Delivered in the House of Commons on Thursday, November 8, 1945
A Distinctive National Flag and Constitutional Problems in Canada
***********************************************
Mr. W. F. KUHL (Jasper-Edson): This resolution urges the expediency of Canada's possessing a distinctive national flag. I agree that an anomaly exists with respect to the matter of a Canadian flag, and I, and my associates in parliament are in favour of removing this condition. But personally I consider that under the constitutional conditions prevailing in this country at the moment such action is premature. There are other and more important actions to be taken before it is appropriate to adopt a new flag.
The flag question is just one of the many anomalies which exist in Canada's constitutional position. Some of these have' been referred to this afternoon. One of them, the matter of Canadian citizenship is intended to be dealt with at this session. There are others, such as amendments to the constitution, appeals to the Privy Council, the power of disallowance, the matter of a federal district proper - and doubtless there are others. All these anomalies ought to be dealt with, and I am personally in favour of dealing with them at the earliest possible opportunity. But I consider that the present piecemeal method is improper as well as undemocratic. I contend that the people of Canada are not being consulted in the manner in which I believe they ought to be concerning their rights in these
questions.
To Account For Anomalies
I wish to indicate, Mr. Speaker, my reasons for contending that the method that is
proposed to attempt to remove these anomalies is improper and undemocratic.
Then I wish to indicate what I consider to be the proper method to use. To do this
I first wish to endeavour to, account for the constitutional circumstances in which
we find ourselves at the moment.
The question, which must occur to every hon. member of this house and to every other citizen in this country, is why do such anomalies exist in our constitutional position? How did they come about? There must be something in Canada's constitutional history that accounts for the circumstances in which we find ourselves. No other part of the British Empire finds itself in the same circumstances. Why are these conditions peculiar to the people of Canada In endeavouring to answer these questions, and in suggesting what I consider to be the proper remedy for them, I am not posing as a constitutional expert, although I may say it is now ten years since I began my studies on this subject, and I trust, I shall not be considered presumptuous in claiming to have added a little to my knowledge in that time.
The matters, which I wish to discuss, are those with which every public school child in the seventh and eighth grades, every high school student, and certainly every voter, should be thoroughly familiar. Every citizen in the land should know by what authority we do things in this country. On several occasions during the past two parliaments I have argued the case I am about to introduce, but very little attention was paid to my statements either in the house or out of it. On this occasion I intend to be heard, and if not, I demand to know the reason why. I
consider that the situation which I shall discuss is of such importance that a reply or a comment should certainly be forthcoming from the Acting Prime Minister (Mr. Ilsley) the Minister of Justice (Mr. St. Lauremt), and for that matter, from all hon. members of the house. I and the people who have sent me here have a right to know whether there is, or is not, a basis in fact for my contentions, and if there is, they have the right to know what is going to be done about it.
Submit Reasoned Argument
I propose to make a reasoned argument supported by the best evidence I have been able to secure. If my argument is to be controverted, I demand that it be
met with a reasoned argument and not with personal abuse and statements, which are wholly irrelevant. I expect a more intelligent criticism of my argument than was exhibited by a certain hon. member when I discussed this subject in a previous parliament. In Hansard of April 8, 1938, at page 2183, this little exchange took place between the hon. member and myself for Selkirk, Mr. Thorson:
Mr. Thorson: Would the hon. member indicate where he gets these queer ideas?
Mr. MacNicol: He has queer ideas of his own.
Mr. Kuhl: I continue:
Mr. Kuhl: I placed on Hansard on February 10 a clear outline of the reasons for
my statement. If the hon. member wishes to refute any of the facts or arguments,
which I placed before the house, I shall be pleased to hear the refutation.
Mr. Thorson: Why battle against windmills".
I submit that the subject matter and the arguments which I presented on that occasion were worthy of more intelligent criticism than was exhibited by that hon. gentleman. I have long ago learned that when an individual has a weak argument, or no argument at a1l, he usually resorts to personal abuse of his opponent. If hon. members have not a better argument to make than Mr. Thorson made on that occasion, I suggest that they hold their peace.
