Hon. Lionel Chevrier (Laurier):

I have listened to the citations which you have just given to the house, Mr. Speaker, and it would seem to me that the point made by the hon. member for St. Boniface is one which should commend itself to Your Honour.

The reason for that is that it seems to me that the principle involved in the motion now before the house is entirely different from the principle contained in the bills. Bill No. C-7, respecting flags of Canada, which was submitted to the house by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska has not been brought to our attention thus far. As the hon. member has said the other bill, No. C-8, moved by the hon. member for Lincoln, is one that deals with one matter; but this motion deals with a referendum and the principle, on the face of it, strikes me as one which is entirely different. We have from time to time in the house matters that are

amended because of a different principle, and Your Honour has had to deal with that.

It strikes me, on the face of it, that it would not be in order-I say this with respect to Your Honour-to give priority to either of these bills in view of the fact that the matter of referring this subject to the country is one which is not contained in the other bills.

Mr. Speaker:

I thank the hon. members for the distinctions they have drawn. There is, of course, a very distinct principle in this motion; that is, that there be a referendum to the Canadian people to decide as between two flags. I assume that referendum is for some purpose, and that purpose is to provide a method of establishing a Canadian flag. I am quite prepared to accept that distinction, if the house is agreeable, and to allow the debate to proceed, although I must say I have little hope of maintaining any distinction between the debate which will arise on this motion and the debate which we have already had or will have on the other bill.

Mr. Herridge:

My group believe this resolution is much more acceptable than asking the lord lyon king of arms of Scotland to design a flag for us.

Mr. Speaker:

If the house will then permit me to accept this motion, with the very definite reservation that it will not be too weighty a precedent, I shall be glad to call upon the hon. member for St. Boniface.

Mr. Laurier Regnier (St. Boniface) moved:

That, in the opinion of this house, the government should consider the advisability of introducing a measure to provide for a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag.

That the questions submitted in said referendum be as follows:-Are you in favour of a flag consisting of (a) a green maple leaf on a red and white field, or, (b) the red ensign?

(Translation):

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with pride and humility to speak in favour of the resolution appearing in my name on the order paper with regard to a referendum on a Canadian flag. Lacking the eloquence to deal with a matter so dear to the hearts of all Canadians, I shall be brief.

If I rise today to discuss the matter of a referendum with regard to a national flag, it is because the people want it. Canada needs a flag. It is a necessity. The pride of the whole nation is at stake. It is not only a matter of self-esteem, but of national pride. It is essential for strengthening the unity and harmony of the two great races which, along with all the other ethnical groups 90205-6-83

Flags of Canada

living together in Canada make up the Canadian people. A country must be proud of the flag which represents the nation. A flag would be the symbol of our independence and brotherhood.

Personally, I believe that the love and faithful devotion we feel for our country can only be strengthened by such a symbol.

Comparing nations with individuals, the lack of a flag makes us like a man who has grown up without a name and, who wants to gain not only the respect of his fellow men, but hopes to become a leader or chief. He cannot succeed for want of a name.

Canada has been making tremendous efforts in favour of peace and disarmament. That is an excellent reason why as an independent country with a growing influence in world affairs, Canada should have its own flag. Because it has no flag, other nations can say that Canada cannot speak with a single voice. We lack the unity we are urging other nations to achieve as a prerequisite to peace and disarmament. As a result, our efforts to get the support of other nations in favour of peace and disarmament can only be weakened. If we are unable to pick our own flag, it means we are controlled by another country, and therefore incapable of independent action.

Mr. Speaker, a number of my Frenchspeaking fellow Canadians are afraid that the resolution I am proposing involves some risk. They fear that the Canadian red ensign may be chosen. By way of reassurance, I shall tell them that, if my grandfather had borne the same name as my grandmother, I would be called Macintosh, and as a true Scotsman, I only go in for a pretty sure bet.

I am certain that the province of Quebec has no monopoly on patriotism, and also I am sure that if a referendum did take place Canadians would choose a flag with a maple leaf design and without any symbol from some other country. In fact, when the special joint committee on a distinctive Canadian flag met for nine months in 1945 and 1946, an hon. member, Mr. McNicoll, spent 25 hours studying the 2,409 designs which had been submitted at the time. And this is what Mr. McNicoll found. Of the 2,409 designs submitted 1,611 showed a maple leaf, which means two in three, or 61 per cent; 383 had a union jack, that is one in six, or 16 per cent; 231 had stars; 184, fleurs-de-lis; 116 a beaver; 49 a crown; 22 a cross, and 14 the great bear.

Now, Mr. Speaker, that was a real referendum taken among all Canadians who were interested in the choice of a flag. Sixty seven

Flags of Canada

per cent wanted the maple leaf and 16 per cent the union jack.

