December 16, 1964

?

Some hon. Members:

Order.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Louis Chatterton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Chaiterlon:

I maintain, Mr. Speaker, that if a design had been selected such as I am going to describe, the question of a plebiscite would never have arisen. To repeat, I maintain that if the design I shall describe had been selected, the question of a plebiscite would not be before us today. This particular design, for the record, is exactly the same as the one finally selected-that is, the red maple leaf on a centre white background and a red border at each end-except that there are two small additions. In one red column there is a small union jack, and in the other red column a small, equally sized square with three fleur-de-lis in it. As soon as the committee report was filed, I believe on November 29, I became curious as to what this flag looked like. I happened to get a copy of the flag and it immediately seemed to me that this was a perfect solution. This design had many advantages. In the first place, it was not a political flag; it was not a flag proposed by the Conservative party, or any other political party. It was apparently a design of the experts on the flag committee. That design has as its central motif a maple leaf; it is a maple leaf flag.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

Maurice Bourget (Speaker of the Senate)

Mr. Depufy Speaker:

Order. In spite of the suggestion made by the hon. member to the effect that what he is now saying is relevant to the question before the house, the Chair has very serious doubts about it and it seems the hon. member is now discussing the question of the work done by the committee. He says that if the committee had reached a different conclusion or had made a different recommendation, then a plebiscite would not have been necessary. To my mind this is rather far fetched in the line of relevancy. I would ask him to relate the argument he is now proposing to the Chair to the subject matter under discussion.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Louis Chatterton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Chalterton:

Mr. Speaker, if I may eliminate my references to the findings of

the committee, I am trying to state the case that under certain circumstances I for one would not support a plebiscite, but that under the circumstances which prevail I would support it. I am trying to describe these circumstances which do prevail, and one of the factors which make up the circumstances is that I believe there is a design which might be acceptable, which would therefore eliminate the necessity for a plebiscite. This particular design I have described could, I believe, be acceptable to members on both sides of the house, and I hope I am not too optimistic when I appeal to the Prime Minister and to hon. members opposite to take another look at the question of design. A design which met the requirements of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition would surely eliminate the need for a plebiscite.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, that we are not very far from arriving at such a design. To me, the whole question whether we should have a plebiscite or should not is not necessarily one which the people have the right to determine. I believe that if the members of this house came to a consensus on a selected design and there was no major group in the house which took strong exception to it, then I for one would not for a moment consider the necessity for or advisability of a plebiscite. I think the whole question boils down to the selection of an acceptable design.

There is at the moment an amendment before the house, and on the basis of the present amendment I could not within the rules move another amendment which would bring about what I have in mind, which is reconsideration by the committee of a design which might be acceptable to groups in all parts of the house. Such a design, of course, would eliminate the necessity for debate. I would go as far as to say that if such design were agreed upon by even the two major parties I would, under those circumstances, support the government if it were to invoke closure in order to bring about a design which is acceptable to the majority of the groups within Canada. I do not know whether it is too late to do this. I do not know whether the positions of the various parties have hardened too much. But I would make an appeal to the members on the other side of the house. I have spoken to many members from all parts of the house, and I must say I had hoped that we might reach agreement in spite of the recommendations of this committee. I have spoken to individual members on an individual basis, and they agree with me that possibly there is a design which would be generally accept-

able and which would eliminate all necessity for extensive debate, and certainly obviate any stipulation that there be a plebiscite on the flag question.

With regret, Mr. Speaker, I must say that I must now support the proposal for a plebiscite in spite of the fact, as I have pointed out, that I am strongly averse to the principle involved. As to what should be covered by a plebiscite, that is another point; but if this question were referred to a committee, I would hope that the committee would come up with two designs, and I do not think the red ensign should be one of them.

If this question were to be covered by a plebiscite, I think the designs which the committee should come up with are these. First of all, the committee grouped some flag designs into three kinds. I say that the committee should consider two groups of various designs. Everyone seems to be agreed that a new flag should be based on the maple leaf, which would be its main motif. Then the committee could recommend that two flags be submitted to the people from which they could choose. The first flag should be based on the maple leaf but carry no symbols of our heritage, our traditions or our past-as the present one recommended by the committee. The second one should be a design something of the order of the one I have described. It too should be a maple leaf design but should carry something of our history and of our past. I know from what some of my colleagues who are French speaking have told me that they are not anxious to have the fleur-de-lis on the flag. But let me tell them that the people in the west consider that the contribution made by our French speaking colleagues is a most important one and they would like to see some indication on the flag of the major contribution they made to Canada.

May I call it six o'clock?

