1. Presumably this refers to officers' and transients' quarters. This building cost $21,697.50.

2. .This building was constructed to provide accommodation for United States and Canadian government officials and senior officers, as hotel accommodation in Whitehorse was very limited. It is being occupied by the commanding officer of the station, and has several rooms available for transient government officials and officers..

1. Has the commissioner of the Combines Investigation Act made an investigation of international cartels as they affect Canada?

2. Has the report been submitted to the government ?

Mr. ST. LAURENT: The answer to 'both branches of the question is yes, and with the permission of the house I should like to table a copy of the report in question and. to state that instructions have been given to have it translated and printed. As soon as that is done a copy will be mailed to each member of the house.

1. What are the estimated amounts collected during each of the two 6scal years last past by the government of Canada in war exchange tax on beer and liquor imported to Canada and the estimated amount collected by said government during the same period on sales tax on domestic sales?

2. If the records of the Department of Trade and Commerce are kept in such a way that the above information is unknown to it. from what source can the information be obtained?

That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada posses a distinctive national flag and that a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag;

That standing order 65 of the House of Commons be suspended in relation thereto;

That the said committee have power to send for persons, .papers and records to aid iij the discharge of its functions; and

That a message be sent to the Senate to inform their honours that the House of Commons has appointed this committee and to request their honours to appoint members of the Senate to act thereon with the members of the House of Commons as a joint committee of both houses.

He said: Mr. Speaker, in moving on behalf of the Pj-ime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) the resolution standing in his name to set up a joint committee of the two houses of parliament to consider and report upon a suitable design for a distinctive national flag, I wish to inform the house that several weeks ago, when the government was more optimistic about the progress which would be made in the proceedings of the house, I asked my colleague the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie)

Canadian Flag

if he would be prepared to proceed with this resolution during my absence on the victory loan tour. The minister has been ready since that time to proceed with the motion, and he will now speak on behalf of the government.

Hon. IAN A. MACKENZIE (Minister of Veterans Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to submit for the consideration of this house the resolution that stands on the order paper in the name of the Prime Minister.

This house will recall that similar resolutions from private members were moved here by members of previous parliaments, not by members of the government, but by private members of this house.

I recall this afternoon the repeated efforts of the former member -for North Battleford, Cameron McIntosh, to bring this issue to the attention of previous parliaments, and on one occasion a resolution along similar lines moved by a former Conservative member for Nanaimo, Mr. Dickie, who was highly respected in this house.

In the discussions of previous days there were very valuable contributions made, notably by the hon. member for Davenport (Mr. MacNicol), by the former member for Kin-dersley, Mr. Elliott, by the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, now Lord Bennett, and by the present Prime Minister.

There have been suggestions by some persons that this is not an important matter, and that it should not be brought forward at this time. With this I emphatically disagree. In the life of every nation symbols are important, and perhaps the most important of these is a national flag. We need only to think of the vast affection and loyalty that has attached to the union jack in Britain and throughout the commonwealth, and I yield to no one in this house in my admiration for that great symbol of empire. In the same way, for our neighbours to the south the stars and stripes have been an inspiration to national unity and national endeavour. We in Canada have shared the union jack, and we shall always honour it as the symbol of much that is best and most precious in our heritage; but we have had nothing that has been peculiarly and indisputably our own, that would symbolize Canada-all of Canada and everyone in Canada. There should be something that all cam see and look to with pride, as the symbol of this great nation of ours, to which affection and loyalty can attach, and which can become the sign of the unity and purpose that will make Canada great.

In advocating that Canada have a flag of its own, we are not suggesting that a narrow nationalism become our goal. Far from it. We are not turning our backs on the British

commonwealth; far from it. We are not drawing away from the new international community of the united nations; far from it. It is the firm intention of the government, and of everyone in Canada, that we shall continue to play our part in the British commonwealth, an association of nations that has been an example to the world. It is equally our intention that Canada shall be a strong and unselfish voice, and a courageous and active member in the united nations; that is our hope for future peace. All of that is ' our purpose. In our laudable longing to have a national flag we are only seeking to give to the spirit of Canada, to the enthusiasm of our people and to the sacrifice of our men in two terrible wars, the symbolism that all other nations have joined to create a force in their national life, the symbolism of a national flag.

There are, however, definite practical disadvantages in not having a distinctive Canadian flag. There is the necessity for a Canadian flag on the buildings of our ambassadors, ministers and high commissioners in other lands. At present the Canadian red ensign flies from them, the same flag that now flies from the peace tower here. But it has never been adopted as a national flag although it has become recognized generally as distinctive of Canada, and there is much confusion concerning its use.

On our war memorials in France, Belgium, Great Britain, and other countries where the flags of the allied nations have been enshrined, there is no distinctive flag to commemorate the Canadians whose sacrifice is honoured there.

' A distinguished Canadian correspondent-I believe he is with us here-visited the cathedral at Amiens, where the memory is honoured of Canadians who stemmed the onrush of the Germans in 1918. He described in the following words the reaction of a leading citizen of Amiens who was his guide:

He led the way -around the altar to where on one side of the lady chapel were hung the flags of those countries whose soldiers had stood between Amiens and the invader. He went on to explain that there was no flag for Canada and the people of Amiens deeply regretted this was so. Canada, alone, was missing. But it was not their fault. They had tried to obtain the Canadian flag. They had taken the matter up with the government at Paris and had been told that there was no Canadian flag.

