Oh.

Mr. Skoreyko:

He did, you must agree, refuse to fulfil his responsibilities as a deputy minister because of political partisanship. He resigned not only because he could not get along with his staff but because his staff did not particularly care for him. The only way in which he could vindicate his honour was to get elected to this parliament where he could again display his bureaucratic arrogance. But he is not going to get away with it.

The Minister of Trade and Commerce made a speech to this house on the subamendment and his total disregard for relevancy only indicated to me that he is completely ignorant of the moral, political, cultural and historic aspects of the question involved. He showed no concern about any of these aspects. His concern was merely: How best do I advance the Liberal party?

Mr. Dupuis:

Out of order completely.

What, the Liberal party?

Mr. Skoreyko:

The Minister of Trade and Commerce said that while Quebec Conservatives sat on their hands-or, rather, I will quote from the article before me. It says:

While Quebec Conservatives sat on their hands, Mr. Sharp asked the opposition lor the source of Mr. Diefenbaker's idea to modify the red ensign by the inclusion of a fleur-de-lis. He called it "a clumsy and gratuitous piece of appeasement- a bone thrown out to a troublesome minority."

These are his own words. Neither the Conservative party in this house nor any member of that party has ever used in reference to the French speaking Canadians of this

country, the words "troublesome minority". The words were uttered by the Minister of Trade and Commerce and they are disgusting for a minister of the crown to use with that bureaucratic attitude of his.

As I was going through some of the interesting clippings I have in my possession I noticed another article bringing to the attention of the Minister of Trade and Commerce the fact that he would not be able to get away with this partisan political attitude of his. This newspaper article reminds him that the arrogance of the Liberals helped to defeat them in 1957. Mr. Sharp, it says, revealed that it is one of the best Conservative assets today. How right he is.

In conclusion, I want to deal with one or two other aspects of this subject. I want to deal with the question of copyright as it affects the new flag. If the Prime Minister were to agree to a referendum, would parliament have the right to turn this matter over to the returning officers and ask them to include this design on the ballot during an election before the copyright has been cleared? I ask this because there was an article which appeared in the press very recently which I found most interesting, although I do not agree with some of the views which were expressed. The writer, Mr. Charles Lynch, said:

One of the unresolved problems confronting the government over the maple leaf flag is getting the design copyrighted.

When Prime Minister Pearson sent to the patent and copyright division here last week to find how many maple leaf copyrights there were he was told that 327 commercial firms hold a copyright on the maple leaf and 24 others have a copyright on three leaves.

Well, Mr. Speaker, I suggest to you that the course of action that would have to be taken by the federal government would be tantamount to the expropriation of a copyright. If this were the course of action taken in fact, I suppose that attitude on the part of the government would be no different from the attitude of the government in any "red" country, if you like.

It is not too many months ago, sir, that I read an article dealing with brand names and copyrights and how the cancellation of these copyrights affects business. My wife probably buys the majority of her meats and meat products from Canada Packers under the "Maple Leaf" label, but I am wondering if she could tell me who manufactures that particular brand. This was the concern of the advertising people, that literally thousands of women buy, not only food, not only

clothing but all sorts of household commodities daily and identify the product by the copyrighted name. The minister is looking at me; I see that he agrees with me wholeheartedly. What, then, happens to Canada Packers copyright; a name they have maintained with a degree of dignity for years and years-"Canada Packers Maple Leaf" products?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):

Order. I must interrupt the hon. gentleman to tell him that the time allotted to him has expired.

That's enough.

Mr. Skoreyko:

If I may rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I am sure there would be no objection to allowing me to continue.

Oh, yes there is.

Mr. Skoreyko:

I had prepared notes sufficient for the alloted time. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, with due deference, that had it not been for the interjections of the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Godin) and a number of others, I would have had adequate time to complete my remarks.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):

I recognize the objection which the hon. member raises, but I am sure he will recognize that if he accepts a question, he accepts the question on his own time. On the other hand, if he is interrupted a number of times during his remarks, some allowance should be made for that time. The hon. gentleman's time was up eight minutes ago and I have given him that extra time because I was advised by the Deputy Speaker when I came to the chair that a number of interruptions had been made. I believe I have made a fair allowance for the interruptions which were made during the hon. member's remarks.