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

It being six o'clock I do now leave the chair.

At six o'clock the house took recess.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink

AFTER RECESS The house resumed at 8 p.m.


?

Some hon. Members:

Question.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

James Edgar Walker (Chief Government Whip; Whip of the Liberal Party)

Liberal

Mr. Walker:

I see a quorum, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich.

Canadian Flag

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Louis Chatterton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Chaiterlon:

Mr. Speaker, I hear members opposite yelling "question". Of course, when they had a chance to call "question" they did not make use of it. Last Thursday night it was moved that the debate be adjourned so that we could go on with other business but at that time, of course, members opposite were in favour of continuing the flag debate.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Lucien Lamoureux (Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons)

Liberal

Mr. Deputy Speaker:

Order. I might mention to the hon. member that this is the second time in the course of his remarks he has offended against one of the rules of the house that requires members not to reflect on votes of the house. So I would ask him not to refer in this particular way to the vote which was taken earlier in this debate.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

George Louis Chatterton

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Chatterton:

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I accept your ruling. Sometimes it is difficult to stick to the rules in the face of provocation.

I want to conclude briefly the remarks I was making before six o'clock. I said that I was opposed in principle to a plebiscite but that the circumstances were such that I thought a plebiscite was the only course open to the house in view of the situation to which the government had brought us. I still think at this late stage that although positions have hardened, particularly the position on the government side, there is room for manoeuvre, room to arrive at a conclusion which might eliminate the necessity of what I consider would be an unfortunate plebiscite. I say that because if we did have a plebiscite, no matter what its terms might be, it would tend to continue and perhaps even deepen the disunity that has been caused by the raising of this question. But at least after a plebiscite I believe the people would accept the decision that might be made, whatever it might be. But if the decision is to be made on the basis of the present course of the government, then, Mr. Speaker, judging by what a great many people in my area have told me, it will take a long time, a generation or more, for those people who feel so strongly about the flag that they considered was our flag, to overcome the feeling that something has been taken away from them, something which they have revered, something they thought was an essential part of Canada as they saw it.

For that reason, Mr. Speaker, unless the government is prepared either to postpone the flag issue or unless they wish to consider a further referral to the committee so that the committee can come up with a proposal

Canadian Flag

that will be acceptable generally to the various groups within Canada, I maintain that the only alternative, and a regrettable one, is to refer the question of a flag for the decision of the people of Canada, and in my opinion the decision should be made simpler by having two designs submitted to the people.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Clarence Owen Cooper

Progressive Conservative

Mr. C. O. Cooper (Roseiown-Biggar):

Mr. Speaker, I am going to be brief. I did not intend to speak in this debate, but since the last flag debate I have had so many letters and so many comments on the way this matter has been conducted in the house that I am almost forced to say a few words.

On Armistice day, when I watched the parade with the four red ensigns being carried at the front, I felt sad and with heavy heart I said to myself: Is this going to be the last time we will see our grand old flag being used on Armistice day? I was standing in front of the west block and a gentleman and his wife came along. The Canadian red ensign was flying side by side with the stars and stripes. This man spoke to me and he said, "Why do the people of Canada want to throw away the red ensign?" He looked with pride at his American flag. He reached over and stretched it out and stretched out the red ensign and his wife took a picture. He said, "I want this picture for fear the red ensign will not be seen flying again beside our stars and stripes."

I was in St. Catharines over the week end. Having been born near the water, I love boats. On the prairies we do not see many boats and I spent a lot of time at the Welland canal watching the boats of almost every nation in the world go through the locks. On their masts they all flew the Canadian red ensign along with the flag of their own nation. As to the ships that were coal burners or diesel types, the white in the flags they were flying had become dirty, but the Canadian red ensign stood out with its loud colours. It is a very picturesque sight.

While I was standing there talking to some people, one man said to me, "You know, the Canadian red ensign looks great on those ships." I said, "Yes". He said, "Why are the people in Ottawa trying to throw it away?" He did not know I was a member of parliament or that I Was standing up for it. He gave me quite a talk on his feelings about throwing away our heritage, all our

[Mr. Chatterton.l

past experience, for a flag with none of our traditional symbols on it.

These are just a few of the comments I wished to make on some matters that have been brought to my attention since the flag debate took place a few weeks ago. I am still getting quite a few letters. Here is one from the Canadian Corps Association, which reads in part as follows:

The Canadian Corps Association, dominion command, at this time reiterates that no change in Canada's present national flag should be made unless the government is so instructed by the citizens of Canada by means of a plebiscite vote held in conjunction with Canada's next general election.