It would not be right, he said, to hang a second British flag. He felt and his fellow townsmen felt that this would be unworthy of Canada and, in any case, would be meaningless -since one British flag was there already. If the writer could assure him that there had been any change in this situation, the city of Amiens would write to Paris immediately.

Canadian Flag

Unfortunately no assurances could be given. It did not seem right that the Canadian boys, of all who fell in the battle of Amiens, should not be remembered in this ancient and holy place.

Canada is to-day as a nation taking her just place in the forefront at international conferences. When both the United Kingdom and Canada are represented it would be misleading if there were not some distinctive flag to identify the Canadian delegation.

The delegations from Great Britain might have every reason to resent Canada appropriating the flag which is their distinctive emblem. Other countries of the commonwealth do not so presume.

Then again, we all recall the confusion and embarrassment at the Olympic games in 1928, when there was no Canadian flag to go to the masthead to honour Canadian victories, although our glorious athletes frequently came-in first in the competitive games in that great event.

Our Canadian defence forces have had more than one occasion in our time to serve abroad alongside other British forces. It seems only appropriate that the banners at their camps and quarters and under which they march should betoken t'heir Canadian origin.

Furthermore, the use of the union jack as the Canadian flag gives a mistaken impression abroad, especially in the United States, where, if we are to discharge our historic function as interpreter, it is of real importance to emphasize that Canada speaks with her own voice.

Other reasons too could be cited for the importance of this matter, and other instances of difficulty and embarrassment through the lack of a distinctive national flag. If the matter is, then, important, is this a proper time to bring it. up? I think it is. The war has brought Canada to a new peak of international importance, to a new recognition in the eyes of the world. We are regarded as a nation, and a powerful nation, and we are expected to have the attributes of one. A national flag is one of thesq. Moreover, after Canada's great part in this war, after the solidarity of the commonwealth that was demonstrated in the face of peril and attack, none can misunderstand our action, none can think that this is a symbol to withdrawal and isolation. In the debate on this question in -1938 our present Prime Minister concluded with, a cogent argument, which if it was effective then, is ten times more pointed now- an argument, too, as we can now see, which was pungent in its prophecy. Let me quote his words:

There has never been a time, I believe, when the relations between Canada and the mother country were so cordial, so completely friendly,

fMr. Mackenzie.]

helpful and cooperative in every way as they are at the present time. The present is the time, then, to consider this question. It will not be disposed of, in my opinion, until it is settled in Canada as it has been in the other dominions. If we do not settle it now, some issue may arise in the course of a few years which will provoke another discussion and lead to the settlement of the question in a manner that may be misunderstood elsewhere. To-day there is no possible danger of misunderstanding on the part of anyone in this country, in Britain, in Europe or elsewhere in the world, as to what Canada has in mind in seeking to have a distinctive national flag.

In considering the question of a national flag, I think it may be helpful, if I give to the house a brief summary of the historical background and of the present position with regard to flags in Canada.

Prior to 1867, the flag in general use was the union jack, which was flown in all the colonies. Upon the establishment of com-federation, however, it was felt desirable to have a symbol of the new country that had been created, and this was achieved through the use of a flag made up of the British red ensign with the Canadian coat of arms in the fly, a flag which became known as the Canadian red ensign. The ensign was flown from all public buildings after 1867, and achieved quite general use. In a governor general's dispatch of December, 1891, on the question of the issuance of a formal warrant for use of the flag on Canadian merchant vessels, Lord Stanley wrote:

Though no actual order has ever been issued the dominion government has encouraged by precept and example the use on all public buildings throughout the provinces of the red ensign with the Canadian badge in the "fly". I submit that the flag is one which has come to be considered as the recognized flag of the dominion both ashore and afloat, and on sentimental grounds I think there is much to be said for its retention.

In 1870 the Canadian blue ensign was formally approved for use on Canadian government vessels. In 1892 the Canadian red ensign was authorized by admiralty warrant for use on merchant vessels registered in Canada. On account, however, of the lack of any formal adoption as a national flag the use of the red ensign on public buildings ceased about 1904, on instruction of the Minister of Public Works of that day. With this change the use of the ensign gradually declined, until by 1912 the colonial secretary gave it as his opinion that "the union flag is the national flag of Canada."

In 1903 Australia had adopted a national flag; in 1900 New Zealand had done the same, and it soon became clear, especially after the first world war, in which Canada played so magnifieant a part, that it was necessary to

Canadian Flag

have some emblem that would be distinctive of this country. The same need was felt in the Union of South Africa, which adopted a flag about 1927 or 1928. So far as Canada wTas concerned the only immediate action taken was an order in- council in 1924 authorizing the Canadian red ensign to be flown "over all premises owned or occupied by the Canadian government abroad".