In submitting my argument, Mr. Speaker, I wish to assure you that I am actuated by the highest possible motives. We proudly proclaim our faith in democracy; we proclaim it from the housetops. I wish to urge that we practice what we preach. Let us demonstrate democracy instead of merely paying lip service to it.
It is my desire to see the people of Canada consulted where their fundamental rights are concerned. I wish to see government of the people by the people. These are the motives, which actuate me in what I have to say on this resolution.
In presenting the special case I am about to discuss I am not necessarily speaking as a member of the Social Credit group; I am speaking as a native of Canada. The matters on which I am to speak are of fundamental concern to every citizen of Canada regardless of his or her political persuasion. They are among the most serious matters upon which a citizen can be called to think; they are the bedrock considerations of human government.
Basic Premises
In order to endeavour to account for the contradictions in Canada's constitutional position and to suggest a remedy therefore, I wish to lay down some fundamental premises on which I shall base my entire argument. Locke is credited with
saying:
“Men being by nature all free, equal, and independent, no one can be put out of this estate and subjected to the power of another without his consent. The only way whereby anyone divests himself of his natural liberty and puts on the bonds of civil society is by agreeing with other men to join and unite into a community.”
Jefferson, in the declaration of independence states:
“We hold these truths to be self-evident: that all men arc created equal; that they
are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights: that among these
are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these rights
governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the
consent of the governed.”
Federal Union Defined
In addition to that promise, I wish to indicate the definition of a federal union.
What is a federal union? Bouvier in his law dictionary defines "federal
government" as:
“A union or confederation of sovereign states, created either by treaty, or by the
mutual adoption of a federal constitution.”
Doctor Olivier, joint law clerk of the House of Commons, on page 85 of the report
of the special committee on the British North America Act, said:
“A confederation is a union of independent and sovereign states bound together
by a pact or a treaty for the observance of certain conditions dependent upon the
unanimous consent of the contracting parties, who are free to withdraw from the
union."
A. P. Newton, in his book entitled "Federal and Unified Constitutions," at page 5
says:
“A federal state is a perpetual union of several sovereign states based first upon
a treaty between those states or upon some historical status common to them all,
and secondly upon a federal constitution accepted by their citizens.”
Two points stand out prominently in these definitions. The first is that the states,
which form the union, must be sovereign, free and independent before they
federate; the second, that the federal constitution, which forms the basis of the
union, must be accepted by the citizens of the federating states. I think it
worthwhile in this connection to point out that when the states of Australia
federated, the people of Australia were provided with two opportunities of voting
on their constitution. I should like to quote a paragraph from a history of the
Australian constitution by Quick and Garran. This paragraph is on the meaning of
the words "have agreed" in the constitution, and it states:
“These words make distinct and emphatic reference to the consensus of the
people arrived at through the procedure, in its various successive stages,
prescribed by the substantially similar enabling acts adopted by the legislatures
of the concurring colonies. In four of the colonies acts were passed enabling the
people to take part in the framing and the acceptance or rejection of a federal
constitution for Australia. Through those acts the people agreed, first to send
representatives to a federal convention charged with duty of framing for Australia
a federal constitution under the Crown in the form of a bill for enactment by the
Imperial Parliament, and, secondly, they agreed to pronounce their judgment
upon the constitution at a referendum, which in each colony was arranged to
follow the convention. In all the colonies, the constitution was eventually referred
to the people. At this referendum, each voter was eligible to vote by ballot "yes"
or "no" on the question asked on the ballot paper, "Are you in favour of the
proposed federal constitution?"
In this manner, there was, in four colonies, a popular initiative and finally in all the
colonies a popular ratification of the constitution, which is thus legally the work,
as it will be for all time, the heritage of the Australian people. This democratic
method of establishing a new form of government may be contrasted with the
circumstances and conditions under which other federal constitutions became
law.