I do not know why those sitting on your right, Mr. Speaker, are so afraid to let the people decide. I believe this is the fair method. We are down here to make rules and laws, but I do not believe a minority should decide on an issue upon which the people of Canada are so divided. I am one of those who are willing to go along with the opinion of the majority after the people of Canada decide. If it is the majority wish to have a distinctive Canadian flag, I would go along with that. I was born in Canada and spent my whole life here. I was not overseas in the first world war, but as a boy of 16 I offered my services and was led by the Canadian red ensign. I was proud to be one who marched behind it.

I said my remarks would be brief, Mr. Speaker, but I felt that because of the way things have been handled in this parliament this issue should be decided by the people. If they choose the red ensign, that is O.K. If they choose a distinctive Canadian flag, that is fine. I cannot see any of the traditional symbols of Canada on the flag that has been proposed. As I have said, I just wanted to make a few comments on these matters. I am still receiving letters about the flag. I have received 154 letters from my constituency and 152 of them have asked me to stand up for the red ensign. Oh, yes, I received one letter from a man I know very well. He said, "why should we worship England all our lives?" I answered that letter and I suggested that regardless of the flag upon which we decided, he would not be satisfied unless it had the hammer and sickle on it. I also received a letter from a 15 year old school boy. He did not say what kind of a flag he wanted, he just wanted a change. The other 152 letters asked me to stand up for the red ensign and to bring this issue before the people of Canada.

I hear a few railbirds down there, Mr. Speaker, but they do not say much. I am sorry I do not speak French, and your speeches are not worth the bother of putting on earphones.

With these few remarks, I will resume my seat, Mr. Speaker.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Lewis Elston Cardiff

Progressive Conservative

Mr. L. E. Cardiff (Huron):

Mr. Speaker, I, too, did not intend to take part in this debate. I took 20 minutes of the time of this house during the last debate, and I do not regret it. I tried my best not to say anything that would provoke anyone else. I have sat in as many parliaments as any man in this house except one. In the 25 years I have been here, I have never sat in a worse conducted parliament; I can say that truthfully. I am not referring to the Speaker or the Deputy Speaker. They have had an impossible job, and for the life of me I do not know how they control themselves. It is ridiculous, the things they have had to put up with, and mostly from members on the government side. We on this side know enough to keep our mouths shut and remain quiet when there is someone speaking from the other side. Apparently all hon. members opposite want to do is make interjections to try to confuse the person who has the floor.

I have a few things I want to say and because I have only a few things I wrote them out during the supper hour. I am one of those who has to either speak without notes or follow my notes closely. I do not want anybody razzing me about reading my speech. I am not going to read it all, but if I have to throw it away it will be all the worse for you. As I see it, there is only one excuse for bringing the flag resolution before the house and that is the lack of preparedness on the part of the government to introduce other important legislation. I could add that the legislation which has been introduced was withdrawn and redrafted before it even had a change of being passed by parliament. The Prime Minister (Mr. Pearson) used the flag issue to stifle parliament for his own selfish, personal advantage. He used the flag issue also to kill time in order to get more important legislation ready to bring before the house. What an excuse that is. It has cost the Canadian taxpayers millions of dollars. If I were the Prime Minister of Canada and responsible for introducing a controversial subject such as the flag, I would at least be in my place in the house to hear what members had to say about it.

Canadian Flag

I have a clipping here from a newspaper that is very favourable to the government. I would not quote from any other newspaper because I want to be very fair to them. This comes from the Winnipeg Tribune.

There was nothing wrong with Prime Minister Pearson's speech to the Royal Canadian Legion except its object.

He chose this occasion to haul down the red ensign.

The speech was in reality a declaration of Liberal government intent. At the same time it was an attempt to justify a new emblem on the grounds of national unity. The case was unconvincing.

Prior to his visit to Winnipeg, Mr. Pearson had let it be known that his government would stand or fall on the flag issue. It is the government which has selected this particular time to force a showdown.

It is this newspaper's opinion that the timing of this flag proposal is bad. If the main purpose is to consolidate unity it is a peculiar approach for, as witnessed at the Legion meeting, the dominant reaction is disunity. Unfortunately, too, the Prime Minister's approach leaves little ground for thoughtful consideration. He asks, in effect, for a surrender of what is known for something unknown. He entertains a mystique about the price of unity which he is unable to articulate.

In addition to poor timing, the method of introducing the design was odd. In Ottawa last week a high level press conference made it clear that the Pearson government would stand or fall on the new flag. The following day in the Commons Mr. Pearson said that a new design had not been decided upon. At the Legion meeting on Sunday, he left the impression that only the maple leaf motif was firm. Yet the next day Mr. Pearson unveiled his choice at a press conference.