The order in council of 1924 did not give the ensign any formal status as a national flag, but the obvious need for a national emblem led to its steadily increased use. At both the Quebec conferences-in 1943 and 1944 it flew alongside the union jack and the stars and stripes. On October 22, 1943, the cabinet war committee agreed that the army should provide for flying the Canadian red ensign where Canadian forces were serving with forces of other nations, and noted with approval action taken by the R.C.A.F. to fly it in conjunction with the R.C.A.F. service flag at all stations where the air force were serving with the forces of other nations. During the entire conference at San Francisco last summer it flew with the flags of forty-nine other united nations. On V-E day and V-J day the red ensign flew from the peace tower in honour of the part played by the Canadian forces in the victories that had been achieved. To remove any possible doubt as to the propriety of its use, pending action on a national flag by parliament order in council P.C. 5888 was passed1 on September 5 of this year, copies of which were tabled in this house by the Acting Prime Minister on October 1. The text appears in Hansard at page 593.

I might mention one or two other points with regard to the use of flags for Canadian purposes. I have already referred to the adoption of the Canadian blue ensign in 1870 for use on Canadian government vessels. There was, of course, no Canadian navy at that time. However, under a memorandum of agreement of 1911 between the government and the admiralty, ships of the Royal Canadian Navy were authorized to fly the Canadian blue ensign at the jack staff as a distinctive national flag, the white ensign being displayed at the stern. The present practice with the Royal Canadian Navy, I believe, is to fly at sea only the white ensign, and in harbour to add the Canadian blue ensign at the jack staff.

There have been many discussions of the flag question in former parliaments. In 1925 the government appointed a committee of officials to choose a design for a Canadian flag, an incident that provoked a heated debate in the House of Commons owing to an unfortunate coincidence as to the personnel of

the committee. As a result of that debate the committee was disbanded and no action was taken.

I cannot be certain of all the occasions on which the issue has been debated since chat year, but there were debates in 1931, in 1932, in 1933, in 1935, in 1937 and in 1938. There have been resolutions, as I said, by Mr. Cameron McIntosh, the Liberal, and by Mr. C. H. Dickie, the Conservative. In 1938 the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mackenzie King) and the then leader of the opposition, the Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, agreed that a committee should be appointed to recommend an appropriate design, but the resolution died on the order paper without a vote.

The debate of 1938 is worth recalling for another reason, because in that year the former member for Kindersley, Mr. Elliott, recalled that Canada already has a flag which is 176 years older than the union jack itself. He referred to the flag of Nova Scotia, authorized in 1625 by Charles I. This flag of Nova Scotia consists of the blue cross of St. Andrew on a white field, with an orange tawny shield bearing a red lion in the centre. Mr. Elliott said he would have had no objection to the dominion asking Nova Scotia if that flag might be adopted for the whole of Canada. While I am not making that suggestion, we are indebted to Mr. Elliott for bringing out the fact that as early as 1625 the king had no objection to his subjects on this side of the Atlantic having a distinctive flag of their o^n.

Arising out of this, the fact that even at so early a date no impropriety was seen in having distinctive flags, I want to reemphasize that in choosing -a national flag for Canada there is no thought or suggestion that we shall cease to honour the union jack as the symbol of the British commonwealth and empire as a whole. Our affections are not so shrivelled or our enthusiasm so narrow that we need renounce the one because we adopt the other. Both can have their place; both do have their place; both, will have their place.-

As Canadians we take justifiable pride in the growth of Canada, in its individuality, in its nationhood. Our Canadain army went into action under the red ensign and, without deviating from our determination to pool our resources with those of the other British nations and our allied nations in the most effective manner towards the attainment of victory, the Canadian people at all times indicated a strong desire that the identity of Canadian forces and of individual Canadian sailors, soldiers and airmen be maintained.

Canadian Flag

Even Canadians who joined the fleet air arm of the Royal Navy, a force operated and maintained entirely by the government of the United Kingdom, wore the "Canada" badge on their shoulders, and we were proud that they should do so. This sense of distinctive pride is in no way inconsistent with the broader attachment to the British commonwealth as a whole.

We do not think of one who has a well developed sense of local pride in his home city as lacking in national patriotism; nor should we think of one who has a good sense of Canadian national pride as being any the less devoted to the purposes and principles of the British commonwealth of nations.

Turning now to the resolution. itself, there are one or two matters I should like particularly to point out. Hon. members will have noted that the resolution is not only for the establishment of a committee on the flag, but also to place it on record-

That in the opinion of this house, it is expedient that Canada possess a distinctive national flag.

In other words, approval of this resolution will involve a decision by the house that Canada should have a distinctive national flag. If there are any members who do not agree that Canada should have such a flag, this is their opportunity to record such a view, by voting against the resolution. If the resolution- is carried it will not be for the committee to consider whether a distinctive flag should or should not be adopted. Approval of the adoption of a distinctive flag is embodied in approval of the resolution itself, and the sole function of the committee, as the resolution makes clear, will be "to consider and report upon a suitable design for such a flag".

One further point to which I would refer is, in a sense, related to the rule about discussion in the house of matters before a committee. This matter of the design of the flag Is not yet before the committee, but I think there is good reason to feel that much might be lost, and little gained by a discussion of designs here in the house, before the committee has an- opportunity to study the matter and make its report. The question of the design of a national flag is one that will re-quire careful study and investigation. It is also a subject about which many of us have personal views on the question-as indeed I have myself-but I feel that it will avoid a great deal of trouble and difficulty if these personal views are withheld until we have the report of the committee before us. For that reason I do not myself intend to ad-

vocate or suggest any particular flag or design that might be adopted as our national flag.