Federal Union Desired in 1867
Now I should like to ask a few questions concerning our position in Canada. Did
the provinces of Canada desire federal union? The Quebec resolutions, the
London resolutions, and the draft of the bill by the London delegates all indicate
that the provinces of Canada desired federal union. The preamble to the Quebec
resolutions reads:
“The best interests and present and future prosperity of British North America will
be promoted by a federal union under the Crown.”
Clause 70 of the Quebec resolutions indicates that whatever agreement was
arrived at by the delegates would be submitted to the provinces for their
approval. It reads:
“The sanction of the imperial and local parliaments shall be sought for the union of the provinces, on the principles adopted by the conference.”
Furthermore, a bill drafted in London by the Canadian delegates contains the
same preamble that appears in the Quebec resolutions, and this draft bill also
contains a repealing clause which hon. members can find on page 179 of Pope's
"Confederation Documents". It reads:
"From and after the union, all acts and parts of acts passed by the Parliament of Great Britain, the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Legislature of Upper Canada, the Legislature of Lower Canada, the Legislature of Canada, the Legislature of Nova Scotia, or the Legislature of New Brunswick, which are repugnant to or inconsistent with the provisions of this act shall be and the same are hereby repealed."
Canada Not Federated Under B.N.A. Act
The next question is: Did Canada becomes a federal union under the British North America Act. I submit that the manner in which the bill was drafted and the manner in which it was enacted throw much light on the answer to this question. The law officers of the Crown attached to the colonial office drafted the act. Lord Carnarvon, Secretary of State for the colonies was the chairman of the conference. Sir Frederick Rogers, Under-secretary for the colonies, in Lord Blachford's Letters, is quoted as saying at page 301:
“They held many meetings at which I was always present. Lord Carnarvon was in the chair, and I was rather disappointed in his power of presidency.” In reading accounts of the times, it is quite obvious that the bill, which was drafted by the colonial office, seems to have prevailed over that which was drafted by the delegate from Canada. The title and preamble of the bill drafted by the Colonial Office read:
“The union of the British North American colonies, and for the government of the united colony. Whereas the union of the British North American colonies for the purposes of government and legislation would he attended with great benefits to the colonies and be conducive to the interests of the United Kingdom; -“
That is the preamble of the draft bill submitted by the colonial office, whereas the
preamble of the bill drafted by the Canadian delegates read:
“Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have expressed their desire to form a federal union under the British Crown for the purpose of government and legislation, based upon the principles of the British constitution;”
I submit, Mr. Speaker, no evidence is to be found to show that the preamble, which we find in the printed copies of the British North America Act in Canada, was either discussed or proven in the British Parliament. This preamble reads:
“Whereas the provinces of Canada, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick have
expressed there desire to be federally united into one dominion-“
Lord Carnarvon, who introduced the bill on February 19, 1867, used these words as reported at page 559 of the British Hansard:
“The bill opens by reciting the desire of the several provinces to be federally
united.”
Furthermore Lord Campbell, speaking to the bill on February 26 of the same year, is reported at page 1012 of the British Hansard as having said:
"The bill is founded, I believe, on what is termed the Quebec scheme of 1864. When the resolution, which alone engages the Nova Scotian Parliament, was in debate, its whole tenor, as our papers show, were against that project. The leader of the government was understood distinctly to renounce it. Our rights indeed may be imperfect upon this part of the subject, and I will not dwell upon it. But one thing is clear the preamble of the resolution comes before us in full and perfect authenticity. The preamble lays down the expediency of confederating
British North America."
I submit it should be evident from these quotations that the preamble, which was discussed, was that to be found in the Quebec resolutions, not the one we find in the printed copies of the British North America Act in Canada.
A pertinent question to ask at this point would be: When was the present preamble placed in the British North America Act? Why was it not discussed in the British Parliament, and, furthermore, what is the significance of an act bearing a preamble which was not even discussed, let alone proven? Another point of significance in connection with this, I believe, is the undue haste with which the bill was passed through the Imperial Parliament. When second reading was called for, the bill was not even printed. At page 1090 of British Hansard for
February 27, 1867, we find these words:
Mr. Hatfield said he rose to ask the government why it was the second reading of this bill had been fixed for to-morrow. It was one, which affected 4,000,000 of people, and upon, which great doubts and differences of opinion were entertained. It was not yet printed and was of so important a character that he thought some little time ought to elapse after it was in the hands of the members before it was introduced in order that some little consultation should take place
upon it. He was not at all sure that he should be opposed to it, but he certainly required more time to consider it.
