Jacques FLYNN

FLYNN, The Hon. Jacques, P.C., O.C., Q.C., LL.L., B.A.

Personal Data

Party
Progressive Conservative
Constituency
Quebec South (Quebec)
Birth Date
August 22, 1915
Deceased Date
September 21, 2000
Website
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jacques_Flynn
PARLINFO
http://www.parl.gc.ca/parlinfo/Files/Parliamentarian.aspx?Item=5d3c1532-cf51-4d48-828a-dcfff9a1545b&Language=E&Section=ALL
Profession
lawyer

Parliamentary Career

March 31, 1958 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Quebec South (Quebec)
  • Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole of the House of Commons (January 14, 1960 - December 27, 1961)
  • Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (December 28, 1961 - July 12, 1962)
November 9, 1962 - April 19, 1962
PC
  Quebec South (Quebec)
  • Minister of Mines and Technical Surveys (December 28, 1961 - July 12, 1962)

Most Recent Speeches (Page 515 of 517)


April 30, 1959

Mr. Flynn:

Mr. Chairman, I shall deal

with that question in a moment.

I claim that the remarks of those hon. members show that the system has proved a failure, because at the present time no province is satisfied with it. The fact is that this very complex problem cannot be solved through a simple conference, as the hon. member for Lapointe agreed a moment ago.

When the central government convened the provincial representatives in 1957, it listened to their proposals, but soon realized that there were such differences of opinion between them that it became necessary to go very deeply into that problem.

In other words, the present system has shown that fiscal centralization can never really work in Canada, a country with a federative regime. The important thing would be to find a formula which would hand back the provinces their responsibilities in fiscal matters. That responsibility is essential so that provinces can fully exercise their rights in the field of legislation. Those responsible for the present situation, though they do not like to be told, are the Liberals. They are the ones who during the war, took over the main sources of revenue and who, after the war was over, refused to restore them to the provinces. They are the ones too who, having got hold of those considerable revenues, surreptitiously invaded many other exclusive provincial fields.

Today those people are watching our attempts to solve the problem, and realizing how they messed up the whole thing, how they complicated the fiscal system in this country, they keep telling us: just try to untangle the skein.

Dominion-Provincial Relations

The problem of fiscal relations between Ottawa and the provinces reminds me of an iceberg, only a tenth of which shows above the surface. Actually, Mr. Chairman, the government must be put in a position where, through this legislation, it can keep on arranging meetings and other preliminary talks between the Minister of Finance and the provincial ministers to a new federal-provincial conference, in order to find a lasting formula and not only expedients. It is to be hoped, Mr. Chairman, that once that durable formula is found, it will recognize two principles. First of all, the maximum fiscal responsibility of the provinces. If all provinces were equally empowered to levy revenue, there would be no serious problem involved in allowing them to raise the funds needed to meet their obligations under the constitution. It would only be a matter of distributing the various taxes between the federal government and the provinces. The difficulty today is that several provinces are unable to raise the funds they need, and therefore have to be helped financially. Of course the present system was an attempt to settle this problem, but it considers such assistance as a basic rule rather than an exceptional and temporary one. However, subsidies to the provinces should not be considered as a permanent feature. First, a way should be sought to enable the legislatures to raise their own funds, before asking Ottawa to grant them money that is collected across Canada by the central government, and for which the legislatures are not responsible to the people.

The second principle is that we must recognize the necessity of helping the economically weaker provinces. But this, again, must be a temporary rule. I am confident, Mr. Chairman, that eventually the solution found by this government will rest on those two principles, and then we shall be back to the true spirit of Confederation.

The system devised by the Liberals over 14 years ago has created a bad habit. It is known that several provinces, rather than increase their own tax rates, come here and ask the federal government for subsidies to supplement their budget. This practice is the result of the system adopted by the Liberals, and it is really the basic obstacle to a settlement of the problem. That is why I think we must proceed slowly, and as suggested in this resolution, extend the present system for a period of one year while granting the provinces a further three per cent. But the very fact the government is seeking permission to extend the system for a single year is an indication that it does not intend to maintain a system which, again, has proved inadequate and which truly

Dominion-Provincial Relations shackles the fiscal responsibility ol the provinces, and which must necessarily be discarded. I truly believe that the spirit of confederation requires that the provinces be sovereign and be able to use their taxation powers. Again, the present system does not allow this.

