Mr. M. W. Marlin (Timmins):

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the New Democratic party I should like to say that we support this resolution wholeheartedly and in order to facilitate reaching a decision on the matter we have no intention of taking up the time of the house in needless debate.

Miss Margaret Aitken (York-Humber):

Mr. Speaker, debate on the flag issue has now become an annual event in the House of Commons and not only one bill but two or three are introduced every session. I find that every time we have a debate on this matter in the house there is very great interest outside. I know that my mail is always a great deal heavier after one of these debates.

There is no doubt that more and more people want a distinctive flag and where the controversy arises is in the interpretation of the word "distinctive". At the outset may I say that my interpretation of the word "distinctive" does include the union jack. I

Flags of Canada

noticed that the hon. member for Drummond-Arthabaska (Mr. Boulanger) told us that his leader had promised to bring in a flag within two years if he should come to power, but the hon. member did not tell us whether the Union jack was going to be a part of that distinctive flag. I include myself among many thousands of Canadians who want a distinctive flag and yet obviously I mean something quite different from what other people mean, in fact quite different from what many members of this house mean.

Having spoken a good many times in the house on this subject, I can only reiterate some of the points I have made before. Certainly I think that none of us on either side of the house wants this matter to become a political football. To all patriotic Canadians a flag is something that affects the emotions and it would be a great pity, in fact, a national tragedy in my opinion, if party politics were allowed to enter into the matter or if it became a referendum issue. I think that would be one of the greatest dangers to national unity.

One reads periodic tirades against politicians for not moving faster on the subject of a flag. Personally I have never blamed the Liberals for moving slowly, as they did, because I think the decision of choosing a flag is a momentous one which will not only affect us in our time but will affect Canadians for generations to come. All of us have received scores of suggestions for a new flag. I presume that the designers of these sometimes extraordinary flags have their reasons for the emblems and colours that they use. My reason for wanting the union jack in our flag is because that design is part of our history.

A couple of years ago in the Canadian Commentator, W. I. Hearst of Toronto wrote a letter in which he made a very good point. This is what he said:

A flag not grounded in a country's history and tradition is nothing more than a label such as one finds on a can of tomatoes.

Mr. Hearst went on to say that our system of laws, method of government, literature and culture, all came from Britain. Then, he said:

No matter how racially mixed the population of Canada may become, she is permanently stamped with British tradition.

I have never forgotten a speech the hon. member for Marquette (Mr. Mandziuk) made on this subject of a flag. He said people were wrong to think that our different ethnic groups were against the inclusion of the union jack. Indeed, he went so far as to say they were content with the union jack, itself, as a flag. It had become the symbol of freedom and human dignity to peoples all over the world.

One argument heard against inclusion of the union jack in our new flag is that old bugaboo about British sovereignty over Canada. This is absolute nonsense, and every thinking Canadian knows it. We are an independent nation with complete control over our own affairs. If there is any kind of foreign influence upon Canada, it certainly does not come from Britain. There is no argument any more on that basis.

One of Canada's greatest daily columnists, the late J. V. McAree, wrote his last column on March 25, 1958 on this very subject of a flag. He concluded in these words:

The union jack and God Save the Queen have inspired millions and have been the source of countless deeds of heroism. It will take a long time for a new flag and a new anthem to build up this great tradition they have established.

Another argument against inclusion of the union jack in a Canadian flag is that it has no symbol in it to represent the French part of our nation. This may be true, although all Canadians have lived together and prospered under the union jack, both as a colony and a sovereign country. It is part of both our histories. I cannot see why, at this time, we should erase it altogether from the future pages of our history. If our French speaking Canadians feel that the union jack has no symbolic significance to them, then by all means let us have a fleur-de-lis or anything else they want, just as long as we include the union jack.

I think a referendum would be one of the worst things we could do. Canadians are people who have learned the benevolent art of compromise. We should practice that virtue in choosing a distinctive flag. We represent the people here, and we represent their views, and to take the issue to the people would, in my opinion, be the greatest danger to our unity.

Hon. L. B. Pearson (Leader of ihe Opposiiion):

I agree with the last hon. member who has expressed the opinion that a referendum would perhaps not be the best way of settling a question which is of such great importance to us. A referendum, without any assurance of action after the referendum, would merely delay and postpone rather than decide. It might even accentuate division in the country without coming to any decision in respect of this matter.

Now, Mr. Speaker, I think the time has come when we should decide this matter. It is a decision which should be made on the responsibility of the government of the day. It would be interesting to have the Prime Minister (Mr. Diefenbaker) take part in this debate and tell us what his responsibility is in connection with this matter as leader of the government.

Who is killing the bill?

Order.

Mr. Pigeon:

Do you share Mr. Pickersgill's views?

Mr. Pearson:

It is quite true that at the present time we do not have in this country a distinctive national flag which can be distinguished from the emblem of any other country. It is time, I think, when we should make a decision in that regard, a decision which will bring us closer together. When we on this side talk about that kind of distinctive national flag, that does not depreciate in any way the flag which we have had in the past, with the union jack as part of that flag, or the union jack itself.

I have served in war, Mr. Speaker, under the union jack. I have been proud to do so. I have seen the union jack flying in wartime in London amidst smoke, destruction and flames. I have been proud to be in London in those days when the union jack flew there. However, that does not mean we should not have in our country a flag which cannot be mistaken for that of another country. I have said this in other parts of Canada and I am glad to say it in the House of Commons this afternoon. I repeat now, Mr. Speaker, and I would be glad to have the Prime Minister make the same kind of statement if he would so that the subject could be taken out of politics, that within two years of taking office a new Liberal government will submit to parliament for approval a distinctively Canadian flag which cannot be mistaken for the emblem of another country, the design of which will be decided in the cabinet first, where all sections of Canada are represented, and then submit it to a full parliament for the ultimate and final decision. This flag, Mr. Speaker, would be the national flag of Canada.

Mr. Pigeon:

We would have two flags.

Mr. Pearson:

This would be the one national flag of Canada.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order; I am sorry to interrupt the Leader of the Opposition, but his time has expired.

Mr. Pearson:

I was interrupted, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps you would give me one half minute so that I could finish my statement.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Yes.

Mr. Pearson:

Having taken that stand, I believe firmly that the union jack or an emblem with the union jack should continue to be honoured in this country and flown on appropriate occasions, Mr. Speaker.

Oh, oh.

Mr. Pigeon:

Three flags now.

Order.

Business of the House

Mr. Pearson:

Perhaps if you are giving me 30 seconds, Mr. Speaker, I could be allowed to continue without disturbance from these gentlemen across the way.

As I say, the union jack or an emblem with the union jack, would continue to be honoured and flown on appropriate occasions as the emblem symbolizing our status as a monarchy under the crown and symbolizing our association with the commonwealth of nations.

Mr. Pigeon:

Three flags now for the Liberal party.

Mr. Johnson:

All you wanted to do was kill this resolution.

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. The hour for consideration of private members' business having expired, the house will now revert to the business interrupted at five o'clock.