Mr. Churchill:

I am raising a point of

order with regard to your statement, Mr. Speaker, that a member accepting a question accepts it on his own time. We will have to be protected by Mr. Speaker in this regard, because yesterday I did not accept questions from the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Mathe-son), but he persisted in making a statement and was permitted to do so. So if we are to have questions accepted and taken out of our time for speaking, we will require the protection of the Chair with regard to interruptions.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):

I am

sure the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. Churchill), who is as well or better acquainted with the rules than I am,

Canadian Flag

will agree that if a question is asked of an hon. member who is making a speech, he has the right to accept or reject the question. I would say to the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre that my own opinion in this regard is that if any hon. member wishes to ask a question of a member who is speaking, the member who is speaking has the right to accept or reject that question. I feel that no question should be asked until the member speaking has given his consent or otherwise. The hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret).

Mr. Maurice Rinfret (St. James):

Mr. Speaker, since mid-

Mr. Nasserden:

On the point of order that was raised, Mr. Speaker, I think it is also the accepted practice that a member should ask his question after the member who has the floor has completed his remarks; and this practice has not been observed by members on the other side of the house.

Mr. Dupuis:

Mr. Speaker, as regards the point of order, I should like to remind the hon. member who has just spoken that should his suggestion not to allow any member to direct questions to the member who is speaking be applied, his own leader would never be able to speak in this house, as he is always asking questions of other members right in the middle of a debate.

Mr. Simpson:

Whom did you get that from- Pick?

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Batten):

Order. I think it is the general practice of the house when a member is speaking for another member to ask a question; but it is still up to the member who is speaking to decide whether he will or will not accept the question. If the member who is speaking decides he is not going to accept the question, the member seeking to ask the question has no right to persist. The hon. member for St. James. [Translation]

Mr. Rinfrei:

This house has been discussing since the middle of June the resolution introduced by the government, for the adoption of a distinctive Canadian flag.

As early as January 27, 1960, when he was leader of the opposition, the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Pearson) stated clearly the position of the Liberal party on this flag question. At that time, he proposed

Canadian Flag

to the then Conservative government to put before parliament legislation which, and I quote:

-if it were adopted by the representatives of the people, would settle the Issue of our national flag; parliament would then agree to adopt a distinctive flag which, unlike the red ensign to which parliament has never given official recognition, could not be mistaken for the flag of the United Kingdom or some colonies and could be easily identified as the Canadian flag.

Is it not consistent that now that he has become the leader of the Canadian government, the right hon. Prime Minister should propose a resolution in order to give Canada a distinctive national flag?

Like many other members, the right hon. Prime Minister received a number of letters from people complaining about measures that might be taken to replace the red ensign. The Prime Minister answered to those bona fide correspondents that he wanted to assure them of his unqualified respect for the union jack and the red ensign and for all they represent of our history and traditions as symbols of freedom and democracy. Nevertheless, it is time that Canada should be given a distinctive flag which would have the top position on the mast.

Canada has been waiting for a flag long enough. I am both happy and proud to see that the government has now seen fit to take steps in that direction. Our confederation will soon be a hundred years old. Discussions on the flag have been going on for years, right from the very beginning of our confederation, and until now it has always seemed that no agreement was possible. Will any further delay in finally adopting a national flag make for better understanding?

With the coming of the centennial and the world fair, there are other reasons besides the basic ones for adopting a distinctive flag now. There is the matter of convenience which should not be minimized.

Indeed, it is inconceivable that this country could welcome millions of visitors to those great events without being able to fly a flag unmistakably its own.

Since every country has its flag, why should Canada be an exception? The flag is actually a factor of national unity, in peacetime as well as in wartime. If other proposed flags are controversial, it is all the more necessary to cast them aside and start anew with a new emblem.

Now, the other flags mentioned, which were not approved officially but only tolerated, give rise to controversy. Therefore, they should be discarded as distinctive flags. As a country,

Canada takes part in all important international conferences. It is a middle power, but with bright prospects for future development in every respect. And such a country would be without a distinctive flag? You will admit that this is paradoxical.

Former generations were cautious on this subject. They did not jeopardize the future. The government is now convinced that Canada should have its own flag and it gives praise to the previous leaders who, in their wisdom, refrained from tying its hands in this connection.

The time has come for Canada to choose a permanent distinctive flag that will be kept by future generations since it will have been given a "clear" and official status.

All the present differences will be forgotten if this house puts aside narrow considerations and sectional interests to take the proper decision which is quite simple, that of giving the country an emblem which will be respected both at home and abroad, an emblem that will confirm the good reputation our country enjoys throughout the world, as travellers back from Europe, Asia and Africa can testify.

It has been said that the flag issue was liable to create emotional rather than rational reactions. Mr. Speaker, if the flag issue can give rise to purely emotional reactions, it can also be objectively dealt with as any other problem. It is up to us, as members of parliament, to be rational. Now, to give the country a distinctive flag for reasons of convenience, especially to consolidate unity among Canadians, is not an emotional but a rational issue.

