Hmpfh, it’s not a maple leaf, it’s cannabis…
Southern Cross on South American flag: Brazil?
Yeah. As t-keela said.
BTW, I put the three small flags on the SA flag in the wrong order. The Union Flag was on the left and the Orange Free State was in the middle, placed vertically. Click the link in my previous post and scroll to the top of the page to see it.
Since all the Commonwealth countries are sovereign nations, it’s up to each one to choose its own national symbols, like their flags. There’s no requirement that the flag of a Commonwealth country include the Union flag. Some Commonwealth countries, such as Canada, grant some sort of offical status to the Union flag as the symbol of their membership in the Commonwealth itself, so you sometimes see the flag displayed at government sites in Commonwealth countries other than the U.K. For example, I’m pretty sure that the colour party at the national Remembrance Day ceremonies in Ottawa carries the Union flag along with the maple leaf and provincial flags.
With respect to the colours red and white, shortly after WWI the the federal government appointed a committee to make recommendations for a formal coat of arms for Canada. As part of its report, the committee recommended that the colours red and white be adopted as Canada’s national colours. The committee’s notes indicated that red represented the sacrifice of Canadian soldiers in the Great War, while red and white together represented the fall colours and winter snows of Canada. The Government accepted that proposal, and King George V implemented it by a formal grant of arms in 1921.
As for the maple leaf, Canadians have used it as a symbol since before Confederation. For example, during the visit of Edward, Prince of Wales in 1860, Canadians used the maple leaf as their own symbol during the festivities. Shortly after Confederation, the maple leaf was included in the arms of both Ontario and Quebec. Throughout the 20th century, Canadian governments regularly used the maple leaf as a symbol of Canada, for example in the ornamentation on Prime Minister Diefenbaker’s Canadian Bill of Rights. During both World Wars, the maple leaf was used as a cap badge by most Canadian regiments. The battle flag of the First Division of the Canadian Army in World War II was three red maple leaves on a white field. The Canadian Legion chose a single red maple leaf on a white background as its badge. Most poignantly, the maple leaf is carved on the thousands of tombstones of Canadian soldiers who died overseas and never got to come home.
(The above is taken from J.M. Matheson, Canada’s Flag: A Search for a Country,, pp.9-21, 74, 83-84. Matheson was the lead M.P. for the Pearson government during the great flag debate of the 60s, and subsequently wrote this book, so it’s pretty authoritative.)
The “Pearson Pennant” that PM Pearson floated out in the early stages did have that symbolism - the two bars were blue, with three red maple leaves in the centre pale. However, that type of symbolism is not standard heraldic principles, which Matheson in particular pushed for. In heraldry, water is represented by wavy horizontal bars, not straight vertical pales. Once the Pearson Pennant was rejected, that cock-eyed symbolism went out too. The side pales are to help provide definition to the flag: if the flag were just a red maple leaf on a white field, the edges of the flag would be very indistinct at a distance. Nor do the number of points have any significance.
(Matheson, pp. 128-129.)
I’m not sure what you mean by the committee not being able to choose a flag - they chose the current design, which had been proposed by Lt. Col G.F.G. Stanley, dean of arts at Royal Military College in Kingston. He modelled his design on the RMC flag, which was red:white:red with a mailed fist holding a maple leaf on the white stripe. He altered the proportions and substituted a single maple leaf for simplicity and greater effect at a distance. His proposal was one of the thousands that the committee recieved, and ultimately the one that they chose. (Matheson, pp. 122-123.)
Which isn’t to say there weren’t some shenanigans in the committee. The Conservative members had instructions from Diefenbaker to oppose the “Pearson Pennant” (blue:white:blue with three maple leaves conjoined) and only to accept an ensign with the Union flag, but they were out-generaled by the Liberals on the committee. The chair of the Committee, a Liberal, proposed that all voting be by secret ballot, and the results only announced after all votes were taken. The chair and Matheson were relying on the well-known Conservative opposition to the Pearson Pennant.
