INTRODUCTION

It has been said that history is something that never happened, written by

a man who was not there. This thesis is an effort to relate what did happen

by one who was there. It is an account of Canada's flag by an active

participant—partisan might be a better word—in the battle for a Canadian

flag, written a decade after the fact. It is an attempt to justify the

flag that was chosen by one who was privileged, in the circumstances, to

exercise a dominating influence. By its nature it is selfserving.

The struggle for a Canadian flag presents in conflict two prime

ministers and Canadian statesmen, John George Diefenbaker, steadfast,

immovable, courageous, abounding in loyalty and zeal, and Lester

Bowles Pearson, a gentle and heroic patriot, full of charity and kindness.

It was my privilege to know and to admire both men for some years

before the great flag debate. My feelings of affection for Pearson were so

profound that even today I tend to see this issue largely through his eyes.

This account therefore makes no claim to complete objectivity, nor does

it purport to be "the" story of the flag but "a" story of the flag.

Although there could be other versions of what transpired, this is the version

of one who occupied a front bench in Parliament throughout the

fight. It is the impression that remains when one remembers what it was

like to fear and be uncertain as to outcome.

The real paradox of this tale is that it was John Diefenbaker, of whose

love for Canada there is no question, who fought against Canada's flag.

It was Lester Pearson, who philosophically would have pulled down all

flags everywhere, who showed his raw love of his country by producing

the symbol of Canada's yearning to survive.

Both men could claim pioneer ancestry in Canada. Both were born in

Victoria's reign and rejoiced in boyhood memories of the British Empire.

Both Diefenbaker and Pearson were avid students of history, and both

were equally avid students of the present and beyond. Perhaps one

could say that Diefenbaker was more obsessed with his romantic visions

of the past and that Pearson was more concerned about the future. Pearson

conceived of time as history and he saw history as that dimension in