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

Mr. G. R. PEARKES (Nanaimo):

Mr. Speaker, the resolution before the house was forecast in the speech from the throne. In his moving and- eloquent address the Minister of Veterans Affairs (Mr. Mackenzie) has raised this subject above the level of narrow partisan policy, and it is my earnest desire to endeavour to keep the discussion on that same high plane.

For many years parliament, and perhaps Canada as a whole, has been too busy in material affairs to give full attention to the spiritual side of her life. It might be said that we have -been too close to the dust and roar of the market to consider the immortal soul of our nation. But a nation has a soul. Indeed it has been said that a nation is a soul, that -a nation is a spiritual principle. Surely -Canada, through the sacrifices and the terrible hardships of her original explorers, through the sacrifices made by her missionaries as they travelled farther and farther to the west, through the privations suffered by the early settlers who came to this country, as well as in recent years by the endeavours of all those who took part in the two great wars of this generation, has proved that she has a soul of her own. Therefore it is only natural that she should desire some token to represent that soul, some token symbolic of her history and of her future aspirations. That thought has been expressed not only in discussions which have taken place in the house, -but also quite recently in discussions in every part of the country.

In early colonial days the union, jack was regarded as sufficient for our needs. But the union jack primarily is the flag of the British isles; it has gone through a period of evolution. At first the cross of St. George was added to the flag, then the cross of St. Andrew, and later the cross of St. Patrick. By common usage that flag has become recognized as the flag of the British empire.

But, as has been shown by the remarks of the Minister of Veterans Affairs, the union jack has not filled1 all our requirements here

Canadian Flag

in Canada. As he pointed out, to-day Canada has two sea flags, and the distinctive ensign of the Royal Canadian Air Force. Canadian regiments have carried' overseas colours of their own. A regiment usually carries two colours, one known as the king's colour- usually the union jack-and in addition the regimental colour. Those colours have been symbolic of the' spirit and soul of the regiment. They were originally the token around which the regiment might rally, and history record's many deeds of daring in fights for the flag. I think from whait the minister has said and the few remarks I intend" to make this afternoon it will be clear that both ancient and modern history emphasizes the fact that there is a demand for a national flag for Canada.

As the minister pointed out, up to 1904 the Canadian red ensign flew from these parliament buildings, from the legislative buildings of the provinces, from other public buildings and from many schooLhouses, with the result that there was a generation which grew up believing that that was the flag of Canada. In 1909, when Canada sent an expedition to Arctic waters and took over certain of the islands lying off the northern shore of Canada, alongside the union jack was planted a Canadian ensign.

In 1918, when Sir Arthur Currie moved into the city of Mons immediately after the declaration of the armistice, he carried a Canadian ensign which is sometimes referred to as the Mons flag. That flag was collected rather hastily; it was not perfect in design, because there were slight irregularities with regard to the crests of some of the provinces, but to all intents and purposes it was the Canadian red ensign. When the contingent sailed from Canada in December, 1939, a flag was carried by the commander which was looked upon as the flag of the Canadian expedition, but for various reasons that was not carried right through this war.

We now have the troops returning home, and we see in every city across this land flags hung out from poles and from windows. You will see as many Canadian red ensigns as union jacks displayed in welcome to our troops returning. In 1924 authority was granted by order in council that the Canadian red ensign should fly over the offices of the high commissioner in London, and in 1927, a similar order in council was passed authorizing the same flag to be flown over our buildings in Washington.

Reference was made to the difficulty experienced by our athletes during the Olympic games, and similar difficulties were found at the great boy scout jamboree when some

50,000 boy scouts paraded in London. They had difficulty in knowing just what was the flag of Canada. We hear also that at the San Francisco conference the Canadian red ensign 'held its place proudly with the flags of other nations.

From what I have said and from, what the minister has said it will be clear that the Canadian ensign has flown sometimes unauthorized, sometimes quite unofficially, and sometimes that ensign has been incorrectly designed; but it has flown alongside the union jack in some cases and in other cases by itself. As the .minister has said, much confusion has been created as to its use.

What is now being asked is that a flag should be recognized as a Canadian national flag for general use. The use of these unauthorized flags has not displaced the union jack, nor has it made it any the less the flag of our commonwealth. Neither would an authorized Canadian flag make that union jack any less authorized as the flag of the British commonwealth. Any British subject would have the right to fly the union jack in any part of the British empire.

As the minister stated, when dominion status was authorized for Australia and for New Zealand, the governments of those dominions immediately signallized that event by the adoption of their own flag. The loyalty of Australia and New Zealand to the crown or to the commonwealth cannot be questioned. The ' adoption of a national flag is just a coping stone in the edifice of dominion status. The question therefore arises: What flag

should Canada adopt?

At the present time the red ensign flies from the parliament buildings. That red ensign has a union jack in the left-hand comer with the armorial bearings of Canada in the fly. Those armorial bearings were granted to Canada to replace the previous crests that we had and which endeavoured to embrace the crests of the different provinces. In 1921 the then reigning monarch, King George V, whose interest in Canada, as well as in retaining the dignity of pageantry and tradition, were equally well known, took a personal interest in the adoption of our own armorial bearings, to which, after they had been reviewed by the college of heralds, he most readily gave his approval.