Just how much the cabinet was apprised in advance of all this is unknown. But certainly parliament has been kept completely in the dark.

I might mention at this point that the hon. member for York-Humber (Mr. Cowan) made a statement in the house to the effect that this subject was never brought up in the Liberal caucus, and nobody knew anything about it except a few at the top levels of government.

In attempting to force an absolute decision in this ill-defined region, the Prime Minister has created a maelstrom. It is true that he has attempted to reduce the problem to straight political terms but unfortunately this does not provide the flexible basis required.

He has placed himself and his government on the record to introduce a new flag. He has rejected the proposal for a national plebiscite and insists that the issue must be decided on a free vote in the Commons. But then he has also added that the result would be interpreted by his government as a vote of confidence.

In other words he is prepared to fight an election on the issue. He is willing to jeopardize national unity in the hope of political advantage but he is unwilling to seek an expression of opinion in a plebiscite in which the issue would be the flag, not seats in parliament.

This places the M.P.'s in a position where they no longer will be truly free to exercise their

Canadian Flag

judgment on the merits of a flag. Instead they will have to weigh the significance of the consequences, a government defeat and, even worse, an election to be fought on the design of a flag.

Such an unpleasant encounter could scarcely be an ingredient of unity. It would also be mischievous and perhaps seriously harmful, for surely the problems of this country cannot be resolved in the flag alone.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

An hon. Member:

Question.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Lewis Elston Cardiff

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Cardiff:

You will get the question soon enough, don't worry about that; but you will not be satisfied with it after you get it.

We have a great number of people all over Canada who would vote for a truly Canadian flag if for no other reason than unity. On the other hand the great majority of our people would much sooner have what we now have than take a chance of separating Canadians even more than they are already. There is only a very small percentage of people in Quebec who are separatists or revolutionists, thank God. We even have a few in this House of Commons but they are still a little afraid to stand up and be counted because of their extremist neighbours.

A lot of legislation was introduced before the flag debate started, and most of it had to be taken out again and redrafted because it had not a chance of being passed by parliament in its original form. The Canada pension plan has been redrafted four or five times.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
?

Maurice Bourget (Speaker of the Senate)

Mr. Depuiy Speaker:

Order please. I think the hon. member will admit he is straying far afield and I would ask him to return to the subject matter before the house.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Lewis Elston Cardiff

Progressive Conservative

Mr. Cardiff:

I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, because I do have a great deal of respect for you.

This is a quotation from a letter sent to all hon. members by the Manitoba branch of the Christian action movement:

The red ensign probably commands a greater following than any other individual flag design submitted to the committee. Though, unfortunately, the flag has been made a party issue, many rank and file Liberals prefer to retain the red ensign but out of party loyalty may avoid overt opposition. The flag should not be a party issue, or the subject of a personal battle.

I do not know how many Christians we have in the house but, believe me, we would be better off with a few more. I am now going to recite a piece of poetry and then, you will be glad to know, sit down:

Our flag, our flag, our glorious flag,

The emblem of the free;

It proudly flies in every clime, it floats on every sea.

Beneath its grand old sheltering folds,

There never treads a slave,

Before it tyranny must sink to an unhonoured grave.

Unfurl it free to every breeze,

Long may it wave on high,

The ensign of the bravest race That dwells beneath the sky.

Beneath it stands the empire vast,

Girded in power and might.

Beady, aye ready to defend its honour,

And ready to defend its right.

Our flag, our flag, our glorious flag,

The symbol of the free.

Our flag invincible on land,

And a flag that rules the sea.

Our red ensign,

Why trade it in on another?

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
PC

Francis Alvin George Hamilton

Progressive Conservative

Hon. Alvin Hamilion (Qu'Appelle):

Mr. Speaker, on two other occasions I have spoken on a resolution on the flag, or on one of the amendments. On June 20 I did my level best to try to plead with the house that we in Canada must always remember we are a country of minorities. I tried to remind the members that we should be an example to all the new countries of the world where several languages and several races have to get along within the same geographical boundaries.

On that occasion I reminded the house that most of us in Canada do not favour the technique of the plebiscite. It is foreign to the system of parliamentary responsibility we have learned to trust, but I pointed out that there are certain occasions which touch the heart and affect the rights of minorities when we have to consider whether we should use the plebiscite technique or not.