Later, on page 1195, on February 28, we find this:
He (Mr. Hatfield) thought that a bill of such great importance ought not to be passed through parliament with such haste. It was read a third time in the House of Lords only on Tuesday night and two days after they were called to give it a second reading in that house (Commons) that was a bad precedent to establish and might produce ill effect at another time. If the bill had been delayed only for a few weeks, the people of Nova Scotia would have been able to express an opinion upon it. He had not had time to consider either the bill itself or the papers
on the subject, which had been put into his hands.
Another significant statement is that by John Bright, which we find at page 1181 of British Hansard for February 28, 1867, as follows:
"I have heard there is, at present in London, a petition complaining of the hasty proceedings of Parliament and asking for delay signed by 31,000 adult male, of the province of Nova Scotia; and, that petition is, in reality, signed by at least half of all the male inhabitants of that province. So far as I know, the petition does not protest absolutely against union but against the manner in which it is being carried out by this scheme and bill, and by the hasty measures of the colonial office.
Nobody pretends that the people of Canada prefer a nominated council to an elective council. I regret very much that they have not adopted another system with regard to their council or senate, because I am satisfied - I have not a particle of doubt with regard to it - that we run a great danger of making this act work ill almost from the beginning - - -
For my share, I want the population of these provinces to do that which they
believe to be the best for their own interests - remain with this country if they like,
or become independent states if they like."
Conclusions
From the evidence, which I have thus far submitted, I draw the following
conclusions:
1. The provinces of Canada desired a federal union.
2. The Quebec resolutions provided for a federal union.
3. The bill drafted by the Canadian delegates at the London conference, also provided for a federal union,
4. The colonial office was not disposed to grant the provinces of Canada their request for a federal union.
5. The British North America Act, enacted by the Imperial Parliament, carried out neither the spirit nor the terms of the Quebec resolutions.
6. Canada did not become a federal union under the British North America Act, but rather a united colony. The privilege of federating, therefore, was still a future privilege.
7. The Parliament of Canada did not become the government of Canada, much less a federal government. It became merely the central legislature of a united colony, a legislative body whose only power was that of aiding and advising the Governor General as agent of the Imperial Parliament.
8. The British North America Act, as enacted by the Imperial Parliament, was not a constitution, but merely an Act of the Imperial Parliament, which united four colonies in Canada into one colony with the supreme authority still remaining in the hands of the British government.
Further Evidence
As further evidence that the British North America Act was not a constitution, and that Canada did not become a federal union, I refer to the definition of the term "dominion" which is to be found in section 18, paragraph 3 of the Interpretation Act of 1889. It reads as follows:
"The expression ‘colony’ shall mean any of Her Majesty’s dominions, exclusive of the British islands and of British India; and where parts of such dominions are under both a central legislature and local legislatures, all parts under the central legislature shall, for the purpose of this definition be deemed to be one colony."
Excepting Canada, no country in the empire had a central legislature and local legislatures. Therefore, according to this definition made twenty-two years after the enactment of the British North America Act, Canada is deemed to be one colony.
To show that I am not alone in my conclusions I quote some of the statements of
recognized Canadian constitutional authorities before the special committee on
the British North America Act in 1935.
Doctor W. P. M. Kennedy, Professor of Law in the University of Toronto, at page 69 of the report states:
"I think we have got to get away from the idea that the British North American Act is a contract "or treaty". I do not want to go into that, but it is true neither in history nor in law. The British North America Act is a statute, and has always been interpreted as a statute."
Professor N. McL. Rogers, of Queen's University, at page 115 of the report states in reply to a question by Mr. Cowan:
Mr. Cowan: You do not subscribe to the belief that this was a pact or contract?