Regardless of the emblem selected, there will undoubtedly be few but vocal reactionaries and disgruntled people. It is not possible to satisfy everybody. Considering the information gathered by the members of the house as a whole and after thinking the matter over and listening to a debate which has been going on for several weeks, I am firmly convinced that the people of the ten provinces want a distinctive flag.

I think that an autonomous country such as Canada has been since the Statute of Westminster has to adopt a flag whose design will not be reminiscent of any other country. Why should the country's emblem include reminders of Canada's ties with England and not with France? On the other hand, if we were to adopt a flag representing the two former hegemonies, ' it would be necessary to load the flag with complicated symbols and it would still not satisfy anyone. It is better to eliminate the symbols recalling France or

England and thus not only prevent differences ot opinion from continuing unabated but also prevent the new flag from becoming unacceptable to new Canadians who make up a large percentage of our population.

Thus we would have a common flag for the whole population, a flag which would not perpetuate the old quarrels we want to forget, which is a great advantage. The inclusion of symbols representing the motherlands would only feed old grudges. The adoption of a distinctive flag seems to be the only sound way to put an end to useless discussions on that issue.

The three maple leaves, the central element of the proposed flag, seem a logical choice since they represent Canada. Many pages of our literature, in both French and English, are devoted to the maple leaf. They contain many references to the maple tree which is quite representative of our country not because it is exclusive to Canada but because, due to its profusion and beauty, its praises have been sung by Canadian poets and lyrics writers.

Hon. members should not prolong this debate unnecessarily by lengthy discussions of details. That is why I prefer to stick with a distinctive flag containing three maple leaves rather than risk embroiling matters and putting off the selection of a distinctive flag indefinitely.

The hon. member for Vancouver Quadra said in the house, on June 30 last:

I believe Canada needs not only a distinctive flag but a distinctive Canadian spirit.

That distinctive spirit should be embodied in a flag whose judicial status is well established. It should represent all Canadians and, in my opinion, the three maple leaves flag should be the national flag of Canada and should prevail over all those which we had in the past.

The point here is not to please French Canadians any more than others, as suggested in certain narrow-minded political quarters. But if we take a look at history, we must admit that French Canadians have special reasons to favour the maple leaf flag, having been pioneers in the development of the west as well as the east, through their daring explorers and missionaries, laymen and clerics as well.

English speaking people of good will could not, any more than French Canadians, repudiate the distinctive flag proposed. Canada is the common country of the descendants of French and English pioneers. It has become gradually the country of immigrants of all nationalities who chose to come here 20220-462-J

Canadian Flag

to start a new life that had become impossible for them in their country of origin and gave Canada the best of their talents and industry. No one among those three groups should stand against the adoption of a flag which is long overdue. On the contrary, everyone should look forward with enthusiasm to the day when it will fly on high in the Canadian sky.

Mr. Thomas M. Bell (Saint John-Albert):

Mr. Speaker, this is my first intervention in the debate. I have had my name on the list of speakers for some time, but the list is long and it takes quite a while before one's name is reached. It is a pleasure to follow my hon. friend, the hon. member for St. James (Mr. Rinfret), and I hope that the remarks I have to make although somewhat different, will be along the same lines of Canadianism that he has envisaged.

I have noticed that many members who have spoken in beginning their remarks have made personal references to their own backgrounds and the backgrounds of their constituencies, and I want to do the same. Many hon. members have referred to service in the first and second world wars and their association with the red ensign. I think I am one of the few, if not the only one in the house, who can say that my entire career at sea during the second world war, a very inauspicious career I might add, was spent serving under the red ensign. Those of us in the merchant navy, however, grew to honour and appreciate the old red duster.

For the record, I think hon. members will find that the red ensign was first officially used on British mercantile ships in 1707 and has been used ever since. The first instance in Canada of the use of the red ensign with the dominion badge or seal added was in 1892.

May I also refer to Saint John and make some brief remarks about this historic city. Many hon. members will, of course, associate Saint John with the Loyalists. We are very proud of our Loyalist tradition and it is becoming a greater source of pride every day. I think I should point out that for a considerable period of its history Saint John was under the French flag, a similar period to that when Annapolis Royal was under French rule, as referred to by the hon. member for Digby-Annapolis-Kings (Mr. Nowlan) the other day. Many people do not know this.