The institute of public opinion reports in the Star Weekly of March 21, 1957, after having taken a poll involving 1,110 adults of all ages and professions, that is four times as many as in the ordinary Gallup polls, that in Canada, three people in four are favouring a distinctive flag, which would differ from that of any other country.

At the junior chamber of commerce the answers of 2,400 of its members to a set of questions gave the following results: Englishspeaking members: 79 per cent in favour of a Canadian flag with no emblem of any other country.

Of 3,800 English-speaking Canadians asked to take part in this vote, 70 per cent were in favour of a distinctive flag. According to press reports during the recent Liberal rally, a referendum by the Calgary young Liberals indicated that 7 per cent voted, at the Calgary Stampede, in favour of a flag showing a maple leaf and nothing else.

Moreover, it may be concluded from the fact that in 1946 the joint committee recommended the adoption of a flag with a maple leaf in autumn colours and the union jack in the canton and that this proposal remained buried in some office drawers for 15 years, this decision was certainly not based on evidence received by the committee. If we take as basis the analysis made by Mr. McNicoll, M.P., we are satisfied that the members of the joint committee in 1945 and 1946 did not take any decision with regard to the evidence submitted, because as can be recalled and as I have read in the official record for 1945 Mr. Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent, who was then minister of justice, had, during the three days of debate on this matter, expressed the view that the union jack should be included on any flag that might be chosen.

When the leader of a party in power or the minister of justice gives his opinion to the committee, can the committee be expected to take a decision contrary to the opinion stated in advance by the government? That is why this flag has remainded and still is out of sight.

This is why I am asking for a referendum the possibility of which has already been considered. Indeed, I feel that a referendum is not necessary, because every day, the Canadian people express their opinion on the matter and this is enough for the present government to act upon.

Maybe the government declines the honour of selecting a flag for Canada. All the same, that honour should not be denied to the Canadian people.

[Mr. Regnier.j

If a referendum takes place, I suggest that it should be held at the same time as the next election, so as to avoid additional expenses.

Mr. Heward, an Ottawa lawyer, had this to say about the 1946 flag committee:

(Text):

This recommendation was made by the committee:

(Translation):

Pardon, Mr. Heward then refers to the committee's recommendation. I quote:

(Text):

Your committee recommends that the national flag of Canada should be the Canadian red ensign with a maple leaf in autumn golden colours in a bordered background of white, replacing the coat of arms in the fly; the whole design to be so proportioned that the size and position of the maple leaf in relation to the union jack in the canton will identify it as a symbol distinctive of Canada as a nation.

(Translation):

Such was the recommendation, Mr. Speaker. This is actually the flag that I should like to see included in the referendum.

(Text):

This recommendation was arrived at by the committee on the 11th July, 1946. A bill was not introduced by the government at the session then sitting to implement the report and was not introduced at the next session. The government no doubt recognized very well that because of the very great opposition to such a flag, as recommended by the committee, they would lose the support of Quebec certainly and also lose some support in other places. The government might, quite possibly, be defeated on such a bill.

(Translation):

And further on, he stated:

(Text):

The introduction of a bill to adopt a flag has apparently been indefinitely postponed. This, it is believed, is a very proper policy for it is much better to wait even for some years to adopt a flag than to decide on a design now which is opposed by so many Canadians. Canadians are not yet sufficiently Canada-conscious to appreciate the necessity for a flag of purely Canadian design; the patriotism of very many of them is still given to the United Kingdom and only what is left is given to Canada. They do not consider, as do their French compatriots, that Canada is their homeland, their fatherland. This unfortunate condition is being rapidly changed; the effects on the soldiers who have been overseas have been very great. They have come back Canadians. And until Canadians have acquired a Canadian national consciousness it would only divide the country into distinct opposing groups to adopt a flag that has the union jack in the upper staff quarter. How long this delay should be depends on the development of that national consciousness-three, five or perhaps more years might be needed, but it would be time well spent in doing nothing towards adopting a flag but spent in education in Canadian citizenship and appreciation of the fact that Canada is now, and has been for some years, a sovereign independent state entitled to a purely Canadian flag.

(Translation):

In my opinion, we have waited all those years mentioned by Mr. Heward in his book on the Canadian flag. I am convinced that today Canada is ready to be given a flag by its government or to select one if the opportunity arises.

(Text):

Mr. Speaker, I know that many still believe and are sincere in their opinions that the union jack should be chosen in any Canadian flag. I have been indebted to Mr. Cumberland, who was the supreme president of the native sons of England, for his book "The History of the Union Jack".

I have great respect for the union jack and great admiration for what it represents. I do not believe that Canadians, by adopting a flag which is absolutely different than the union jack, would have less love or respect for the union jack or what it represents. To use a famous phrase of Sir Wilfrid Laurier when speaking on another subject, "It is not that we love Great Britain less, but it is because we love Canada more".