Mr. Rogers: I am thoroughly convinced it is not, either in the historical or the legal sense.
Then I would quote Doctor Beauchesne, Clerk of the House of Commons, who at page 125 states.
"It is quite true that if we apply to the British North America Act the principles followed in the interpretation of statutes, it is not a compact between provinces; it is an act of parliament which does not even embody all the resolutions passed in Canada and in London prior to its passage in the British Parliament where certain clauses that had not been recommended by the Canadian Provinces were added."
The evidence which I have submitted establishes to my satisfaction that there has been at no time in Canada any agreement, pact or treaty between the provinces creating a federal union and a federal government. The privilege to federate therefore was still a future privilege for the provinces of Canada.
Provinces Completely Sovereign
Since the Provinces must enjoy the condition of sovereignty and independence
before they can federate, it was necessary that the British government relinquish
its authority over them. This was done through the enactment of the Statute of
Westminster on December 11, 1931. By section 7, paragraph 2, of this statute,
the Provinces of Canada were made sovereign, free and independent in order
that they might consummate the federal union which they wished to create in
1867, but were not permitted to do so.
Since December 11, 1931, the Provinces of Canada have not acted on their newly acquired status; they have not signed any agreement, they have not adopted a constitution, and the people of Canada have not ratified a constitution. Such action should have been taken immediately upon the enactment of the Statute of Westminster. It is by reason of the failure of the Provinces and of the people of Canada to take this action that all the anomalies in our present position exist. We have been trying since 1931 to govern ourselves federally, under an
instrument, which was nothing more than an act of the Imperial Parliament for the purpose of governing a colonial possession.
Not only has this anomalous condition obtained since 1931, but it has done so without any reference whatsoever having been made to the Canadian people. They have not been consulted on anything pertaining to constitutional matters. Before there can be a federal union in Canada and a federal government, the Provinces of Canada must be free and independent to consummate such a union. They have been free to do so since December 11, 1931, but they have not done so.
Canada Without a Constitution
I therefore pose this question: Whence does the Dominion Parliament derive its
authority to govern this country? The Imperial Parliament cannot create a federal
union in Canada or constitute a federal government for the people of Canada by
virtue of the British North America Act or any other act. Only the people of
Canada can do this, and they have not yet done so.
Since December 11, 1931, as an individual citizen of this country I have had the
right to be consulted on the matter of a constitution. I have had the right along
with my fellow citizens to ratify or to refuse to ratify a constitution, but I have not
been consulted in any way whatsoever. I assert therefore that until I, along with a
majority of Canadians, ratify a constitution in Canada, there can be no
constitution, and I challenge successful contradiction of that proposition.
Mr. POULIOT: Were you born in 1867?
Mr. KUHL: Not that I recall.
Mr. JOHNSTON: Were you?
Mr. POULIOT: No.
Mr. KUHL: Those who were in charge of Canadian affairs in 1931 were under obligation to acquaint the people of Canada with the constitutional position obtaining at the time and to prepare them so that they would be able to act upon their altered status.
Mr. JAENICKE: What about section 7 of the Statute of Westminster?
Mr. KUHL: I have already answered that. I have indicated the position of the British North America Act, and have pointed out that the people of Canada have not accepted it as a constitution.
Mr. JAENICKE: The Statute of Westminster made the provinces autonomous?
Mr. KUHL: Yes.
Mr. JAENICKE: What about section 7 of the Statute of Westminster?
Mr. KUHL: Which one?
Mr. JAENICKE: Amending the British North America Act.
Mr. KUHL: Just exactly as I have said, there can be no constitution in Canada, whether it is on the basis of the British North America Act or any other act, until the people of Canada accept it. They have not accepted it.
Mr. COLDWELL: We have been acting under the British North America Act since
1867.
Mr. KUHL. That does not alter the situation.
Mr. JAENICKE: What are you going to do about it?