(Text):

Topic:   FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL TAX-SHARING ARRANGEMENTS ACT FURTHER EXTENSION OF INCOME TAX RATE
Full View Permalink

March 23, 1959

Mr. Jacques Flynn (Quebec South):

Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Prime Minister. As it is mentioned in today's news that a summit conference will take place in the middle of the summer, would the Prime Minister be kind enough to tell the house if there is a possibility that such a conference may be held in Canada?

Topic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Subtopic:   SUMMIT CONFERENCE
Full View Permalink

March 23, 1959

Mr. Jacques Flynn (Quebec South) moved

the second reading of Bill S-14, to incorporate the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Family of Bordeaux.

He said:

(Translation):

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to incorporate, under the federal parliament authority, the Congregation of the Sisters of the Holy Family of Bordeaux. It is a Roman Catholic congregation, established in Canada in 1904 and which, since that time, has concerned itself with hospital care and education, mainly in the province of Quebec.

The congregation seeks a federal charter because it is considering extension of its activities beyond the province of Quebec.

I said just now that that congregation, Mr. Speaker, is concerned with hospital care. In fact, it operates several hospitals, one in Ville Saint-Laurent, another in Saint-Paul-l'Ermite, one in Quebec, which is well known -Notre-Dame-de-l'Esperance hospital-one at Amqui, one at Seven Islands and, finally, another one at Blanc-Sablon, in Labrador.

In the field of education, that congregation operates several schools in the Matapedia valley, in addition to Indian schools in Roman River, Labrador, and at Blanc-Sablon. It also operates, at Ville-Saint-Laurent a training school for certified nurses who provide home nursing care.

In view of the above, I need hardly point out that the activities of that congregation

are extensive and based on the loftiest altruistic motives. That is why I feel sure that this bill, which has already been considered in detail by the Senate, will be approved by the house.

Topic:   CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF THE FAMILY OF BORDEAUX
Full View Permalink

July 25, 1958

Mr. Jacques Flynn (Quebec South):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I realize of course the responsibility if not the risk I am taking, and the house will not expect me to venture into the intricacies of the diplomatic process. I do not intend to more than bring out a few general ideas which guide, as they must, our foreign policy.

In the light of developments in these last two weeks, it is appropriate, I believe, that our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) be warmly congratulated for the excellent job he has done in the interest of Canada and peace at United Nations. In my opinion, he has ably expressed Canada's position and like his predecessors, he was a credit to Canada.

The position taken by Canada in the field of foreign affairs can be expressed by two propositions. The first one, a positive proposition, is to promote understanding between all the nations and the second, a negative one, is to prevent armed conflicts and to maintain peace which is essential to the well-being of all nations.

The promotion of understanding between nations is quite in line with our belief that the state must serve the individual and not the other way around. It is in accordance with this principle, Mr. Speaker, that we have gradually come to reject the idea that international conflicts must be settled by force and by war. It is also that philosophy which made us realize the interdependence of nations and, as a consequence, the responsibility of the haves to help the have-nots.

External Affairs

Thus, Mr. Speaker, through the Colombo plan, through similar organizations within the United Nations and through the British Commonwealth oi nations, Canada has given help to underdeveloped or economically weak countries and has continued gradually to evolve a policy of assistance to those countries. In fact, I was glad to hear this morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs refer to the gratifying results of this policy of support, of understanding and of assistance to weaker and needier nations. It is a policy of the utmost importance, one that yields better dividends, because it is calculated to ensure world peace.

However, foreign policy aimed at preventing armed conflicts runs into more serious difficulties. It becomes so much more of a problem, due to the fact that our philosophy -and I mean the philosophy of Canada as well as that of other free nations-conflicts with that of the communist countries and their satellites.

But, Mr. Speaker, whether we profess our own philosophy or that of communist countries, the progress achieved in the field of nuclear weapons forces us to extreme caution in the field of international relations, precisely because of that danger, the possibility of a nuclear war.

Undoubtedly, the small conflicts arising here and there could lead to a conflict which might mean world destruction.

The current crisis in the Middle East is extremely serious. It illustrates this ideological conflict between free nations and communist nations. Even if it is not just like the one we had in 1956-and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that it is not of the same nature-I believe that both crises have resulted from the same cause and that the one led to the other. It remains, Mr. Speaker, that the situation in the Middle East is not serious simply because American troops have landed in Lebanon or because British troops are posted in Jordan, nor because there was a revolution in Iraq. It is serious mainly because all those events stem from the very strength of Arab nationalism which began to develop since the rise to power of Colonel Nasser in Egypt.

In itself, that surge of Arab nationalism would not be as threatening as it is, were it not that communist countries are using it as a pretext to move in and to substitute their influence in the Middle East to the traditional influence of France, Great Britain and the United States.