I do not think there is anyone who would not concede the beauty and appropriateness of our shiefd. This is really the royal crest, being differenced in one quarter so that the arms of old France might be displayed, while in the lower third on a field of silver is a sprig of three green maple leaves representing Canada. That crest carried on the fly of the

Canadian Flag

Canadian red ensign, and in fact that ensign itself, is symbolic of our history and of our unity under the crown. I submit that by long usage and ancient custom that flag has become closely identified with Canada. It is distinctive; no other land flag is just like it. It embodies all the features requisite for a national flag. It meets the requirements of *heraldic lore; it is a good flag, and one of which we can be proud.

The minister has said that now is the time to make a decision. I agree with him; now is the time to make a decision on this matter. The time of this parliament is short; we still have a heavy programme to get through, and I question the advisability of referring this question to a committee. Such a committee would have to consider hundreds of different designs which might be submitted; it would have to wade through pages of explanations.; it might open up bickerings over the question of artistic design; and the one thing we want to avoid when discussing this question of a national flag is the possibility of engendering any ill feeling at all.

There are a number of committees already sitting in this house. The Minister of Veterans Affairs has the veterans affairs committee, which he said was practically a full-time task for its members. It is a large committee, and embraces the greater number of those who have seen service either in the first great war or in the recently concluded struggle. I do not think that this parliament should set up a committee to discuss a matter which is so close to the hearts of those who have fought for this country without having representatives of those who have served, sitting on that committee. I therefore propose in all seriousness, prompted only with the idea of trying to expedite the work of this house, to meet the desires of the people of this country, and to ensure that there is unity among all classes and sections of our land, the following amendment to the resolution:

_ That all the words after the word "expedient" in the first line be struck out and the following substituted therefor:

". . . that Canada adopt the present Canadian red ensign as the official national flag."

Mr. M. J. COLDWELL (Rosetown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I rise to support on behalf of our party the resolution presented to the house in the name of the Prime Minister. I think the time has come, indeed in my opinion it came some years ago, when Canada should have a distinctive emblem of her nationhood. After all, this country has a magnificent history, and the steps which have been taken throughout several hundred years to reach the point where Canada in her own right is

[Air. Pearkes.]

known among the nations of the world, are, I think, interesting to every historian wherever he may be found.

If we look back into the history of our country, and observe that the foundations of Canada were laid by divers types of persons- explorers and missionaries, traders and settlers -we realize that we have something of which we may be proud in the origin and in the building of our country. Our country symbolizes, I think, more than any other nation in the British commonwealth, the steps which have been taken throughout the years to create the free independent nations which comprise the British commonwealth of nations -the Quebec Act, the Constitutional Act, the Act of Union, and, following the Act of Union that great challenge to responsible government in our own country when the Rebellion Losses bill was approved by Lord Elgin and responsible government was established for all time in Canada; then the coming together of the various provinces in the Act of Confederation; and in 1931, the statute of Westminster, which clearly recognized that each nation of the British commonwealth was equal with every other nation of the British commonwealth. That being so, it has always seemed to me rather strange that Canada, which blazed the trail in so many respects, has lagged behind our sister nations of the commonwealth-South Africa, Australia, New Zealand-in acquiring and in recognizing a national symbol, a national flag.

I am very glad indeed that this resolution is before us. I think we should round it off as soon as possible by two other measures, one to recognize for the use of all Canadians a national anthem- .

As hon. MEMBER: We have one now.

Mr. COLDWELL:

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

Mr. MacNICQL:

That is not a national anthem.

Mr. COLDWELL:

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

Canadian Flag

The other thing I think we should do as soon as possible is to take the right to amend our own constitution. It is a most undignified position for a country which has reached nationhood and has made the contribution to world affairs that Canada has made that we should go across the sea and request an amendment to our own constitution when it is something we should do for ourselves. Once I asked an outstanding member of the British House of Commons-he was not a Socialist, Labour or even Liberal but a Conservative member-just what happened when a request came from Canada to amend its constitution., and he said it would not matter what Canada asked, it would be approved almost without discussion, and certainly with very litde consideration.

Consequently I think that these three things are essential to our nationhood; a flag, a national anthem, the right to amend our own constitution, and indeed the right to interpret our own laws.

I welcome this measure because I believe it is a step in the right direction. Canadian soldiers held the whole of the left flank of the allied armies a year ago in France, Belgium and Holland, and when we were driving along the countryside, as I once before remarked in this house, we saw the flags of all the nations, but there was no flag representing Canada. Canadian soldiers had no symbol of their nationhood which the local population could fly to welcome and honour them, and had I not been convinced before I would have been convinced last autumn, when I had the great privilege of seeing our Canadian boys along the left flank of the allied armies, that Canada needs a distinctive emblem. This is not chauvinistic; this is not the wrong kind of nationalism. There is a kind of nationalism which I think we can decry, but this is a healthy form of respect for our own nation and for those who have built it, who have loved it, and who have died for it.

The minister suggested that we should not this afternoon go into the kind of flag. I am in agreement with him, and therefore when the time comes I shall vote against the amendment. In my opinion this is not the time for such an amendment. I do not deny that a member of the house has a right to move it, but I do not think we should be called upon now to decide what particular kind of flag we should adopt. I wish to see the intent of this resolution carried out. I wish to see Canada with a distinctive flag, and in my opinion the red ensign with, a coat of arms on it, which I would rather say nothing about, is not a distinctive flag.