In that speech of June 20 I reluctantly supported a plebiscite, on the grounds that looking back at the last plebiscite we had during the war, on the conscription issue, the speeches made in the house on that occasion contained all the arguments that could be used against holding a plebiscite; yet a plebiscite was held, and when it was finished Canadians found it easier to accept the will of the majority than they did in 1917 in the first world war when conscription was imposed by parliament. When the rights of the individual are affected, when matters close to the conscience are affected, there is sometimes a place for the plebiscite. That was the burden of my remarks on June 20, though I did not succeed in making many converts.

I want to remind the house of what I said on that occasion. All the veterans of our country have asked for, through majority votes in their Legions, is that a plebiscite be held. They have promised if a plebiscite is held to honour any flag which the majority may choose. What more can you ask of them?

The same is true of the other organizations. I would point out that if the government turns down the formal request of the official organization of most of our veterans it has done something which everyone of us in Canada will live to regret. Surely after what they have done they deserve our best consideration.

In the second place I want to remind the house that according to Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, speaking in this house as prime minister, by a single resolution here in parliament the guarantees to the French language could be taken away. I suggest that if we set a precedent in this debate by taking away an emblem of a minority culture, we are setting a precedent for things to happen in the future when passions are aroused which will tend to break this country apart. I say this slowly and deliberately with no sense of malice whatsoever. If someone moved a resolution in this house to take away the rights accorded to one of the founding races of this country I would expect every person on the Conservative side to fight as long as they could within the rules to protect the rights of that group. This is what is happening today.

I do not know what percentage of the people of this country wish to retain on the flag an emblem of their tradition and their past. I do not really know, but I am aware that.it is sizeable. Certainly if one third of the people of this country want to have something of the union jack as a reminder of their great history, their rights must be considered if we wish to maintain this country as a democratic country of minorities. Rightly or wrongly the flag is one of the symbols of one of the founding races of this country. As I said earlier, this speech of mine on June 20 did not make much of an impression across the way. But on August 20 I tried again and this time, in the middle of that long debate, I asked that this question be considered by a committee. I laid down four basic principles which could, I thought, have united this house and the whole country behind the work of that committee. These principles were apparently not considered by the government. It was not until after the long Labour week end, after a motion on the Thursday by the New Democratic party that the debate be adjourned so that the house could go on to more important business; it was not until the Tuesday after the week end, when the Creditiste members had come back from the rural seats and said they wanted to adjourn

Canadian Flag

the debate because the people demanded it, that the government, saved by a narrow squeak, realized that every opposition party was united behind the idea of sending this matter to a committee. It was only after 22 days of debate that they let the question go before the committee. Did they consider the four basic principles which were laid down by the opposition-and I was speaking on behalf of the opposition that night?

What were those four principles? First, that in a matter such as the flag we should all strive, regardless of whether we are Conservative or Liberal, to start off with the largest possible percentage of the people behind it. That was the first principle. It was wrong to take a personal flag, a party flag, and force it on parliament saying: If you do not accept it there will be an election. We fought against that blackmail, and with the help of all the opposition parties we forced the government to place this question before a committee, after 22 days of the time of this house had been wasted in discussion. I say this loudly and clearly, Mr. Speaker, because I believe you know we are speaking from the heart on this subject on this side of the house. It would make no difference to us if all the people of Canada were to turn against us as long as we remain faithful to what we consider to be the right. It is not a question of counting noses in this house or even across the country. Above all our party divisions the people sometimes expect that we should, on certain occasions, stand up in this house and say what we think as individuals. This is what I am trying to do.

What was the second principle I enunciated at that time? It was that on any flag the symbols and the background of the two founding groups should be there in equal parts, neither superior and neither inferior. I said this not because I was unaware that our country today is a multiracial country but because I thought it is recognized that certain understandings were reached in the early days which we must honour today. The flag now put forward ignores this fundamental principle.

Third, I said there should be something on the flag to represent the humility which any country should have if it hopes to have a future. And the only way I knew for us to do that was to put something of religious significance on the flag. Because of the faith which is accepted by the vast majority of people in the western world, the only thing we know as a generally accepted emblem of religious significance is the cross-and I say this without

10S08

Canadian Flag

wishing to assert the superiority of the Christian faith over other faiths. But in the flag of Canada should be expressed that humility, that acceptance of the fact that there is a greater power than ourselves.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink
LIB

Yvon Dupuis (Minister Without Portfolio)

Liberal

Mr. Dupuis:

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.

I just want to know if the hon. member for Qu'Appelle (Mr. Hamilton) is now talking to the amendment.

Topic:   CANADIAN FLAG
Subtopic:   MOTION FOR CONCURRENCE IN SIXTH REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Permalink

December 16, 1964