? That is the flag of the United Kingdom; it is not ours. I repeat that we do not talk about the fleur-de-lis.
If hon. members are content to listen a little longer, I would have Mr. Robert D. Mac-Lachlan of Victoria, British Columbia, speak for me. This is what he says:
At first, little if any, official attention was paid to it. However, all the while Canada was becoming more and more aware of herself. What she did and what she said finally turned the

Canadian Flag
spotlight of international surprise and admiration upon her, and at last she realized she had grown up.
Well, if we have grown up it is time for us to have a distinctive flag. He continues:
As a colony under the supreme authority and jurisdiction, of the imperial parliament, Canada's flag became the union jack (union flag). On land the union jack was flown over public buildings, and Canadian ships flew the British red ensign. However, it became necessary to make a distinction between the ships registered in Great Britain and. those registered in Canada, and the lords commissioners of the British admiralty in 1892 created a Canadian ensign which was simply a British red ensign with the Canadian coat-of-arms on the "fly". This new design proclaimed to the world that any ship flying it was a British ship registered in Canada, and sailing under the authority of the British parliament and subject to its marine laws.	.
Some have said that New Zealand has her own flag. Mr. Ewart of Ottawa who, I believe, is an authority in these matters, says this:
It is often said that New Zealand and Australia have their own national flags but this is net true. The statute of New Zealand (No. 71 of 1901) adopting its flag states: "The said ensign shall be the recognized flag of the colony-
Not of the nation.
-for general use on shore within the colony and on all vessels belonging to the colony of New Zealand or which are from time to time permitted under an admiralty warrant to use the same.
New Zealand has a colonial flag.
Someone suggested this afternoon that, to preserve unity, and to make a compromise, we should have the union jack. Is that a compromise? Do we ask for a fleur-de-lis?-and we are of French descent. You want Canada to remember that some of you are of English descent. To have that you are asking that we keep the union jack. Are we asking for the fleur-de-lis? No; we are asking for a Canadian flag.
I repeat that you should find enough inspiration in Canadian things to believe that Canada is large enough, important enough, and self-conscious enough to have her own flag, and not the flag of any other country in the world. That is what we are asking for and that is what we are going to fight for, to the end.
I hope the committee to be set up will choose a real and distinctive Canadian flag. I shall not say more, because I do not wish to prolong the debate unduly. I hope that, all being Canadians, we shall think as Canadians, and that we shall be proud enough to choose a Canadian and a distinctive flag.
I finish by saying that I hope the maple leaf will appear in a prominent place on the flag of Canada. I would refer to that song where 47696-133i
it says that we read in the maple leaf the glorious pa9t of England, that we read the admirable past of France. In Canada we love and cherish both.
Mr. JOHN T. HACKETT (Stanstead): Mr. Speaker, the diversity of opinion which has found expression in the house shows that the question under debate is not one of easy solution. On the other hand, the candour and courage with which these varying opinions have been put forward lead us to believe that the result of our deliberations will be a flag satisfactory to the entire population.
Three questions are raised by this resolution. The first is: is Canada to have a distinctive national flag? It is not necessary to deal with that because every one who has spoken has expressed the view for one reason o: another that it is fitting that Canada should have a distinctive national flag. The second is: is the time opportune? It seems to me it is very opportune. I am not of those who feel that our identity has been entirely blurred in the past by the fact that we had not a distinctive flag. I doubt very much if we have been confused either with our neighbours to the south, the Americans, with the people in the old land, with the Mexicans or with the people of any other nation in the concert of nations.
It is suggested that this is the proper time, and I am inclined to acquiesce in that suggestion. I think it is a very proper time because the role that Canada is being called upon to play in the international field, the expansion of our activities to many foreign lands, the establishment of legations and ministries and the like make it well that our identity should be clearly evident.
In approaching the third question, I think it might have been' better had the genius who presides over elections made a somewhat different distribution of the membership of the house. We find that all members, with seven exceptions besides myself, from my province are sitting with the government. Some may consider that a fortunate thing. In my appreciation it is unfortunate that the members of an ethnological group should find themselves all together in one political party. I say that is unfortunate, not because they are on the other side-that is a matter for them to choose-but because, did we have a certain number of that group in the party to which I belong, we would have the benefit of their counsel, the benefit of their wisdom, the benefit of their experience and consequently a better appreciation of the whole Canadian point of view.
Canadian Flag