I recall that when a measure was introduced in the house in 1954 concerning historic sites the then minister of northern affairs, now premier of Quebec, did not realize this fact

Canadian Flag

and promised consideration when I mentioned that here was a very good example of two eras of colonial control in a city. The Fort LaTour period to which I am referring extended from 1631 to 1645 and it was the first major French outpost in New Brunswick. Prior to that time there were two earlier phases of Indian life. The story of the first English settlement on the Saint John river more than a century after the LaTour-D'Aulnay struggle between two rival French traders is recalled by the well known trading posts associated with the Simonds, Hazen and White period. Thus, at Portland point in Saint John are significant historical phases in the lives of three racial strains, Indians, French and English. Each has played an important role in the history of our province. When to these are added the famous Loyalist settlement one has a good idea of the different strains in our city and province.

I think it is important to understand why the Loyalists came to New Brunswick. They were a unique group comprising many well educated men and certainly men of great principle. Not nearly enough credit has been given in our history books to these gallant exiles. Some have suggested that had they found in their midst in the United States a true leader such as George Washington they might have remained there and brought about a different course of history. But they did not hesitate. They brought with them their valuable possessions, their education and culture, but above all else their love of a monarchical form of government. They were not interested in republicanism in any form. That is why in New Brunswick and Saint John we have such a pleasant mixture of culture from which many can take a lesson. We have a pleasant blend of American heritage with a true love for the crown, not a blind obedience but an appreciation of the monarchy as a better form of government than a republic.

It is important to define what one means by "imperialism" and I go to the work, "Canadians In The Making", by Professor A. R. M. Lower. On page 349 he states:

Canadian imperialism has never been simple: it can at one and the same time be bitterly contemptuous of Englishmen and warmly welcome the British connection. A newspaper in that most loyal of all Canadian cities, Saint John, could write, apropos of a book by an English traveller: "Canadians might never suspect how coarse, ignorant, conceited and, withal, amusing they are if talented Englishmen did not come out occasionally and write books about them." Imperialism was in its own way a kind of Canadian nationalism.

In supporting the subamendment put forward by Ihe hon. member for Regina City

(Mr. More) I want to say at the beginning that I feel a subject such as the flag should not have been brought up for debate in the house. I liken it to capital punishment. It is a very emotional subject. People take positions for different reasons and it is extremely difficult to get a truly free vote on such a subject. In addition, of course, bitter controversy enters the picture.

However, we are involved in a historic debate to which many good contributions have been made. I do not wish to single out any but I think that speeches both inside and outside the house have been worthy of commendation on all sides. I noticed that last night the hon. member for Charlotte (Mr. McLean), a good friend of mine, made a contribution to the debate, and I give him credit for doing so. I do not agree with his thoughts. I think it must have been extremely difficult for him to make that speech. He is a member of the Royal Canadian Legion, active in the boy scouts, a veteran of the first world war and is of Scottish ancestry. His riding is almost completely associated with the British tradition. Yet he came out in favour of the new flag which, of course, means scrapping the red ensign.

I have always been interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Choquette) about a republic. I find it difficult to believe there is support for a republic in his riding and I can only say he is either foolhardy or he knows what his people are thinking. It strikes me that in a historic place like Lotbiniere the people would certainly have great respect for the monarchical form of government.

I was also interested in the speech of the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) the other day. Everybody in the house knows he is a very active Anglican layman, and I say more power to him. But in his speech he disowned completely the red ensign and its historic traditions and connections with the Anglican church. He made absolutely no reference to it. I am not criticizing his stand but I think he should have tried to explain this change in his thinking.

We have also had, of course, the famous speech of the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp) which has been given so much attention. I can only say that it represented a walking of the plank such as we have not seen since the days of Captain Bligh. Hon. members may ask when I think the flag crisis became serious, and I should like to go back to the 1940's for a moment. I lay the entire blame on the Liberal party

and their failure to provide proper, enlightened national leadership, particularly during the so-called Mackenzie King era. I say that they have failed even to grasp the essentials of nationhood and I intend to prove this point.

In his speech the other day the Minister of Trade and Commerce showed great solicitude for the future and fortunes of the Conservative party. I intend to demonstrate it is his type of membership in the so-called Ottawa establishment of liberal, with a small "1", civil servants, English speaking and British educated in most cases, which is more to blame than anything else for the division that has crept into the country. I intend to show that this group who typify this pseudo-Canadianism, and I include in it the Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson), the Minister of Trade and Commerce (Mr. Sharp), the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pickersgill) and any other members of this Ottawa hierarchy, willy-nilly accepted the Mackenzie King philosophy of the day, this misguided Liberalism of the first water that played with the constitution and turned our national life into the volcano of power politics to sustain at all costs the life of the Liberal party. These individuals were the henchmen, knowingly or otherwise who perpetuated the legacy of William Lyon Mackenzie King. The victims, Mr. Speaker, are you and I, the Canadian people, and we are paying for it dearly today in many ways, particularly in the departure of many of our symbols and traditions that go to the very root of our way of life?