Hon. members who were at San Francisco will recall the occasion on which we had all the flags displayed, the forty-six nations' flags at the rear of the platform. Canada's ensign was there, but as it appeared in the building all that one could see was a union jack in the corner and the red bunting-no distinctive feature about that flag; nothing to distinguish it from several other flags that were displayed. Even if we cannot agree immediately on the flag that we are going to adopt for our country, I think it would be better to delay the adoption of a flag at this moment than to adopt one that is not distinctive of this country. The flag of the British commonwealth is the union jack, and we respect it, but I am pleased indeed to know that my hon. friends to the right are prepared' to recognize that the time has come when Canada should have a flag of her own.

I was born in Great Britain, and I have distinct recollections of my childhood there. I remember well, though it is now a long time ago, the celebration of Queen Victoria's diamond jubilee in 1897, when I was quite a small boy. I remember the schoolboys' parade on that occasion. I was in it, and I and others carried a flag. It was not the union jack that I carried, but the cross of St. George, the flag of England, and' I say that if England has the right to carry the St. George's cross, and Scotland the right to carry the cross of St. Andrew- [DOT]

Mr. MACKENZIE:

The lion rampant.

My hon. friend1 says the lion rampant, and that more nearly fits his speeches at times than the cross of St. Andrew. At any rate, if the cross of St. George and the lion rampant may 'be flown as distinctive of England and Scotland respectively, why should there be objection anywhere in Canada to our having a distinctive flag, a flag that is as distinctively Canadian as the cross of St. George is distinctive of England?

I do not want to prolong the discussion, but on behalf of my friends and myself I simply say that we support the resolution. We do so not only because we in this house believe that it is a resolution that should be supported, but because those who have sent us here believe so. For years our national conventions have passed resolutions urging the adoption of a Canadian flag, and1 we speak therefore not only for ourselves but for those who have sent us here.

I am glad indeed that a committee is to be set up. I hope it will not be in a hurry to choose a flag which might prove to be not sufficiently distinctive. Even though it may involve a little delay in the examination of the

Canadian Flag

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

Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson):

This resolution urges the expediency of Canada's possessing a distinctive national flag. I agree that an anomaly exists with respect, to the matter of a Canadian flag, and I and my associates in parliament are in favour of removing this condition. But personally I consider that under the constitutional conditions prevailing in this country at the moment such action is premature. There are other and more important actions to be taken before it is appropriate to adopt a new flag.

The flag question is just one of the many anomalies which exist in Canada's constitutional position. Some of these have been referred to this afternoon. One of them, the matter of Canadian- citizenship, is intended to be dealt with at this session. There are others, such as amendments to the constitution, appeals to the privy council, the power of disallowance, the matter of a federal district propei'-and doubtless there are others. All these anomalies ought to be dealt with, and I am personally in favour of dealing with them at the earliest possible opportunity. But I consider that the present piecemeal method is improper as well as undemocratic. I contend that the people of Canada are not being consulted in the manner in which I believe they ought to be concerning their rights in these questions.

I wish to indicate, Mr. Speaker, my reasons for contending that the method that is proposed to attempt to remove these anomalies is improper and undemocratic. Then I wish to indicate what I consider to be the proper method to use. To do this I first wish to endeavour to account for the constitutional circumstances in which we find ourselves at the moment.

The question which must occur to every hon. member of this house and to every other citizen in this country is, why do such anomalies exist in our constitutional position? How did they come about? There must be something in Panada's constitutional history that accounts for the circumstances in which we find- ourselves. No other part of the British empire finds itself in the same circumstances. Why are these conditions peculiar to the people of Canada? In endeavouring to answer

these questions, and in suggesting what I consider to be the proper remedy for them, I am not posing as a constitutional expert, although I may say it is now ten years since I began my studies on this subject, and I trust I shall not be considered presumptuous in claiming to have added a little to my knowledge in that time.

The matters which I wish to discuss are those with which every public school child in the seventh and eighth grades, every high school student, and certainly every voter, should be thoroughly familiar. Every citizen in the land should know by what authority we do things in this country. On several occasions during the past two parliaments I have argued the case I am about to introduce, but very little attention- was paid to my statements either in the house or out of it. On this occasion I intend to be heard, and if not I demand to know the reason why. I consider that the situation which I shall discuss is of such importance that a reply or a comment should certainly be forthcoming from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Laurent), and for that matter from all hon. members of the house. I and the people who have sent me here have a right to know whether there is or is not a basis in fact for my contentions, and if there is, they have the right to know what is going to be done about it.

I propose to make a reasoned argument supported by the best evidence I have been able to secure. If my argument is to be controverted, I demand that it be met with a reasoned argument and not with personal abuse and statements which are wholly irrelevant. I expect a more intelligent criticism of my argument than was exhibited by a certain hon. member when I discussed this subject in a previous parliament. In Hansard of April 8, 1938, at page 2183, this little exchange took place between myself and the hon. member for Selkirk, Mr. Thorson:

Mr. Thorson: Would the hon. member indicate where he gets these queer ideas?

Mr. MacNICOL:

He has queer ideas of his own.

Mr. KUHL:

I continue:

Mr. Kuhl: I placed on Hansard on February 10 .a clear outline of the reasons for my statement. If the' hon. member wishes to refute any of the facts or arguments which I placed before the house, I shall be pleased to hear the refutation.