The union jack dates from the time of the third crusades, when Richard Coeur de Lion, instead of going overland like most other nations, equipped a fleet and had a naval battle against the Saracens near the city of Beirut. Close to that city there was a grotto dedicated to St. George. As the result of a visit there Richard Coeur de Lion decided to choose the cross of St. George for the flag of England. It has been argued by many people that Richard Coeur de Lion was a French Norman king, and that really we should have nothing against the union jack because, after all, there were some French connections. But the racial connections should really have nothing to do with the flag that is the flag of this country.

In reading this book I find that it was James VI of Scotland who in 1603 became king of England. He was, I believe, the second cousin of Elizabeth and the great-grandson of Henry VIII. In 1606, in order to avoid quarrels between Scots sailors and English sailors he decided to have a flag that contained the cross of St. George and the cross of St. Andrew. But this flag was what they called an additional flag, and each country kept its own national flag. It was only on merchant ships that this new flag, called the union flag, would be at the main-top mast and the national flag was fore-top.

However, in 1707, in the reign of Queen Anne, the parliament of Scotland was abolished, with the result-and only then-that the union flag of what they called the two Britains, north Britain and south Britain,

90205-6-83!

Flags of Canada

was adopted as the flag used all over Scotland and England. But it was not until 1801, when the parliament of Ireland was abolished, that the real union jack was formed by also including in the union jack the cross of St. Patrick.

So we have a formula. That is, if it is necessary to have the union jack as a flag we must have unity of parliament. As long as Scotland had her own parliament, the Scots people had their own flag and the English had their own flag. Only when the Scots parliament was abolished was the union jack used in Scotland and in England. But the king of England was the king of Ireland long before he was king of Scotland, and the Irish used their flag as long as they had their own parliament. It was only in 1801, when the parliament of Ireland was abolished, that they adopted the union jack. So, while they had the same king, they had different flags.

To be logical, those who want the union jack as their flag should be in favour of abolishing our parliament here and having it in London. Then we would be part of the same kingdom; then we could accept it. But as long as we have different parliaments we cannot have the union jack as our flag unless we first admit that we are not independent, that we are a colony. If we are prepared to do that, yes.

As far as the red ensign is concerned, the way the red ensign is now composed, every time I see it I feel a deep humiliation because the place of honour of the flag does not belong to Canada. It belongs to another country. I prefer the old union jack which we use in Manitoba to the flag which shows Canada to be subservient to another land. This is no reflection on Great Britain. It is no reflection on the other country whose emblem is in that flag, because it is not there because the other country wants it; it is there because Canadians have not had the courage to do anything about it up to now.

I am asking for a referendum because this question has been discussed for the last 35 years without action being taken. Motions and private bills have been brought down by members of all political parties. Perusing Hansard I find that as far back as 1925 an order in council is set out fully in Hansard providing in part as follows:

The minister therefore recommends that a committee be appointed to consider and report on the most suitable design that should be adopted for a national flag.

In 1934 and again in 1935 motions were introduced by Mr. Dickie, the then Conservative member for Nanaimo, respecting a Canadian flag. In 1938 the Liberal member for North Battleford, Mr. McIntosh, put forward

Flags of Canada

in this house a proposal for the adoption of a Canadian flag. This resolution was debated on February 14, 1938 and during the discussion both the then prime minister of Canada, Right Hon. Mackenzie King, and the leader of the opposition of that day, Right Hon. R. B. Bennett, declared themselves in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. I should like to quote excerpts from the speeches of these two statesmen. On February 14, 1938, as reported at page 438 of Hansard, Mr. King said:

I would conclude this part of what I have to say with the observation that the continued use of the union jack gives a false impression abroad, and particularly in the country immediately adjoining.

Further on, as reported on page 440 of Hansard, Mr. King went on to say:

Let me conclude with these words. There has never been a time, I believe, when the relations between Canada and the mother country were so cordial so completely friendly, helpful and co-operative 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. Today 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.

Now I should like to quote the words of Mr. Bennett as reported at page 442:

Upon the large question, I expressed an opinion in the house some years ago that I believed it was desirable, as I do tonight, that the country should have some flag by which it could distinguish itself from other parts of the world.

I might also refer hon. members to page 415 of Hansard of 1938 where there are quotations given in support of a distinctive flag from the Winnipeg Free Press, the Hamilton Herald, the Winchester Press, the Stratford Beacon-Herald, the Collingwood Bulletin, the Recorder and Times, Brockville, the Kingston Whig-Standard and many others. The Canadian Weekly Newspapers Association, Saskatchewan division, passed a resolution calling unanimously for the selection of a suitable flag to be known as the flag of Canada.