At the time of the Suez conflict, it was possible to confine that outbreak by creating a United Nations force but that force which was sent to Egypt, did not constitute an

adequate solution and no doubt, at that time, great hopes were entertained that the crisis had definitely been settled. It was indeed the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition who said on March 15, 1957, I am quoting from page 2351 of Hansard:

This Middle East problem has been almost continuously before the United Nations assembly since I spoke to this house on external affairs last November and that consideration by the United Nations I think has helped not only to bring the fighting to an end in that area but to prevent the conflict breaking out again or, even worse, spreading.

However, at that time there were reasons to fear that this first conflict might spread and break out elsewhere. May I be allowed to quote a statement made at the time by the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, in reply to the secretary of state for external affairs, as reported on page 2371 of Hansard. He said:

First, we said that if necessary we should extend the United Nations police action to cover not only the borders between Egypt and Israel but also the borders between Israel and Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, because we believe it is of the greatest importance that peace must be maintained in that area. We asked that there be a peace treaty arrived at between Israel and the Arab states, and we know the extraordinary difficulties which lie in the road of that. We are convinced also that no matter how annoyed we may feel at certain individuals in the Middle East, no matter how angered we may be by their actions, it would be folly to let either annoyance or anger change us from a settled course. This course must be to secure a settlement in that area, through peace treaties arrived at between the opposing countries.

Now, precisely because the United Nations, at the time, failed to consider settlement of the whole problem, Arab nationalism, abetted by Russia, broke out once more, this time by way of indirect aggression. It is in the face of this indirect aggression, somewhat reminiscent of what happened before world war II, that the role of the United Nations organization becomes most ticklish.

We are a long way from the scene but surely we must be interested in the solution of this problem because today, the interdependence of free nations is an acknowledged fact. In the face of this difficult situation, what has been the policy of Canada and on what principles was it based?

Mr. Speaker, I think that it would not be hard to prove that our attitude in those circumstances has been consistent with our philosophy which rejects the settlement of conflicts by force. We have demonstrated our confidence in the United Nations. However, the United Nations is no stronger than its moral authority which, in turn, depends upon the support of all member nations. We know that this moral authority can fail when one or two great powers withhold their support

and also because, too often, the United Nations cannot apply in a practical way the authority it holds from the majority of its members. And 1 do believe that, if it were possible to solve the technical and practical problems involved, it would be an ideal solution to put a permanent force at the disposal of the United Nations. However, in such circumstances, there would still remain the difficulty of deciding at what time, in case of indirect aggression, this permanent force should step in.

As far as Canada is concerned, it seems to me that our policy should first be determined on the basis of unity of thought.

It is essential that we work out our international policy first on a non-partisan basis, seeking unity of thought within our country. And I believe that, in this field, the present government has continued to apply the principles applied by the former government, seeking the unity of all men of good will in the determination of our policy. I was glad to hear, last Monday, the Prime Minister thanking the Leader of the Opposition for a suggestion he had made, inviting all hon. members to present theirs and assuring them that any of their suggestions would be seriously considered by the government.

Not only should we endeavour to achieve unity of thought throughout the country, but we should also strive to achieve the same unity of thought with our allies, within the British commonwealth and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The British commonwealth, as a result of the diversity of nations which it includes and the diversity of economic interests of these various nations, is a body through which it is possible to work efficiently in favour of peace and understanding between nations. Within the commonwealth, precisely on account of Canada's action to which I referred a moment ago, we contribute, I think, towards greater understanding between peoples of all parts of the world. If within this organization we do achieve some unity of thought in the working out of our foreign policy, I am sure that in the United Nations we shall carry more authority over other member nations. And the situation is almost the same with regard to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is, of course, a defence organization. However, the latest developments, in my opinion, call for more frequent consultation between all nations belonging to that organ-

External Affairs

ization, in order that no unilateral action may be taken, and in order that any decision taken by one member of that body may be communicated to and approved by the others, in advance. In fact, here as well as abroad, we must promote understanding, we must try to understand others and make them understand our point of view.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our international policy must be realistic. It must be based on facts. Let us be guided by principles, but those principles must be applied to individual facts in all cases. Of course we have reached full nationhood, we are in a position to hammer out our own international policy, and we are doing just that. It would be naive to contend that our decisions are merely dictated by a feeling of subservience to Great Britain or the United States.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, since reality prevents us from taking decisions based on sentimentality, the danger at the present time is rather that, due to our economic interdependence with the United States, we might be inclined to submit to their dictates.