Mr. Thorson: Why battle against windmills?

I submit that the subject matter and the arguments which I presented on that occasion were worthy of more intelligent criticism than

Canadian Flag

was exhibited by that hon. gentleman. I have long ago learned that when an individual has a weak argument, or no argument at all, he usually resorts to personal abuse of his opponent. If hon. members have not a better argument to make than Mr. Thorson made on that' occasion, I suggest that they hold their peace.

In submitting my argument, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that I am actuated by the highest possible motives. We proudly proclaim our faith in democracy; we proclaim it from the housetops. I wish to urge that we practice what we preach. Let us demonstrate democracy instead of merely paying lip service to it.

It is my desire to see the people of Canada consulted where their fundamental rights are concerned. I wish to see government of the people by the people. These are the motives which actuate me in what I have to say on this resolution.

In presenting the special case I am about to discuss I am not necessarily speaking as a member of the Social Credit group; I am speaking as a native of Canada. The matters on which I am to speak are of fundamental concern to every citizen of Canada regardless of his or her political persuasion. They are among the most serious matters upon which a citizen can be called to think; they are the bed-rock considerations of human government.

In order to endeavour to account for the contradictions in Canada's constitutional position and to suggest a remedy therefor, I wish to lay down some fundamental premises on which I shall base my entire argument. Locke is credited with saying:

Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the power of another without his consent. The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community.

Jefferson, in the declaration of independence, states:

We hold these truths to be self-evident; that all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty and the pursuit ef happiness; that to secure these rights governments dre instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.

In addition to that premise I wish to indicate the definition of a federal union. What is a federal union? Bouvier in his law dictionary defines "federal government" as:

-a union or confederation of sovereign states, created either by treaty, or by the mutual adoption of a federal constitution.

Doctor Ollivier, joint law clerk of the House of Commons, on page 85 of the report of the special committee on the British North America Act, said:

A confederation is a union of independent and sovereign states bound together by a pact or a treaty for the observance of certain conditions dependent upon the unanimous consent of the contracting parties, who are free to withdraw from the union.

A. P. Newton, in his book entitled "Federal and Unified Constitutions," at page 5 says:

A federal state is a perpetual union of several sovereign states based first upon a treaty between those states or upon some historical status common to them all, and secondly upon a federal constitution accepted by their citizens.

Two points stand out prominently in these definitions. The first is that the states which form the union must be sovereign, free and independent before they federate; the second, that the federal constitution which forms the basis of the union .must be accepted by the citizens of the federating states. I think it worth while in this connection to point out that when the states of Australia federated, the people of Australia were provided with two opportunities of voting on their constitution. I should like to quote a paragraph from a history of the Australian constitution by Quick and Garran. This paragraph is on the meaning of the words "have agreed" in the constitution, and it states:

These words make distinct and emphatic reference to the consensus of the people, arrived at through the procedure, in its various successive stages, prescribed by the substantially similar enabling acts adopted by the legislatures of the concurring colonies. In four of the colonies acts w'ere passed enabling the people to take part in the framing and the acceptance or rejection of a federal constitution for Australia. Through those acts the people agreed, first, to send representatives to a federal convention charged with duty of framing for Australia a federal constitution under the crown in the form of a bill for enactment by the imperial parliament, and, secondly, they agreed to pronounce their judgment upon the constitution at a referendum, which in each colony was arranged to follow the convention. In all the colonies, the constitution was eventually referred to the people. At this referendum each voter was enabled to vote by ballot "yes" or "no" on the question asked on the ballot paper, "Are you in favour of the proposed federal constitution?"

In this manner there was in four colonies, a popular initiative and finally in all the colonies a popular ratification of the constitution, which is thus legally the work, as it will be for all time the heritage, of the Australian people. This democratic method of establishing a new form of government may be contrasted with the circumstances and conditions under which other federal constitutions became law-.

Now I should like to ask a few questions concerning our position in Canada. Did the provinces of Canada desire federal union? ,

Canadian Flag

The Quebec resolutions, the London resolutions and the draft of the bill by the London delegates all indicate that the provinces of Canada desired federal union. The preamble to the Quebec resolutions reads:

The best interests and1 present and future prosperity of British North America will be promoted by a federal union under the crown.

Clause 70 of the Quebec resolutions indicates that whatever agreement was arrived at by the delegates would be submitted to the provinces for their approval. It reads:

The sanction of the imperial and local parliaments shall be sought for the union of the provinces, on the principles adopted by the conference. .

Furthermore, a bill drafted in London by the Canadian delegates contains the same preamble that appears in the Quebec resolutions, and this draft bill also contains a repealing clause which hon. members can find on page 179 of Pope's "Confederation Documents". It reads:

From and after the union, all acts and parts of acts passed by the parliament of Great Britain, the parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the legislature of Upper Canada, the legislature of Lower Canada, the legislature of Canada, the legislature of Nova Scotia, or the legislature of New Brunswick, which are repugnant to or inconsistent -with the provisions of this act shall be and the same are hereby repealed.