My utterance is not made from a partisan point of view. We are dealing with a great Canadian issue, an issue that is particularly difficult to deal with because it goes into the inner life of each individual. To talk of the flag in measured language is extremely difficult because the flag is a symbol. It represents that which is personal to each citizen, to each subject, and it depicts in a way his idea of everything that is glorious in the past of his country and everything that is to be striven for in the future of his country.
It should be the attempt of this committee, when this resolution is referred to it, to find a design that will give expression to the sentiments of the whole Canadian people. The hon. member for Portneuf (Mr. Gauthier), who has just taken his seat, has told us his ideas. Other members have told us theirs. It is probably impossible for everyone to have exactly what he wants. The purpose or the function of parliament is to enable men to meet and hammer out their differences and find a common denominator of good will.
If the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) will permit, I will say that I thought he stated the question fairly and on a high level. He has told us candidly his personal views, his preferences and his reasons for advancing them. I for one am willing to accept his statement as the statement of an honourable and courageous gentleman. I believe that with those judicial faculties which are so highly developed in him he will be able to bring to bear upon the finding of the committee an appreciation of what is fitting and what is possible in the circumstances.
I was greatly taken the other day with one word that was uttered; by the hon. member for Nanaimo (Mr. PearkesL He said that Canada was a nation and that a nation is a soul, a spiritual principle. To me that means two things, two things which in reality are one. The soul of a nation rests in the past as well as in the present. It is represented by a rich legacy, a rich heritage of memories from the past, and a consent, a desire even to live together in the present and' to cause that heritage recevied from the past to flourish and develop.
To have done great things together in the past, to wish to do greater things in the future seems to me to be the basis upon which must rest any idea of nationhood. Canada has achieved that greatness and to-day the eyes of the world are on Canada, not because of the extent of her territory, not because of the mileage of her railways, not because of the wealth of her mines, not even,

and we stand in awe before it, because of the bravery and sacrifice of her fighting men. The glory of Canada, Mr. Speaker, is that there has been found here a formula under which people of different origins, of different outlook and different aspirations, are able to live together in mutual respect, mutual confidence, mutual amity and1 charity. I hope that out of the committee will come a flag emblematic of that achievement, one to which the children of every citizen, whatever his background, will lift their eyes in reverence and' thanksgiving and believe that they are looking upon a banner which stands for everything of which their ancestry can be proud, no matter whence they came, and for everything for which they may hope for the prosperity and usefulness of Canada.


Jean-François Pouliot: Mr. Speaker, as I look at the motion before the house, I see that it bears the date of November 8, and to-day is November 13. This subject was mentioned in the speech from the throne, and there is no reason why the government should have waited so long to bring it before the house.
For me the question is obvious. If the committee is to meet just to ratify the choice already made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the government, I wonder why the members of the committee should waste their time in sitting and looking at designs. If the thing is cooked now, why argue about the appointment of a committee? if the matter is decided, it is finished. That is my point of view. The members of the committee should be free to choose anything, and there should be no outside interference, no attempt to impose any choice upon them.
I have nothing against the union jack. I said that the other day and I repeat it to-day. In my humble view this country has not reached the stage where we should have a distinctive national flag such as is mentioned in this motion. We have not reached that time yet. We should keep the union jack, not because it is the flag of another country but because it is a flag which is the emblem of the colonialism of a certain number of Canadians in public life. They are colonials. That is why they should keep the emblem of the empire. The imperialists have no country. They are citizens without a country. Their country is the empire. They are fellow citizens of the Chinese of Asia and of the negroes of middle Africa. They are their fellow citizens. When we talk of Canada everybody is surprised. They ask: What country is it? Is it a country that is located somewhere in the sky or in another planet? The imperial-

Canadian Flag
ists are citizens of the empire; they have no country at all. The Englishman who has his domicile in the United Kingdom has a country. He has his own country, which is the United Kingdom, but the colonials who live in a colony, in a dominion like Canada, Australia, New Zealand or South Africa or any other colony pompously called a dominion, are just colonials and inferior to the British citizen who is proud of his country, the United Kingdom.
Just a moment ago I spoke of Mr. Bennett who was going home to Great Britain for a very good reason, because taxes are lighter there than in this country. He was going home to pay less money.


