Chapter 7
Decision

been entirely in vain. A final count indicated that of the 308 speeches

delivered, the Conservatives had made 210, the Liberals 50, the New

Democratic party 24, the Social Credit 15 and the Ralliement des

Créditistes 9. Comment in the Globe and Mail on 16 December 1964

reflected the bizarre impression left upon the press gallery of the last few

minutes of the debate: "Flags that have been torn in battle with a foreign

enemy can still fly with pride. This will surely be the first flag in history

that was shred by its sons."

On this same Tuesday, 15 December, the House met as usual,

somewhat blearyeyed at 2:30 P.M. The question now was how would we

fare with the Union Jack. The Liberal ranks were one equal temper of

heroic hearts but we were a minority in the House. Moreover, we had not

discussed the impending vote. We started with the formal motion for

concurrence in the seventh report of the special committee. Herman Batten

drew attention to the fact that the flag committee had in addition to

the Canadian flag recommended:

that the Government be authorized to take such steps as may

be necessary to provide that the Royal Union Flag, generally

known as the Union Jack, may continue to be flown as a symbol

of Canada's membership in the Commonwealth of Nations

and of her allegiance to the Crown.

He then moved, seconded by the Honorable member for Bonaventure,

"that this report be now concurred in."58 Herman Batten sat down.

The first to speak on the motion was Hon. Hugh John Flemming

(VictoriaCarleton) who concluded his address with an amendment proposing,

instead of the Union Jack, the Canadian Red Ensign:

That the Seventh Report of the Special Committee be not

now adopted but that it be referred back to the Committee with

the instructions to strike out of the recommendation the words

"the Royal Union Flag, generally known as the Union Jack"

and substitute therefore the words "the Canadian Red Ensign"

and that the Committee for such purposes be revived.59

Mr. Flemming was followed by the prime minister who spoke with

courtesy and forbearance:

Mr. Speaker, the position of our party in regard to this matter

is well known and has been laid down in two election campaigns.

In 1962 we stated as part of our policy that the Union

Jack would be flown on appropriate occasions as a symbol of

our membership in the Commonwealth, and a similar pledge

and similar commitment were made in the election of 1963. 60

He went on to explain why the Royal Union Flag was the most logical

and best emblem for that purpose:

I believe that the most fitting emblem for this association is

the Royal Union Flag, the flag of the Queen, the flag of the

monarchy since it was first established in the seventeenth century,

the flag which is peculiarly identified with the monarchy

and, as such, identified with the Commonwealth because the

Queen is the head of the Commonwealth.

Throughout his address, the prime minister was constantly interrupted

by Diefenbaker. After his tenth interjection during Pearson's remarks

the Speaker rose "to recall to the attention of Hon. Members citation

126 in Beauchesne's fourth edition, which once again comes to our

assistance." But after the passage respecting interruptions was read,

Diefenbaker was on his feet, furious, imputing that the Chair had not

been so zealous when he had last been speaking.61

There was truth in Diefenbaker's charge for there was no doubt Alan

MacNaughton picked an inopportune moment to start to enforce the

rules. For some considerable time it had been apparent that Deputy

Speaker Lucien Lamoureux had displayed a very quick mind, a judicial

presence, and most important, command. MacNaughton was, by contrast,

weak and painfully anxious to appear fair. After weeks and

months of attempting to lean over backwards in favor of those who carried

on the filibuster, he was rewarded by a public rebuke for bias.

A sharp exchange followed between the prime minister and the leader

of the opposition. Pearson protested:

He spoke for an hour and a half the other day and I was

never on my feet once except when he asked me a question; but

he has been interrupting me repeatedly, and when you read out

the rule against interruptions, he attempted to browbeat the

Chair. I think that is unbecoming.

Diefenbaker replied with a flat denial: "On a question of privilege, all

I have to say to the Right Hon. Gentleman is that the statement is as false

as the allegations he has made that the Union Jack is the Queen's flag."

Pearson had had enough. He was now angry:

I am very glad he made it in the way he did, as a straight

statement of fact that I had made a false statement regarding

the nature of the Union Jack, the Royal Union Flag. I bring to

my assistance in this regard the head of the College of Arms in

London; he ought to know about these things. Conceivably, he