Canada’s 19th Prime Minister, Lester B. Pearson, is perhaps known more for his feats preceding his prime ministership than those accomplished during office: he was a former NATO chairman, a United Nations President and a Nobel Peace Prize winner. What’s more, his legacy is further nuanced through endeavours such as the striking of the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism (1963), the creation of the Canadian Pension Plan (1965), the signing of the Canada-United States Automotive Agreement (1965), and the enactment of Universal Medicare (1966).[1] All of this is to say that Pearson’s government greatly influenced the lives and identities of Canadians, laying the foundation for many of the modern values we cherish today.
His influence is perhaps most keenly perceived through his endeavour to create a distinctly Canadian flag. Through his role in the Canadian flag debate, Pearson imbued Canadians with his own understanding of unity and identity, which was uniquely constructed by the context in which he took office (i.e. the post-WWII period and centennial celebration), but also by the privileges he possessed and the portfolios and positions he held prior to his time in office.
Pearson’s fascination with the project of a distinctive Canadian flag can best be understood through examining the pressures he was under during his time in office. The 1960s was a time of social, cultural, political and economic upheaval. [2] It is no wonder why, with the implications of the baby boom—on education, city planning, social services and programs, etc.—and the growing nationalism and unrest rising in Quebec.
The search for a distinctive Canadian flag and symbol is perhaps best understood through its ties to our search for a cohesive and collective identity separate from the British Empire. Pearson’s motivations for unifying the country—however successful, or unsuccessful—can be understood through myriad lenses. Perhaps seeing Canada’s international berth as a middle-power and as peacekeepers in the post-WWII era acted as a catalyst —despite the problematic imaginings and myth-making related to these notions.
Consequently, giving rise to an independent or sovereign Canada could de-emphasize our imperial relations and permit us to negotiate agentively outside of British and American spheres of influence.[3] One of the most compelling reasons to undertake the project of a new Canadian flag was perhaps for the upcoming centennial celebrations of 1967.[4] Pearson, hoping to emphasize and celebrate our evolution from British colony to sovereign state, used the flag to redefine and formalize the Canadian identity.[5]
Calling for a new understanding of Canadian-ness and nationalism, Pearson invoked and quite literally inflamed the Canadian identity and consciousness. With the new Canadian flag, Pearson ushered in “a new stage in Canada’s forward march from a group of separate, scattered, and dependent colonies to a great and sovereign confederation.”[6]
All of this was in the hopes of solidifying Canada’s position in the international arena (i.e. the U.N., NATO and NORAD) as well as domestically in reconciling English Canada with French Canada while emphasizing the role and importance of Canadians who did not identify as French or English.[7] However, not everyone endorsed the new flag, some holding that a new flag would fly in the face of Canadian heraldry and heritage. Pearson was often viewed as a “traitor,” and even as “the great divider of the nation.”[8]
For Pearson the fight for a distinctive flag became so much more; it became a fight for all Canadians, a crusade for national unity, and a denigration of strong nationalism or racial superiority that had most recently been evinced by the Nazis and Italian fascists. The flag debate became a search for our heraldry and history, and an exercise in the importance of nation-making.[9]
Perhaps one of the most telling illustrations of how Pearson’s government and flag project were shaped and affected by the world around them are the designs which they proposed; for their conceptualization and definition of Canadian-ness was reflected in the emblems and colours employed in their designs and the submissions by other Canadians (See Gallery below).
The flag in this sense stood for much more; it teased out a national consciousness and forced Canadians to come to terms with the new Canada, one that was not exclusively British nor explicitly French, but rather a Canada that was independent, in flux, and soon to be officially multicultural.
For more flag submissions checkout Library and Archives Canada's Flickr set: National Flag of Canada Day
Works Cited
[1]Library and Archives Canada. "Lester Bowles Pearson." First Among Equals. April 23, 2001.
[2]Michael D. Behiels. "Lester B. Pearson and the Conundrum of National Unity, 1963-1968."In Pearson: the unlikely gladiator, by Norman Hillmer, 68-82. Montreal: McGill-Queen's University Press, 1999.
[3]Robert Bothwell. Pearson, his life and world. McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1978, p. 74-83. This however did not work in Pearson’s favour during the Suez Crisis when he was accused of siding with the Americans instead of the British. To many this marked the beginning of Americanization and emphasized a fading Canadian imperialism.
[4]John Ross Matheson. Canada's Flag: a Search for a Country. Boston, Mass.: GK Hall, 1980, p. 68.
[5]Lester B. Pearson.I stand for Canada! Ottawa, Ontario: House of Commons, 1964, p. 5-6.
[6]Lester B. Pearson. Words and occasions: an anthology of speeches and articles selected from his papers. Harvard University Press, 1970, p. 244-5.
[7]Ryan, Claude. “Lester B. Pearson and Canadian Unity.” In Pearson: the unlikely gladiator, byNorman Hillmer, 83-91. Montreal: McGill-Queen'sUniversity Press, 1999, p. 84. See also Matheson, Canada's Flag p. 73-4.
[8]Paul Hunter. "Canada's maple leaf flag born amid bitter debate." The Toronto Star, February 14, 2015.
The Rt. Hon. John Diefenbaker fiercely opposed a new flag, claiming it would have “no history, no meaning, and no worth,” advocating for the Union Jack which represented the aforementioned and our place in the Empire.
[9]Stanley, The Story of Canada's flag, p. 74.