An hon. MEMBER:: Shame.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, it was a shame.


Mr. JACKMAN:: The shame is not on the gentleman whom the hon. member mentioned but was directed to the statement he made.


Jean-François Pouliot: I would ask the hon. gentleman to withdraw what he has just said. I said nothing shameful, and I want him to withdraw the imputation that he has made that I said something shameful. I ask for your ruling. Mr. Speaker. I will teach him to listen and keep quiet.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: I rise to a question of privilege, -Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman said that a former leader -of the party to which I belong left this country and went to another country because the taxes are lower there. I believe that to be a misstatement and I think it is shameful to suggest such a thing in this house.


Jean-François Pouliot: I want the hon. gentleman to withdraw at once what he has said. It is an imputation on me that I have said something shameful and I want him to withdraw it, on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


James Horace King: On the point of order raised by the hon. member for Temiscouata it is difficult sometimes for the Speaker to decide whether an expression or a word is unparliamentary according to the rules of the house, as the hon. member may see in Beauchesne's, second edition, citation 292, page 94. It is not easy for the Speaker to ask an hon. member to withdraw an expression when he is not sure that it is unparliamentary. In this case, however, I do not think there is any point of order.


Jean-François Pouliot: If you will look at the rules, Mr. Speaker, you will see that any language that is offensive to a member is uhparliamentary. I will say that the behaviour
of the hon. member for Rosedale has been shameful from beginning to end, true to his colours; that is all, and I am not to withdraw that. I remember how grossly insulted were the French Canadians by a man called Newton Wesley Rowell in this house, and I am not surprised that the hon. gentleman is rising to protest against what I have said about R. B. Bennett because he is of the same class.


Harry Rutherford Jackman: Thank you very much.
I am honoured.


Jean-François Pouliot: I am paying him no compliment. I remember very well the day I said to Mr. Bennett when he was Prime Minister, and I was sitting in the corner there, that Mr. Rowell was living on the fat of the land, and he said: "You bet."


James Horace King: Order. I call the attention of the hon. gentleman to the motion, which has to do with a distinctive national flag.


Jean-François Pouliot: Yes, sir. I think this country expects the government to be honest with the people, and if we are to have a distinctive national flag we should have a really distinctive national flag without the flag of any other country on it. It is not at all because I am opposed to the union jack that I say that. I want to make myself clear to all the jingoes, the obtuse jingoes that we may find anywhere in this country, all those who are refractory to common sense. I tell them that so long as the flag matter is discussed with passion and sentiment it will be impossible to reach a common agreement about it.
Of course the union jack is a fine flag. It is the flag which this country should keep so long as some public men are guided by imperialism. So long as the interests of this country are not considered before those of any other country we shall have the union jack as our national flag. I say here what I have said and written elsewhere: if this country is not ripe to have her own flag let us stay as wTe are and let us keep the emblem we deserve, the emblem of colonial status; but let us not talk any more about the statute of Westminster, the autonomy of Canada and, the rank Canada has among the nations. Although I was indignant about it, Canada was called the leader of the small nations. Imagine Canada, that great country, the greatest country in the world, being the leader of the dwarf countries of the world! After what Canada has done it seems incredible. Afterwards the rank of Canada was raised' to that of a middle .country, but not yet a great country. The
Canadian Flag

great countries are those which call Canada a small country, who decide that that is wthat we are, and afterwards come to us for help.
What do we owe to the British empire in this war?


