Recent celebrations marking the 60th anniversary of the national flag were a reminder of the deliberate way in which English-speaking Canada set about shedding symbols of its British heritage. You might even say there was an element of self-invention about it — or at least that’s how it felt to a new immigrant like me.
The biggest single step was the introduction of the new flag, which first flew on Feb. 15, 1965. Its official unfurling followed a contentious debate that culminated in a 163 to 78 parliamentary vote the previous December.
Technically, Canada didn’t have an official national flag before 1965. However, the Canadian Red Ensign had flown on government buildings abroad since the 1920s, and on buildings at home — including Parliament — since 1945. With the Union Jack in the upper left and the Canadian coat of arms on the right, the ensign was an adaptation of a British naval flag dating back to the 17th century. As such, it clearly denoted Canada’s British heritage.
But although Canada had been essentially self-governing since 1867 and fully sovereign since 1931, a significant body of opinion felt there was more to be done. And a new flag, shorn of any reference to that heritage, was at the top of the agenda.
Proponents put forward several key arguments. One was about national identity—the belief that Canada had outgrown its British origins and a new flag would recognize that maturity. Consciously or otherwise, the Red Ensign was said to imply a taint of subservience. As a prominent advocate put it: “The search for a flag was really the search for a country.”
Then there was the matter of shifting demographics. While there was still a steady flow of British immigrants, postwar arrivals included substantial numbers of other Europeans, particularly Italians, Ukrainians, Germans and Poles. And they, so the argument went, had “no attachment to Britain and could feel none.”
In The Strange Demise of British Canada, C.P. Champion acknowledges there was an element of truth to this but also notes the situation was more complicated. For instance, Ukrainian-born Tory MP Nick Mandziuk vigorously disputed the idea that non-British immigrants were necessarily alienated from the Red Ensign. To the contrary, many had entered Canada “under a flag of liberty, the Union Jack.”
There was also the question of national unity. By introducing a flag devoid of British symbolism, the hope was that Francophone Quebec would feel more at home. Prime Minister Lester Pearson made this one of the project’s major selling points: “I’m going to push through a flag. Got to do this to make Quebec happy.”
Not yet in politics, Pierre Trudeau begged to differ. Quebecers, he said, “do not give a tinker’s damn about the flag. It’s a matter of complete indifference.” His reading turned out to be astute. The late-20th-century crisis of Quebec separatism escalated in the decades following the flag’s introduction. It wasn’t a question of causality—just that flag symbolism was weak beer compared to the ideological passion driving Quebec nationalism.
Finally, there was the issue of youth and the general spirit of the times. More than preceding decades, the 1960s embraced a cult of youth. The first wave of baby boomers was beginning to make its presence felt, talk of “change” was in the air, and many adults felt the need to “relate” accordingly. Perhaps a new flag would engage young people’s attention and stimulate their patriotic affection. Excitement and novelty were in; fuddy-duddy tradition, not so much.
It was also an era of decolonization. European possessions in places like Africa were gaining independence, new countries and flags were emerging, and the narrative of colonies struggling for freedom carried an intoxicating buzz. Who wouldn’t want to be part of that? In reality, of course, Canada’s story bore no resemblance to what was happening elsewhere.
That said, the new flag was broadly popular, catching the general mood of English-speaking Canada. Those who hadn’t been enthusiastic either quickly took to it or didn’t let their resentment linger.
Still, Champion notes an interesting irony. The men who pushed for and created the new flag were “exclusively of ethnically British extraction.” And “virtually all of their formative influences and affections … derive their meaning from a British milieu. In a sense, the Maple Leaf was as much a product of British Canada as the Red Ensign.”
Troy Media columnist Pat Murphy casts a history buff’s eye at the goings-on in our world. Never cynical – well, perhaps a little bit.
The commentaries offered on SaskToday.ca are intended to provide thought-provoking material for our readers. The opinions expressed are those of the authors. Contributors' articles or letters do not necessarily reflect the opinion of any SaskToday.ca staff.