The committee’s report to the Commons indicated the following series of votes:
-
that Canada should adopt a single national flag: 14-0.
-
red ensign rejected: 10-4
The committee then turned to the proposals, and grouped them into three categories: those containing three maple leaves; those containing one maple leaf; and those containing a combination of the Union flag and the fleur-de-lys. A series of votes gradually left only one flag in each category: the Pearson Pennant (which the Conservatives assumed the Liberals would push for); the Stanley design; and a union/fleur-de-lys flag.
Each flag was then voted on.
On the Pearson Pennant, the vote was 8-6, pretty much on straight party lines.
The Stanley design, which the Conservatives assumed was not in the running and therefore unimportant, got a vote of 13-1.
The union/fleur-de-lys design was rejected, 9 to 5.
Once those votes were tallied, it became clear that the choice was between the Pearson Pennant and the Stanley design. Again by secret ballot, the committee voted. The Conservatives assumed that the Liberals would vote for the Pearson Pennant, and voted for the Stanley design. However, the Liberal, CCF and Socred members of the committee had accepted the Stanley design, and voted for it. So the choice of the Stanley design was the unanimous design recommendation of the Committee.
Once those ballots were counted, the Conservatives realised they’d been outmanoeuvered, and called for a final vote on whether the Committee recommended the Stanley design as Canada’s national flag. That motion carried, 10-4. (Note that one Conservative must have broken party ranks on this final vote. It’s assumed that it was the Quebec Conservative member.)
So the Committee reported back to the Commons on a unanimous recommendation for the Stanley design, with a 10-4 vote in favour of it becoming Canada’s national flag.
Ain’t parliamentary procedure a wonderful thing?
(See Matheson, pp. 132-134.)
Lest there be any confusion here, the official name of the country is, and has always been, just “Canada.” It’s not “Dominion of Canada.”
Carry on with the flag talk!
(P.S. I love the Maple Leaf flag.)
I also read that the “official” flag is still the Union Jack and is to be flown at official ceremonies. Perhaps that reads ANother official flag?
quote:
"The “Royal Union Flag” (British Union Flag) is a current “official” flag of Canada per act of parliament of December 18, 1964, to “show allegiance to the crown and as a symbol of Canadian membership in the Commonwealth”.
http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/ca.html
Just the story as I read it some years ago. Actually, I’ve seen the RMC flag, and had assumed it was based on the natonal flag. Army Cadet pennants take a similar design.
I know it’s currently just “Canada”, but was the title ‘Dominion’ not used in the past? If not, where did it come from? And why does there exist the office of “Dominion Caroleur” (the guy who plays the bells in the Peace Tower) and organizations like the Royal Canadian Legion’s “Dominion Command” and the Dominion of Canada Rifle Association (DCRA)?
I had been under the impression that we lost the ‘Dominion’ tag (which personally I think sounds very cool) sometime in the twentieth century… perhaps when the Constitution Act came to be in 1982?
On this site, (National Library of Canada) the entry for 1867 lists the creation of the Dominion of Canada by the federation of four provinces under the BNA Act.
I also found some pdf sites listing legal proceedings such as “Dominion of Canada V. Province of Ontario”
What’s up with the ‘Dominion’ thing? Don’t make me start a GQ tread about this… 
(ooh, look! a Second Anniversary post!)
I believe the Union flag was recognised by joint resolutions of the two houses of Parliament, but it was not set out in a statute. The flag committee’s recommendation on this point read:
That resolution passed the Commons on December 17, 1964. (Matheson, pp. 171-176). I’m not sure when the Senate passed its version of the resolution, but it could well have been December 18.
Note that the phrase “to take such steps” does not require any legislative authority to be implemented. The executive arm of the federal government can implement it by issuing executive directions that the Union flag be flown on government buildings, military bases, etc., on suitable occasions, such as the Queen’s birthday.