As I said earlier, the greatest work in this direction was done by the joint committee of 1945 and 1946. In 1956 at Windsor, Ontario the Ontario command of the Canadian Legion adopted a resolution demanding a referendum in respect of the two flags which were submitted by the minority and majority reports of the committee of 1945. This was, in a sense, erroneous, because the committee only reported one flag, but two flags were

voted upon during the sittings of that committee, I believe on the last day of its deliberations. One of them was the flag coloured red and white and containing a maple leaf. The other was a flag which had not, in fact, been submitted at all. It was a flag which had been manufactured by members of the committee, though it is claimed some ten models had been produced to which the latter flag was similar.

The line of division in that committee was between those who were in favour of a maple leaf without the union jack and those who were in favour of a maple leaf with the union jack. As I mentioned earlier, if the committee had decided on the evidence before it, the position would have been clearer. The division was 67 per cent in favour of the flag with the maple leaf without the union jack, and 16 per cent for the flag containing both the maple leaf and the union jack.

In my first speech in the House of Commons I dealt with the subject of a distinctive flag for Canada, and I give credit for that, in part, to the first two people who wrote to me after my election in 1958. These letters were both dated April 2, and they asked me to work for a Canadian flag. I have also received cards from people in my own constituency, some containing pictures of a suggested Canadian flag, asking me to do the same thing. One of the letters I received came from an old man, who claims he was 90 years of age last October. As a matter of fact I received three letters. The first two letters were written by the man's daughter explaining that her father was too old to write. I answered those letters, and the third letter arrived in the handwriting of this old Canadian. I should like to name him; Mr. W. Gascon, of the city of Ottawa. He had kept clippings on the subject and had himself written to newspapers in an endeavour to have a flag adopted.

I should like at this point to commend the past president of the Canadian Legion, Montgomery command, who has a file about six inches thick on this subject. He is the one who brought me the draft of the resolution which was passed by the Ontario command and also the draft passed by the dominion command at the convention of 1958 held in Edmonton, asking for a referendum on the two flags which had been voted upon in the committee of 1945.

In the committee of 1945-46 a number of questions were raised. I wish to quote from the proceedings dated May 29, 1946 of the joint committee of the House of Commons and the other place:

The Chairman:

I will ask Senator Lambert to present the report of the steering committee.

The subcommittee beg to submit a resolution in the following form bearing upon the further procedure to be adopted in connection with the two flags voted on yesterday, namely:

That a subcommittee be appointed to which the two remaining flags be referred and that the subcommittee be directed to make suggestions that will go as far as possible toward reconciling the conflicting views expressed in the committee and toward working out a design which will be generally acceptable to the committee.

At page 119 of the proceedings Mr. Hansell, the then hon. member for MacLeod, said:

So what is there to compromise on if it is not the union jack? Therefore I think I am reading into this motion something that is pretty true, and I cannot see my way clear to vote for it! I do have a suggestion to make. It is not along the line of a motion at all. I do not know whether it will be acceptable to the committee, but I should like to see these two flags submitted to the people of Canada and let them decide. I think it would be well worth the time and money that would be involved. Let them decide.

In what way?

Mr. Hansell:

By way of a plebiscite.

At page 130 Mr. Hansell said in part:

Here is my point-and this could very well be done without taking any political sides at all. When the next election comes along, I suggest that a referendum be taken at that time. The parties do not have to kick the thing around as a political measure. All they have to do is this. When the people go to elect their government, they are also given another ballot with two designs put on the ballot. You are not voting Liberal, Conservative, Social Credit, C.C.F. or anything else. That is a separate matter altogether. That can be done without costing the country a dollar except for the printing of the paper with the two designs on. Let the people mark X opposite the one or the other design. That I say is a reasonable suggestion and I do not know if it is in order-

The Chairman:

No, it is not.

Mr. Hansell:

The chairman shakes his head, so I presume it is not in order.

The Chairman:

You can make that suggestion in the house.

Mr. Hansell:

But if the decks were cleared-

Mr. LaCroix:

Everything which is common sense is always out of order with you, Mr. Chairman.

I should also like to quote extracts from the second and final committee report dated Friday, July 12, 1946:

The joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons appointed to consider and report upon a suitable design for a distinctive national flag for Canada, begs leave to present the following as a second and final report: Your committee held fourteen public sessions. The submission of designs to the committee was publicly invited and up to and including this date, 2,695 designs were received and considered. In addition, communications in the form of written letters, resolutions and printed form cards and printed form letters to the number of 42,168 were received and whenever the sender's name and address were given, receipt was acknowledged-

In the discussion of all phases of the subject assigned to the committee an admirable spirit of tolerance and co-operation was reflected.

Flags of Canada

The committee adopted a flag. I presume that the choice of design was directed by the government of the time. I do not think the committee decided on the evidence. As I said before, both prime minister Mackenzie King and Mr. St. Laurent, the then minister of justice, had indicated what should be on the flag.