An hon. MEMBER:: Your freedom.
Mr. POU'LIOT: All right, ibut England owes her life to Canada and to Canadian soldiers. As Mr. Churchill and Sir John Dill have said, the only ones to defend the United Kingdom in the earlier days were the Canadian soldiers; they were the first ones to arrive. Therefore, if we owe our liberty to Great Britain, Great Britain owes her life to Canada. Let that not be forgotten.
Besides that, although it is impossible to get help for the .poor of our country we are supposed to look after those of all other countries of the world. That is the sentiment which is commonly expressed. What I deeply regret, sir, is that that noble feeling which is called patriotism is being destroyed by a new feeling which is being imposed upon us by those who have no country. It is internationalism. Internationalism is killing patriotism; and if I want a new flag, a distinctive national emblem, as it is described in the resolution, it is because I hope that parliament will decide once and for all that this country must be considered in the first place, will pass an act which is truly Canadian, and which will mean that in future Canadian public men will consider the interests of Canada before those of any other country. If we are not ready to do that, well, as has been said, let us keep the union jack. Let us be frank and sincere; let us be honest with the people. Let us keep the union jack as it is, not a minimized union jack, not a small union jack such as appears in the flag of South Africa. Let us keep the big union jack so that people will know that Canada is only a colony which makes her ''Tit-Jean Levesque" when she speaks of her importance among the nations of the world. Let us be sincere and frank about it, not hypocrites.


Mr. G. RUSSELL BOUCHER (Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I feel called upon to rise at this time to express the opinion not only of myself but of the people I represent, in saying to the members of this house that before any country adopts a flag to represent the aims, ambitions, hopes and aspirations of its people, there should be a preponderant majority in favour of that particular flag. I do not believe that we should call upon our people to look upon a flag as representing our country unless they do so with love, with pride,, yes, even with worshipful thought and meditation and profound respect.

The debates so far carried' on v in this house upon this issue do not indicate the presence of any concerted desire for one definite flag which would exemplify to a sufficient degree the feelings, the faith and the loyalty of our Canadian people. I believe that before any flag is chosen for any country it should represent the large majority of its people and embody their desires for a flag.
We have heard the viewpoints expressed here by various hon. members. Some feel that we should not supersede or in any way change the union jack as our national flag as well as the flag of our empire. Others say that the union jack should form no part of a distinctive Canadian flag. Some urge that it should constitute a prominent part of such a flag. In any event, enough has been said to indicate a very wide diversity of opinion.
Let us stop and think if this is a proper time to encourage such diversity of opinion or allow it to be accentuated in a country . which has just emerged from, a very serious war and is facing a very grave situation, and even to-night is confronted with the great strike at Windsor which is of much concern to the whole nation, and even to those beyond its borders.
Remember that our boys are still overseas, still protecting the privileges we have gained in winning the war. Let us realize that they are not home to express their views as to what kind of Canadian flag we should have.
I do not believe we shall be doing something which will inure to the unity of Canada if we attempt to put before the people a flag which does not receive the considered and almost unanimous support of the country.
I appeal to hon. members to realize that a flag, to represent Canada and all Canadians, should conform' to the ideals, hopes, ambitions and philosophy of Canadians. Let us not throw this issue into the troublesome pot now boiling over in a world which is war-torn and a nation which has still to meet difficult tasks of rehabilitation, reconstruction, social and economic reforms, and in which national unity must be established if she is to carry on the great work and occupy the great place ' in the world to which she is called.
Speaking for myself, I have not had one individual come to me and ask me to demand a Canadian national flag which shall be distinctive and different from all other flags. I have had many come to me and say, "Let us hold together; let us make progress socially; let us consider the emblem of our unity after we have gained happiness, comfort, unity and strength at home."

Canadian Flag
May I urge the members of this house to defer to some other occasion the consideration of any question that "would create difficulty or schism or ill will in these troublous days. Let us not forget that if we do send this matter to a committee that committee will consider many designs, many proposals for a new flag, and that there will perhaps be many bitter words and many thoughts expressed which may have a disintegrating effect upon our country. Then the committee will report back and the same thing will happen in this house. Perhaps to-morrow or the next day the country will be torn by a strike, or perhaps we shall find something, either in international affairs or in our own national affairs, calling for our attention, a great deal more than a distinctive Canadian national flag does.
I urge hon. members to think well before carrying on this debate to the point where we refer the matter to a committee, giving rise to still another debate in this house on the same issue. Let us postpone the question until the day when public opinion has consolidated itself into a common thought for a common design for a Canadian flag which we shall all be proud of and which we shall look upon with esteem and high regard, with reverence, yes. and even with worship. That is the kind of flag that we want, and we do not want to change the flag we have now until we have such a flag.


William Earl Rowe: I
have listened to-night, Mr. Speaker, to the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent) in his cautious and careful presentation of his point of view.


Mr. BERTRAND (Prescott):: Why cautious?