Another reason why I doubt that there is a statute recognising the Union flag is that there is no such statute for the Maple Leaf flag. Once the two Houses of Parliament adopted the resolution in favour of the Maple Leaf flag, it was brought into force by a Royal Proclamation authorised by the Queen’s royal prerogative, dated January 28, 1965. If a statute wasn’t needed for the national flag, I doubt the Government would have passed one for the Commonwealth flag.
Here’s a link to the RMC flag, on the website t-keela mentions. The text surrounding the image is a quotation from Matheson’s book, and tells how Stanley first proposed his design to Matheson.
I was at the national Remembrance Day service at the War Memorial in Ottawa. There are two flagpoles in front of the Memorial. One carried the maple leaf, the other the union jack. I think if you were standing facing the memorial, the jack was on the right.
wolfstu, the term “dominion” was used in the Constitution Act, 1867, but it was more of a description than part of the official name of the country. The relevant passages are in the Preamble and ss. 3 & 4:
Note that the name is simply “Canada”, not “Dominion of Canada.” (The capitalization of “Dominion” doesn’t mean it’s part of the name - you’ll notice that all the nouns in this passage are capitalised. That was the drafting style for British statutes at that time.)
So, “dominion” was simply a description, similar to “province” - to describe the political entity, not as part of its name. The reason was that the new federation was more than just a colony - it was no longer under direct British rule. The 1867 Act conferred a tremendous range of self-government on British North America, much more so than Crown colonies had. But, Canada was still clearly a subordinate part of the British Empire, it wasn’t a sovereign nation like the U.K. itself. “Dominion” was one of the vague terms that the British had used in the past to describe H.M.'s various overseas possessions, so it was pressed into service.
There is a story that one of the New Brunswick delegates, Leonard Tilley, came up with the idea of using it. He was reading the Bible one night during the conferences and came across a verse in the Bible (King James Version):
He thought that was particularly appropriate, since the Fathers of Confederation envisaged a nation stretching from the Atlantic to the Pacific, so he proposed using “dominion.” (The story I read is that this is also the source of our national motto: “A mari usque ad mare” - “From sea unto sea.”)
So that’s where the term comes from, but why was it abandoned? Well, as Canada evolved, “dominion” no longer accurately reflected our constitutional and international status. “Dominion” was chosen originally to indicate a senior, self-governing member of the British Empire that was explicitly not a sovereign nation. Once Canada became a sovereign nation with the passage of the Statute of Westminster in 1931, “dominion” was no longer an accurate description of its status, just as a matter of the meaning of the word. (To get some idea of why, try going to this Bible search page and plug “dominion” into the word search, using the KJV. You’ll see that it’s used in the sense of “overlordship” or “control”, which was not an accurate description of the sovereign nation of Canada.)
As time went on, “federal” was increasingly used to refer to the central government, replacing “dominion.” I think it became official sometime in the sixties. “Dominion” still lingers on in a few usages, such as the ones you mention.
Northern Piper, that makes sense. ‘Dominion’ as an adjective might be used similarly to ‘national’.
“The National Post”, “The Dominion Times”.
Or, as a noun:
“The people of this Nation”, “The citizens of the Dominion”.
Works for me.
And I can see where, even though it sounds neat and unique, ‘Dominion’ carries connotations of ‘Dominance’ and ‘Domain’.
Thanks for the clarification.
While we’re on the subject…
You know the old joke, “Two guys are arguing in Canada. Where are they?”
If you use your imagination, you can see them in the flag. Their profiles are outlined by each side of the maple leaf:
-their foreheads touch at the top point.
-the second point down is the indentation between forehead and nose.
-their noses jut into the red leaf below that.
-the next three points form the upper lip, mouth, and bottom lip.
-just before the single bottom points, they have big macho chins.
How ironic that such traditionally un-Canadian behaviour - yelling! - is prominently displayed on our national flag.