 Chapter 5 not continue to disassociate this man from themselves: he too entertained those painful and precious memories; he was the only Canadian prime minister who had actually seen action in war; and on his breast he carried the Mons Star. There had been misty eyes as the prime minister had concluded: No one would deny that we have a responsibility to the past. But we have also a greater responsibility to the present and to the future. . . . In the many letters I receive, in the debate going on across Canada today, there is a kind of yearning by Canadians for greater national unity and the pride, confidence and strength that comes from it. I believe it is for us who knew the fervor and learned the sacrifice of patriotism when we answered the call to arms in the First World War and in the Second; it is for us to give those who follow an answer to their questioning; to give a lead to young Canada to insure a future which will be worthy of our past, one beyond the most glowing dreams of the present; a future in which Canada will be solid in its foundations, firm in its federal unity; strong in the loyalty it receives from its citizens; a land which we are privileged and proud to serve and for which we are willing to sacrifice—as those men served and those men sacrificed—whose memory we honour tonight at this 20th Convention of the Canadian Legion. The Montreal Gazette of 19 May carried the regrets of the president that members had "shouted the Prime Minister into a temporary submission on the flag question." Harold Kirby of the Montreal East Branch attributed the heckling to "the bottle group." However, I must say that I saw no evidence of insobriety. The auditorium had been filled with sturdy patriots whose emotions ran strongly. Such men had earned the right to be told that night what was coming, and they deserved to be told face to face. If they were intoxicated it was with love of country. Mike Pearson had burned his bridges and he flew back to Ottawa with a light heart. Sparling had not been convinced and continued his stand that a national referendum should be held on the flag question and that a new design would contribute to disunity in Canada. But in Ottawa the prime minister discovered that nearly seventy percent of the telegrams received in his office supported his stand on a new flag. It was a source of satisfaction to him that many encouraging communications came from men who identified themselves as veterans. The opposition did not, however, subside. The Conservative newspapers, if anything, redoubled their efforts to influence their readers against Pearson's flag policy. The Toronto Telegram of 19 May warned: "Symbols are rather permanent things. . . . It is extremely doubtful that the symbols of Canada have changed in the course of centuries. . . . To tamper with our traditional flag—the Canadian Ensign— at this time is mischievous and dangerous. . . ." Yet even the Tory press could not hide its respect for the prime minister. Ronald Collister wrote in the Telegram of 20 May: "The Pearson flagfor it is his own personal choice—may be crazy and unpatriotic to many people. But it is hard to fault the Prime Minister for political courage, which has been going out of fashion in recent years." In Saint John the TelegraphJournal stated: "But there is little doubt that among Canadians generally—even among his political opponents and the Red Ensign supporters, he gained respect for frankness and courage."6 Subscribers to the Montreal Star on 23 May read W. A. Wilson's lead story, "Pearson Displays Iron Nerves." Thousands of Canadians had witnessed by television the drama played that Sunday night in Winnipeg. It focussed the attention of the country on the flag problem. Frank Moritsugu writing in the Toronto Star was right when he said: If Parliament approves the new flag as now seems most likely, we have witnessed the master move of an incredible Canadian political act. . . Imagine a Canadian P.M. going forth into a den of wolves to battle for an issue which arouses the hottest emotions. Whether it was a freakish occurrence in the national politics of our time or the pace setter for a new style in Canadian law making, we are likely to remember that event for a long while—and visualize it—thanks to TV.7 Looking at the Canadian situation in its usual dignified, some might say stuffy way, The Times in London reported: Mr. Lester Pearson has now staked the fate of his Govern- ment on his promise to give Canada a new flag. . . . That Mr. Pearson should risk his Government on such an issue after a fairly successful year in office needs explaining. His case, as he bravely put it to an angry convention of Canadian exService men last Sunday, is that Canadian unity is threatened by divi- sion. A flag designed around the maple leaf "will symbolize will be a true reflection of, the new Canada.". . . The con- troversy over the flag has been going on for many years. . . . In last year's campaign, Mr. Pearson promised the electorate that he would introduce a new flag within two years if he were given power. It was a brave and wise offer. . . . A flag is needed which can belong to all these people, and which all their children can revere. It must, as Mr. Pearson has said, express
|