On the other hand, even if we have reached our maturity, we should harbour no illusion as to our ability to prevent conflicts.

Canada should not repeat the mistake of the frog that would bloat itself bigger than the ox.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we realize that our role should be that of a mediator, of a go-between and arbiter within the British commonwealth of nations and within NATO. If we succeed in being accepted as conciliator and mediator within these two organizations, I believe that we stand a much better chance of commanding respect for our views at United Nations. I repeat, it is important that we fully realize that ours must be a personal role, but it is also important that we do not overdo it. As long as we have a proper understanding of this role, and if we are content with it, Canada, in my opinion, will be in a better position to contribute to world peace and to the well-being of nations.

(Text):

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink

July 25, 1958

Mr. Jacques Flynn (Quebec South):

Mr. Speaker, in rising to take part in this debate, I realize of course the responsibility if not the risk I am taking, and the house will not expect me to venture into the intricacies of the diplomatic process. I do not intend to more than bring out a few general ideas which guide, as they must, our foreign policy.

In the light of developments in these last two weeks, it is appropriate, I believe, that our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Smith) be warmly congratulated for the excellent job he has done in the interest of Canada and peace at United Nations. In my opinion, he has ably expressed Canada's position and like his predecessors, he was a credit to Canada.

The position taken by Canada in the field of foreign affairs can be expressed by two propositions. The first one, a positive proposition, is to promote understanding between all the nations and the second, a negative one, is to prevent armed conflicts and to maintain peace which is essential to the well-being of all nations.

The promotion of understanding between nations is quite in line with our belief that the state must serve the individual and not the other way around. It is in accordance with this principle, Mr. Speaker, that we have gradually come to reject the idea that international conflicts must be settled by force and by war. It is also that philosophy which made us realize the interdependence of nations and, as a consequence, the responsibility of the haves to help the have-nots.

External Affairs

Thus, Mr. Speaker, through the Colombo plan, through similar organizations within the United Nations and through the British Commonwealth oi nations, Canada has given help to underdeveloped or economically weak countries and has continued gradually to evolve a policy of assistance to those countries. In fact, I was glad to hear this morning the Secretary of State for External Affairs refer to the gratifying results of this policy of support, of understanding and of assistance to weaker and needier nations. It is a policy of the utmost importance, one that yields better dividends, because it is calculated to ensure world peace.

However, foreign policy aimed at preventing armed conflicts runs into more serious difficulties. It becomes so much more of a problem, due to the fact that our philosophy -and I mean the philosophy of Canada as well as that of other free nations-conflicts with that of the communist countries and their satellites.

But, Mr. Speaker, whether we profess our own philosophy or that of communist countries, the progress achieved in the field of nuclear weapons forces us to extreme caution in the field of international relations, precisely because of that danger, the possibility of a nuclear war.

Undoubtedly, the small conflicts arising here and there could lead to a conflict which might mean world destruction.

The current crisis in the Middle East is extremely serious. It illustrates this ideological conflict between free nations and communist nations. Even if it is not just like the one we had in 1956-and I agree with the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Pearson) that it is not of the same nature-I believe that both crises have resulted from the same cause and that the one led to the other. It remains, Mr. Speaker, that the situation in the Middle East is not serious simply because American troops have landed in Lebanon or because British troops are posted in Jordan, nor because there was a revolution in Iraq. It is serious mainly because all those events stem from the very strength of Arab nationalism which began to develop since the rise to power of Colonel Nasser in Egypt.

In itself, that surge of Arab nationalism would not be as threatening as it is, were it not that communist countries are using it as a pretext to move in and to substitute their influence in the Middle East to the traditional influence of France, Great Britain and the United States.

At the time of the Suez conflict, it was possible to confine that outbreak by creating a United Nations force but that force which was sent to Egypt, did not constitute an

adequate solution and no doubt, at that time, great hopes were entertained that the crisis had definitely been settled. It was indeed the opinion of the Leader of the Opposition who said on March 15, 1957, I am quoting from page 2351 of Hansard:

This Middle East problem has been almost continuously before the United Nations assembly since I spoke to this house on external affairs last November and that consideration by the United Nations I think has helped not only to bring the fighting to an end in that area but to prevent the conflict breaking out again or, even worse, spreading.