The next question is: Did Canada become a federal union under the British North America Act. I submit that the manner in which the bill was drafted and the manner in which it was enacted throw much light on the answer to this question. The act was drafted by the law officers of the crown attached to the colonial office. Lord Carnarvon, secretary of state for the colonies, was the chairman of the conference. Sir Frederick Rogers, under-secretary for the colonies, in Lord Blachford's Letters, is quoted as saying at page 301:

They held many meetings at which I was always present. Lord Carnarvon was in the chair, and I was rather disappointed in his power of presidency.

Id reading accounts of the times it is quite obvious that the bill which was drafted by the colonial office seems to have prevailed over that which was drafted by the delegates from Canada. The title and preamble of the bill drafted by the colonial office read:

The union of the British North American colonies, and for the government of the united colony.

Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for the purposes of government and legislation would be attended with great benefits to the colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom;-

That is the preamble of the draft bill submitted by the colonial office, whereas the preamble of the bill drafted by the Canadian delegates reads:

Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a federal union under the British crown for the purpose of government and legislation, based upon the principles of'the British constitution;-

I submit, Mr. Speaker, no evidence is to be found to show that the preamble which we find in the printed copies of the British North . America Act in Canada was either discussed or proven in the British parliament. This preamble reads:

Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to be federally united into one dominion

Lord Carnarvon, who introduced the bill on February 19, 1867, used these words as reported at page 559 of the British Hansard:

The bill opens by reciting the desire of the several provinces to be federally united.

Furthermore Lord Campbell, speaking to the bill on February 26 of the same year, is reported at page 1012 of the British Hansard as having said:

The bill is founded, I believe, on what is termed the Quebec scheme of 1864. When the resolution, which alone engages the Nova Scotian parliament, was in debate, its whole tenor, as our papers show, were against that project. The leader of the government was understood distinctly to renounce it. Our lights, indeed, may be imperfect upon this part of the subject, and I will not dwell upon it. But one thing is clear, the preamble of the resolution comes before us in full and perfect authenticity. The preamble lays down the expediency of confederating British North America.

I submit it should be evident from these quotations that the preamble which was discussed was that to be found in the Quebec resolutions, not the one we find in the printed copies of the British North America Act in Canada.

A pertinent question to ask at this point would be-: when was the present preamble placed in the British North America Act? Why was it .not discussed in the British parliament, and, furthermore, what is the significance of an act bearing a preamble which was not even discussed, let alone proven? Another point of significance in connection with this, I believe, is the undue haste with which the bill was passed through the imperial parliament. When second reading was called for the bill was not even printed. At page 1090 of British Hansard for February 27, 1867, we find these words:

Mr. Hatfield said he rose to ask the government why it was the second reading of this bill had been fixed for to-raorrow. It was one

Canadian Flag

Professor N. McL. Rogers, of Queen's university, at page 115 of the report states in reply to a question by Mr. Cowan:

Mr. Cowan: You do not subscribe to the

belief that this was a pact or contract?

Mr. Rogers: I am thoroughly convinced it

is not, either in the historical or the legal sense.

Then I would quote Doctor Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of Commons, who at page 125 states.

It is quite true that if we apply to the British North America Act the principles followed in the interpretation of statutes, it is not a compact between provinces; it is an act oi parliament which does not even embody all the resolutions passed in Canada and in London prior to its passage in the British parliament where certain clauses that had not been recommended by the Canadian provinces were added.

The evidence which I have submitted establishes to my satisfaction that there has been at no time in Canada any agreement, pact or treaty between the provinces creating a federal union and a federal government. The privilege to federate therefore was still a future privilege for the provinces of Canada.

Since the condition of sovereignty and independence must be enjoyed by the provinces before they can federate, it was necessary that the British government relinquish its authority over them. This was done through the enactment of the statute of Westminster on December 11, 1931. By section 7, paragraph 2. of this statute, the provinces of Canada were made sovereign, free and independent in order that they might consummate the federal union which they wished to create in 1S67, but were not permitted to do so.

Since December 11, 1931, the provinces of Canada have not acted on their newly acquired status; they have not signed any agreement, they have not adopted a constitution, and the people of Canada have not ratified a constitution. Such action should have been taken immediately upon the enactment of the statute of Westminster. It is by reason of the failure of the provinces and of the people of Canada to take this action that all the anomalies in our present position exist. We have been trying since 1931 to govern ourselves federally, under an instrument which was nothing more than an act of the imperial parliament for the purpose of governing a colonial possession.

Not only has this anomalous condition obtained since 1931, but it has done so without any reference whatsoever having been made to the Canadian people. They have not been consulted- on anything pertaining to constitutional matters. Before there can be a federal union in Canada and a federal government, the provinces of Canada must be free and independent to consummate such a

[Mr. Kuhl.J

union. They have been free to do so since December 11, 1931, but they have not done so.

I therefore pose this question: Whence does the dominion parliament derive its authority to govern this country? The imperial parliament cannot create a federal union in Canada or constitute a federal government for the people of Canada by virtue of the British North America Act or any other act. This can be done only by the people of Canada, and they have not yet done so.

Since December 11, 1931, as an individual citizen of this country I have had the right to be consulted on the matter of a constitution. I have had the right along with' my fellow citizens to ratify or to refuse to ratify a constitution, but I have not been consulted in any way whatsoever. I assert therefore that until I, along with a majority of Canadians, ratify a constitution in Canada, there can be no constitution, and I challenge successful contradiction of that proposition.

Mr. POULIOT:

Were you born in 1867?