William Earl Rowe: He is always cautious; and so is my hon. friend. It is not to the minister's discredit to say that he is cautious and dignified, as is my hon. friend the member for Prescott. Surely there is no issue there. I have listened with just as keen interest to the remarks which have been made by other hon. members. I listened carefully to the hon. member for Temiscouata (Mr. Pouliot) and, while in some respects he and I have not been in agreement in the last twenty years, to-night I find myself more closely in agreement with him than I have been for some time. The hon. member said that he would prefer to leave the union jack as it is. Personally I would have no objection to leaving it as it is, although not for the same reason. I do not assume that I am colonial or that Canada, the greatest dominion in the British commonwealth of nations, is colonial. But I agree with the Minister of Justice when he says that this is an important issue and one that far transcends partisanship on either side of the house. I
have listened in this house for some years to expressions of a desire on the part of various members for a new, distinctive Canadian flag and I have seen, as you have, Mr. Speaker, some strange-coloured contraptions that were intended to represent the national character of this great young dominion.
A huncfred thousand young men have died for the flag that we have flown. Whether the Canadian ensign should have flown over these buildings I am not prepared to say. Whether that had the authority of parliament or not is a question I am not discussing. I am not so much concerned about the exact colour of the flag, but I submit that we should all be concerned at this time with what that flag represents. On other occasions private members have brought in resolutions proposing a new flag. A former member for North Battleford some years ago brought in a resolution for a distinctive flag and other private members have introduced the subject. But the government of the day, in their speech from the throne, have on this occasion brought forward the proposal for a distinctive national flag, and it is passing strange to-night to find that the senior member of the cabinet, the Minister of Justice, says that he speaks only for himself. Is there no one who can rise and speak for the government? Will my hon. friend the minister representing Vancouver Centre (Mr. Mackenzie) rise and speak for the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have already done so.


William Earl Rowe: The hon. gentleman often does, but he is not taken seriously. He has not told us, and the Minister of Justice was most cautious and careful to say that he was not speaking for the government, Will the Minister of Finance (Mr. Ilsley) who acts as Prime Minister in the absence of the Prime Minister of Canada, rise in his place now, before eleven o'clock, and tell us that it is the government's policy to recommend to a committee that any flag which is proposed for adoption will have the union jack in a most prominent place on it? Will he rise and say so? Where is this cabinet of yesterday, which was so strong in assuming responsibilities that it almost had the air of autocracy? Not one member of that cabinet will rise and speak for the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: The hon. gentleman has not read the debates. He was not here.


William Earl Rowe: Will the hon. gentleman speak for the government?


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: I have already done so. My hon. friend did not show the house the courtesy of being present.
Canadian Flag


William Earl Rowe: Mr. Speaker, I show this house just as much courtesy as the hon. member for Vancouver Centre, and I would ask him, if he wishes to show the same courtesy now, to tell us whether any colleague of his will rise and speak for the government.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: Read our speeches.


William Earl Rowe: I have read your speeches for a number of years. I was here before you were and I shall. probably be here after. This issue is important.


Ian Alistair Mackenzie: You will be here, and on the same side as you are now.


William Earl Rowe: May I say to those hon. gentlemen who would flirt with independence to the extent that Canada should now, when the war is over, place herself in a position of isolationism, that this country's greatness in the world is measured by the part she plays in the partnership of the British commonwealth of nations. Therefore T would say that when we decide upon the question of a national flag, and what that distinctive national flag shall be, the government should assume the responsibility, seeing especially that we are the senior dominion in the British commonwealth of nations. Let me say to those who speak of a distinctive Canadianism that I am as .proud of my Canadianism as any member of this house is of his own. and I am just as proud of Canada's achievements in this war, of Canada's place in the sun, and especially of her place in the British commonwealth of nations. I would point out to hon. members, however, that this great maritime nation should now be acting as mediator between the great regional power to the south of us and the great power of Russia in the future, and this country has a place of prominence, not in any colonial sense, but as the senior member of the British commonwealth. For these reasons, I repeat, the government should assume the responsibility in this matter. It being eleven o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I would move the adjournment of the debate.
Motion agreed to and debate adjourned.


[Stage Direction]
At eleven o'clock the house adjourned, without question put, pursuant to standing order.
Wednesday, November 14, 1945.