I think the evidence is clear. It is open to the government to give the Canadian people what they want. If we simply study the type of designs submitted it will be clear that the Canadian people are interested in having a flag. I believe that action should be taken not by the government but by the people. If the government does not want to take the glory, then it should let the people have it.

Perhaps it is a good thing that the government should not impose its choice of a flag on the people. Such a flag would not please everyone. A flag chosen by referendum by a large majority of Canadians would be more acceptable to the nation than one selected by the government. There would always be people who would bear a grudge against any party that imposed its choice of a flag upon the nation. Resentment would build up, and the design would not be wholly acceptable. If, however, the design were picked by the nation it would be readily acceptable.

It is almost scandalous that a nation of 18 million people does not have its own flag. Young nations like Ghana and others who are also members of the commonwealth adopt their own flags the same day they attain their independence. It is my sincere hope that long before the celebration of our centennial this nation will have adopted a flag of its own that will be a symbol to everyone of our independence, unity and fraternity.

(Translation): .

Mr. Yvon Dupuis (St. Jean-Iberville-Napierville):

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased

to rise after my hon. friend to tell him how glad I am that he has brought the flag question into this house, a question of great interest for all Canadians who are proud of that name. I am particularly happy that the hon. member who put forward that motion represents a Manitoba constituency. Not so long ago we had an opportunity to hear the matter of a national flag raised in this house by a member from the province of Ontario.

For the first time, Mr. Speaker, I should like in turn to voice my opinion on the flag question, and more particularly on the referendum suggested in the motion before us, whereby the Canadian people would be asked whether they favour a flag bearing

Flags of Canada

a green maple leaf on a red and white background, or what is known as the red ensign, the flag of the Canadian merchant marine.

I would say first, Mr. Speaker, that the flag question is a burning issue today, because more than ever we can discuss it without fear of hurting anyone's feelings in this beloved country of ours, Canada.

In this country we have Canadians whose relatives are still living in the old European countries and especially Canadians who came to Canada quite recently and who, in fact, still have in England, Ireland, Scotland or elsewhere relatives who are still close to their hearts. It is among those Canadians that we find the majority of those who are emotionally bound to the union jack and would like to keep it in the design of a Canadian flag.

A few years ago, Canadians whose French origin goes back approximately 100 years would certainly all have preferred to have the fleur-de-lis on our new Canadian flag. But over the years, and as Canada grows and acquires greater maturity, Canadians are becoming increasingly conscious of the need for a truly Canadian flag. It is so true and so right that the longer we have been in Canada, the more we feel ready to accept the idea of an essentially Canadian flag.

As an example, let me only mention the province of Newfoundland which joined confederation a few years ago. Its people, having only recently become Canadian citizens, are more devoted than Canadians anywhere else to the union jack, which only yesterday was their official flag.

All those attitudes are understandable. However, since the trend is that the longer one has been a Canadian the more one wants a distinctive flag, why not accept immediately the fact that an essentially Canadian flag, without any symbol from any other nation, would be best suited for a nation which now claims to be sovereign?

Mr. Speaker, I could recall several incidents but I shall mention only a few to draw the attention of this house to the many disadvantages resulting from the fact that we do not have a truly distinctive flag.

Last October, while in Paris, with my colleagues I happened to attend a reception given in honour of the chairman of a Canadian company. When the time came for us to enter the banquet hall, we noticed a small American flag on the table in front of the cover of the guest of honour who was a Canadian. So we asked: Why did you place a small American flag where the guest of honour is going to sit? The answer was:

Well we wanted to please our visitor, as we do every time we play host to a distinguished guest from abroad. We always place in front of him the flag of his country. And since we have tonight a Canadian guest, we also wanted to please him by placing his flag in front of him. We inquired about the Canadian flag and none of those we questioned knew anything about a Canadian flag. That is why we placed an American flag in front of the guest because he came from America.

Well, Mr. Speaker, you can see from this incident how clearly the lack of a Canadian flag is prejudicial to us not only here in Canada but also abroad. Canada is a sovereign country, a country we are proud of, a country which has its independent government as well as its independent army and to which Canadian citizens are proud to belong.

Recently, on a C.B.C. television program, I saw visitors from India, Germany, Switzerland, who were discussing with a commentator that ticklish subject and who were asking: "How is it that you, in Canada, have no distinctive emblem, that you have as yet no Canadian flag"?

Well, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be useless for me to insist further on the urgent need of a Canadian flag. I would not like to labour the point unduly. So I come at once to this resolution now before us: Should we vote in favour of a resolution providing for a referendum at the next national election, in order to know whether the Canadian people prefer a flag bearing a green leaf on a red and white background, or the red ensign?