However, at that time there were reasons to fear that this first conflict might spread and break out elsewhere. May I be allowed to quote a statement made at the time by the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister, in reply to the secretary of state for external affairs, as reported on page 2371 of Hansard. He said:

First, we said that if necessary we should extend the United Nations police action to cover not only the borders between Egypt and Israel but also the borders between Israel and Lebanon, Syria and Jordan, because we believe it is of the greatest importance that peace must be maintained in that area. We asked that there be a peace treaty arrived at between Israel and the Arab states, and we know the extraordinary difficulties which lie in the road of that. We are convinced also that no matter how annoyed we may feel at certain individuals in the Middle East, no matter how angered we may be by their actions, it would be folly to let either annoyance or anger change us from a settled course. This course must be to secure a settlement in that area, through peace treaties arrived at between the opposing countries.

Now, precisely because the United Nations, at the time, failed to consider settlement of the whole problem, Arab nationalism, abetted by Russia, broke out once more, this time by way of indirect aggression. It is in the face of this indirect aggression, somewhat reminiscent of what happened before world war II, that the role of the United Nations organization becomes most ticklish.

We are a long way from the scene but surely we must be interested in the solution of this problem because today, the interdependence of free nations is an acknowledged fact. In the face of this difficult situation, what has been the policy of Canada and on what principles was it based?

Mr. Speaker, I think that it would not be hard to prove that our attitude in those circumstances has been consistent with our philosophy which rejects the settlement of conflicts by force. We have demonstrated our confidence in the United Nations. However, the United Nations is no stronger than its moral authority which, in turn, depends upon the support of all member nations. We know that this moral authority can fail when one or two great powers withhold their support

and also because, too often, the United Nations cannot apply in a practical way the authority it holds from the majority of its members. And 1 do believe that, if it were possible to solve the technical and practical problems involved, it would be an ideal solution to put a permanent force at the disposal of the United Nations. However, in such circumstances, there would still remain the difficulty of deciding at what time, in case of indirect aggression, this permanent force should step in.

As far as Canada is concerned, it seems to me that our policy should first be determined on the basis of unity of thought.

It is essential that we work out our international policy first on a non-partisan basis, seeking unity of thought within our country. And I believe that, in this field, the present government has continued to apply the principles applied by the former government, seeking the unity of all men of good will in the determination of our policy. I was glad to hear, last Monday, the Prime Minister thanking the Leader of the Opposition for a suggestion he had made, inviting all hon. members to present theirs and assuring them that any of their suggestions would be seriously considered by the government.

Not only should we endeavour to achieve unity of thought throughout the country, but we should also strive to achieve the same unity of thought with our allies, within the British commonwealth and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The British commonwealth, as a result of the diversity of nations which it includes and the diversity of economic interests of these various nations, is a body through which it is possible to work efficiently in favour of peace and understanding between nations. Within the commonwealth, precisely on account of Canada's action to which I referred a moment ago, we contribute, I think, towards greater understanding between peoples of all parts of the world. If within this organization we do achieve some unity of thought in the working out of our foreign policy, I am sure that in the United Nations we shall carry more authority over other member nations. And the situation is almost the same with regard to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization which is, of course, a defence organization. However, the latest developments, in my opinion, call for more frequent consultation between all nations belonging to that organ-

External Affairs

ization, in order that no unilateral action may be taken, and in order that any decision taken by one member of that body may be communicated to and approved by the others, in advance. In fact, here as well as abroad, we must promote understanding, we must try to understand others and make them understand our point of view.

Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I believe that our international policy must be realistic. It must be based on facts. Let us be guided by principles, but those principles must be applied to individual facts in all cases. Of course we have reached full nationhood, we are in a position to hammer out our own international policy, and we are doing just that. It would be naive to contend that our decisions are merely dictated by a feeling of subservience to Great Britain or the United States.

As a matter of fact, Mr. Speaker, since reality prevents us from taking decisions based on sentimentality, the danger at the present time is rather that, due to our economic interdependence with the United States, we might be inclined to submit to their dictates.

On the other hand, even if we have reached our maturity, we should harbour no illusion as to our ability to prevent conflicts.

Canada should not repeat the mistake of the frog that would bloat itself bigger than the ox.

It is important, Mr. Speaker, that we realize that our role should be that of a mediator, of a go-between and arbiter within the British commonwealth of nations and within NATO. If we succeed in being accepted as conciliator and mediator within these two organizations, I believe that we stand a much better chance of commanding respect for our views at United Nations. I repeat, it is important that we fully realize that ours must be a personal role, but it is also important that we do not overdo it. As long as we have a proper understanding of this role, and if we are content with it, Canada, in my opinion, will be in a better position to contribute to world peace and to the well-being of nations.

(Text):

Topic:   BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Subtopic:   EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Full View Permalink