Mr. Speaker, I commend the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) for bringing the matter before the house.

I agree with all he has said about our duty, as Canadians, to do all we can to obtain a distinctive flag; I fully agree with him on that, but where I do not agree, is on the way the referendum should be held.

You are going to ask Canadians, at the polls, whether they prefer the red ensign or a flag bearing a green leaf on a red and white background. To my mind, the weakness of the resolution lies precisely in that restriction imposed upon the Canadian citizen. Surely there are many Canadians who have the right or privilege to suggest a design for a flag, whatever it may be.

To restrict the debate to the consideration of two flags would amount to evading the question for the moment. In the first place, I do not believe that, from a strictly heraldic standpoint, Canadian citizens are prepared to select a particular flag in preference to another. In the second place, I believe the government is entitled first to sound out the opinion of the people on the most important point, i.e.: Are Canadian citizens prepared to accept a really distinctive flag, one which would include no emblem already belonging to another country. That is the major question, at the moment. The government will then shoulder its responsibilities.

We want to know whether the people of Canada wish to have a flag bearing an emblem of another country, such as the union jack or the fleur-de-lis, or any other emblem, or whether they prefer a strictly Canadian flag, bearing no sign whatever of any other nation.

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the whole matter right now hinges on that point. That is why, I should like to submit respectfully to this house an amendment to my friend's resolution.

My amendment reads as follows:

(Text):

I move, seconded by the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger):

That all the words after the word "flag" in line 4 of the motion be deleted and the following substituted therefor:

"by including the following question in the 1961 census: Are you in favour of a distinctive national flag which does not contain the emblem of any other country?"

Mr, Deputy Speaker:

Does any hon. member wish to discuss the validity of the amendment? Otherwise I shall put it.

Mr. Harold E. Winch (Vancouver East):

Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak to the motion and, of necessity now, to the amendment. Once again we are engaged in a discussion of the question of a distinctive Canadian national flag. This matter keeps coming before the House of Commons on a perennial basis by way of motions, and once again we have it before us this afternoon. Undoubtedly it is of interest to a great many people.

In introducing my remarks this afternoon I should like to remind the house of something I said in opening my statement on a similar motion on February 20, 1959. I said this, as recorded on page 1265 of Hansard of that date:

Flags of Canada

There can be no question but what there is a great deal of interest in Canada in the question of a distinctive Canadian flag. I think I can say also that there are a great many ideas as to what that flag should be. I know that there is hardly a week goes by that I do not receive letters on this matter and a number of designs. In the main, each one is different. All these people are sincere, and everyone seems to have a good, basic reason for suggesting his own design.

I do not feel I can do better in introducing my remarks this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, on the motion that is now before us, than by repeating what I said on that occasion. This afternoon we do have a motion which is somewhat different from the many which this house has considered in the past. The hon. member is introducing a suggestion that the government should consider the advisability of holding a referendum concerning the adoption of a Canadian flag. The motion refers to only two designs. The question to be submitted in this referendum would be:

Are you in favour of a flag consisting of (a) a green maple leaf on a red and white field, or (b) the red ensign.

This, sir, is a somewhat different suggestion from that which we have considered in past years. I want to say, first of all, that so far as the C.C.F. are concerned, we have by convention decisions over the years stated that we were in favour of a distinctive Canadian flag. May I give two illustrations. I have here, sir, the report of our thirteenth annual convention held in July, 1954, where this motion was carried:

Resolved that, in view of existing C.C.F. policy in support of a distinctive national flag for Canada, this convention urge the parliamentary group to exert continuous pressure in parliament for the adoption of a flag at an early date.

In order to illustrate that we felt the same in 1956, I may say that at our August convention that year there was a reference to the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag and a national anthem. The position of this group, Mr. Speaker, is therefore very clear, not only because I say so but because by national convention opinion there should be a distinctive Canadian flag.

However, there are aspects of this question and of this particular motion of the hon. member which I feel require some enlargement. I was most interested in the remarks of the sponsor of this motion when he referred to the maple leaf. It has been my privilege, sir, to be in many countries of the world during the past two years. I was most intrigued and proud to find that wherever I went with my colleagues from this house and the other place, be it the United Kingdom, Australia, Israel, Iran, Pakistan, Ceylon, Indonesia, Thailand, as soon as anyone saw the little maple leaf in the lapel of my coat they said "Canada". The

Flags of Canada

man on the street said "Canada". This indicates that already there is something symbolic to everyone in the world that means Canada, and that is the maple leaf. I hope, sir, that will not be forgotten in any consideration of a distinctive Canadian flag.

I must admit I was a little disturbed by a remark made by one of the previous speakers who, if my interpretation of his remarks was correct, indicated that the pride of Canada required that we have a distinctive national flag. I hope we are not going to consider this resolution on that basis. The pride of Canada, sir, is not in the colour or design of a flag that we may have or may have had up until now. The pride of Canada is in what the flag stands for, not the colour or design. It is what the flag stands for that is the cause of Canadian pride, not whether it is the fleur-de-lis, the maple leaf, the beaver or the red ensign.

This question, without a doubt, can be and most likely is an emotional one. I was born in England, but I have lived in Canada since 1910. There are others in Canada whose cultural and ethnic background is French, Scandinavian, Ukrainian, Indian or Chinese. In my estimation the important fact is that I am a Canadian, and this is Canada. Surely, sir, the importance of a flag is what it means, not the colour or design. I do not believe those who feel so emotional about the design feel they are any worse Canadians because their background is represented by the fleur-de-lis than I do because mine is represented by the union jack. Ever since there has been a Canada we have had a flag. We have had a flag in peace; we have had a flag in war.

This brings to my mind something about which I have thought quite a bit. I believe that one of the greatest organizations for peace and progress in the world is the British commonwealth. I have often wondered why we have not given consideration to not merely a distinctive flag for each of the individual countries that make up the commonwealth but something which would be a representation to the world of a population of 600 million people who believe in peace, freedom, prosperity, mutual understanding and international good will. It would mean a good deal more to me to have a flag for the commonwealth, recognized by all of us, flown over Canada, for that which I maintain is the purpose of a flag, than for any purpose of distinctive nationalism.

However, as I say, it is to a certain extent something of an emotional nature. If the majority of the people of Canada feel

that it means more to them in our commonwealth to have a distinctive Canadian national flag, then let us have it. But let us not in this House of Commons try to consider in a motion or even to debate what form the design of that flag shall take, and I will tell you why. A few years ago the House of Commons and the Senate tried to do just that, and I think my memory serves me correctly when I say that there are now in the files in these buildings something in the neighbourhood of 1,400 designs. I believe my memory is correct.

Mr. Hodgson:

Over 2,700.

Mr. Winch:

The hon. member says there are over 2,700. When he spoke my hon. friend said there were 800. I remember at that time there were 1,400. Now there are over 2,700. You cannot have a referendum, I submit, on the question "which one do you want?" I know everyone was sincere in the reason behind his submission. I think I can agree that a referendum should be put to the Canadian people as to whether they feel that it is necessary or that it is going to help them to have a distinctive national flag. However, I cannot agree that a referendum should be put on the question "Do you want one of two?" That is the question contained in the motion before us.

I think this has reached the point now where the discussion is going to go on all day, as I think has occurred every year I have been here and for many years prior to that time, with no decision or conclusion being reached. I think it would be a wonderful thing if this house would now reach a decision on this matter. I believe it is a good idea to put this matter in a referendum to the Canadian people, to ask them whether they want a distinctive national flag and to let them answer that question.

However, I want to say this also. It should not be a referendum on one or two flags. No one can make a decision on this 2,700 designs that are now on file in the buildings here. I say this, and it is only my personal opinion, however, I want to put it forward as a personal opinion. There is only one way to handle the situation. If the Canadian people decide by referendum that they want a distinctive national flag, there is only one way to settle the design and that is for the government to have the intestinal fortitude- having received an affirmative vote of the Canadian people, if such is forthcoming-to reach a decision on the design and go through the necessary procedure, namely to bring a bill before this House of Commons, have it passed and sent to the Senate and passed there.

Otherwise we are going to be carrying on in the years to come as we have been doing in the past, I imagine, almost since the time of confederation. Let the people decide by referendum-and in this I agree with the sponsor of the bill-whether they want it. If they say yes, then let the government- this government or a succeeding one-have the fortitude, after all their studies and consideration, to bring in a design, have the guts to stand by it and let us pass it.

As I said, there will be backers of 2,700 designs who perhaps will not like the design chosen. There will be a few weeks or a few months of criticism and obstruction. But if I know the people of Canada at all and the way in which they react, my opinion is this. If that decision is made and passed by the House of Commons and the Senate, it will not be long before they will all be saluting the flag and will be proud of the fact that they have now obtained what they want, namely a distinctive flag.

I put that suggestion forward. In conclusion I say that this is an emotional matter. I am quite happy under the flag under which I now live. If the majority of the people, however, want something different, that is all right. It is then our responsibility to see that they get it. I hope the amendment will not be considered with a view to just putting forward a referendum on two ideas for a flag. That is why I rather like the principle of the amendment. I think this is a wonderful time to have a referendum by including it as one of the questions in the census. I want to commend the hon. member for that suggestion. I think it is a wonderful idea. But I suggest that his amendment be amended, or that he consider amending it, in order not to ask again "Are you in favour of a distinctive national flag which does not contain an emblem of any other country?"

How partisan can you get? There once again we are running into the old trouble with regard to the union jack or the fleur-de-lis. We are now getting a great influx of people from other parts of the world. On that score we are running right back into the trouble that has been bothering us all this time. I think this idea of a referendum in the original motion is good. I think the principle of the amendment with regard to having the referendum put in the census is a wonderful idea. Then if the government in the census gets the answer that Canada wants a distinctive national flag, let them have the gumption to bring in a bill embodying a design, and I think we shall then finally solve this problem of a flag for Canada.

Mr. Harris Rogers (Red Deer):

Mr. Speaker, in entering this debate may I say that my remarks will naturally be brief, inasmuch as my

Flags of Canada

colleague the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Regnier) covered the matter rather fully and in detail. At the outset I want to say that in his remarks the hon. member for Vancouver East has made a suggestion that I think could be worked out in principle.

It is not considered good form to refer to one's background or activities in life. However, Mr. Speaker, in order to keep the record straight I think I should be permitted to do so today. I belong to that component of British origin that descended from the united empire loyalists. On tracing the lineage back one finds that it is quite a mixture. In it there are traces of Huguenot, English, Irish, Scots, Welsh and Dutch which, I submit, when all welded together have made me a Canadian and a proud one. Apart from this consideration I served in the armed forces for some nine or ten years. So altogether-let us have no misunderstanding about this-I have always been loyal to the crown and to the union jack and our membership in the commonwealth of nations. Be that as it may, in all sincerity I think the time has arrived when we should have a distinctive Canadian flag.

Geographically Canada is the third largest nation in the world. Our population is made up of peoples from all over the globe and the flow of immigrants must be kept up if we ever intend to build a nation in keeping with our heritage. The time has passed when we can sit back and be told that the British and French laid the foundations of present day Canada. During the second world war, following an accident in my first unit, I was given the honour of recruiting and organizing a second army service corps unit. I found it difficult to pronounce the names of most of the servicemen who formed that unit. Suffice it to say they were simply Canadians, and proud of it.

This is Canada, and in my humble opinion nothing could give us more confidence and national unity than a distinctive Canadian flag. We have Canadians in the services-in fact, they are ambassadors of the highest order- serving all over the world. From what I can gather, their hue and cry is for a distinctive Canadian flag, something they can cling to and something they can look to with pride.

I submit that the purpose of a national flag is to indicate the sovereignty of a nation, which I contend our present flag does not altogether do. It honours the union jack, which is an honourable symbol but not the symbol of Canada. This has been quite an issue over a number of years and dates back to 1925, as far as I can find out, when the government of the day set up a committee of civil servants to study the problem. This was short-lived, in as much as it did not

Flags of Canada

have the required representation. Subsequently to this, in the years 1931, 1933, 1934, 1935 and 1933 motions and resolutions were talked out, much as I suppose will happen today. Following this, in 1945 the government set up a committee of members of parliament and senators, the report of which was not presented to the House of Commons.

Almost concurrent with this the then prime minister, the Eight Hon. Mackenzie King, passed an order in council recognizing the red ensign as our national flag. This was gradually accepted over the years, but certainly there was not very much direction to it. That is the reason why certain sections of our country have not really accepted the red ensign. In other words, we have a Canada part of which recognizes the union jack and the rest the red ensign. The history of our past efforts to get a distinctive Canadian flag indicates, I think, lack of leadership and certainly heart. I think it is fair to say that Canadians are not a boastful people. As a matter of fact they have often been accused of being too reserved.

In regard to the flag itself, there is a minority of Canadians who could not care less. There are other sections who think it is the final break with the mother country. But there are a great many others-and in particular, young Canadians-who want a distinctive Canadian flag. I think this feeling has been growing over the years, particularly following the two world wars, and has had a great deal of influence on our thinking. There is the first group, which tends to assume that what was good enough for their fathers is good enough for them, and I submit that the second group is not assessing the matter correctly.

There will always be a Great Britain, and the fact that Canada decides to have a distinctive national flag will never break our ties with the mother country. In fact, I think it will enhance our relationship with her. We should be proud of our birthplace, but our first allegiance must be to Canada. Facing the situation fairly and squarely, no one in his right mind will quarrel with the concept of loyalty to his birthplace. This does not, however, alter the fact that our first allegiance should be to Canada. And we need a distinctive flag. Nothing could instil in us more pride and confidence as a nation than a distinctive flag.

These, of course are my own personal views. In conclusion, to date there has been no opportunity to definitely assess the feelings of Canadians as a whole on this vital question. I am therefore most happy to second this motion urging that provision be made for a referendum to consider the adoption of a Canadian flag. I submit that only in this

manner will each and every Canadian have the opportunity to express his views and wishes on this question, which is of such vital concern to every Canadian.

(Translation):