Remedy For Condition
Mr. KUHL: Before I resume my seat I shall indicate definitely what to do about it. The people of Canada have not acted on the altered constitutional status; hence the deplorable constitutional position in which we find ourselves in this country. I know of no country, which is in such shocking constitutional circumstances as Canada. As a native of this country it is most humiliating to me to be obliged to continue to accept this position, and I am determined to do my part to rectify that position.
Legally, Canada is in a state of anarchy, and has been so since December 11, 1931. All power to govern in Canada since the enactment of the Statute of Westminster has resided with the provinces of Canada, and all power legally remains there until such time as the provinces sign an agreement and ratify a constitution; whereby, they delegate such powers, as they desire upon a central government of their own creation. Since December 11, 1931, the Parliament of Canada has governed Canada on assumed power only. It is imperative that this situation be dealt with in a fundamental way. Patchwork methods will not suffice.
Obviously the first act is that the provinces of Canada shall sign an agreement authorizing the present parliament to function as a provisional government. That is number one in answer to my hon. friend. Secondly, steps must then be taken to organize and elect a constituent assembly whose purpose will be to draft a constitution which must later be agreed to by the provinces and then ratified by the people of Canada. The dominion-provincial conference is to reconvene in the near future. This would be a most appropriate time and a most appropriate occasion on which to initiate action of this kind. I trust that the delegates to this conference will not disappoint us in this matter. I shall observe with much interest what will be said in this conference on constitutional relationships in Canada.
Proposals Endorsed
To show that I am not alone in my proposal I quote Doctor Beauchesne from the evidence of the special committee on the British North America Act in 1935. On page 126 of the evidence he is credited with saying:
"-The Statute of Westminster has altered our status. The time has come, in my humble opinion, when the British North America Act, except as to minority rights, should be transformed and a new constitution more in conformity with present conditions should be adopted. Amendments here and there would be mere patchwork, which could not last. The people of 1935 are different from those of 1867. What we want is a new constitution. The new constitution must leave nobody with a grievance. A spirit of conciliation should predominate. For these reasons, the task must be entrusted to an independent body in which all the elements of the country will be represented. I, therefore, beg to suggest an imposing constituent assembly formed of eminent men coming from all parts of Canada. Provincial conferences, attended by a few ministers meeting behind closed doors, would hardly satisfy public opinion. The debate should be public. I want the assembly to sit in a city in the west. It would not be necessary for a
delegate to be a Member of Parliament or of a provincial Legislature."
And on page 128 Doctor Beauchesne is reported as follows:
“I would suggest that the assembly do not sit in Ottawa, in order that it may not
have the appearance of being dominated or even influenced by the dominion
power; and as the western provinces are of such paramount importance in the
country, I suggest the best city for the representatives to gather in would be
Winnipeg.”
And again on page 131:
"There have been many disputes about provincial rights since 1867 and it seems
certain that when a new constitution is drawn up, the distribution of federal and
provincial powers will have to be modified."
And page 135:
"I think the time is ripe for a change in the constitution. I do not think you would
need much publicity in order to draw to the attention of the people of this country
that the British North America Act is inadequate."
And finally on page 129:
"Whether our country should be changed from a dominion to a kingdom is also a
subject which might be discussed. I would suggest that the country should be
called "the federated states of Canada."
I should also like to quote in this connection a resolution, which was adopted at a
convention of Social Credit supporters and monetary-reform-minded people held
in the city of Edmonton in 1942. This resolution is to be found at page 59 in the
publication "Prepare Now," issued by the Bureau of Information, Legislative
Building, Edmonton. It reads as follows:
"Whereas the statute of Westminster, in granting complete sovereignty and
equality with Great Britain to Canada and other nations of the British
Commonwealth, has changed the relative positions of the provincial and federal
governments as provided in the B.N.A. Act;
and, Whereas it is desirable and expedient in the interests of national unity that an interprovincial conference of appropriate representatives of the Canadian Provinces be held for the purpose of reviewing and adjusting the constitutional relationship as between the Provinces and their central government with a view to providing effective democratic government in Canada;
Therefore be it resolved that without in any way prejudicing or jeopardizing the
rights and privileges of any minority group in Canada, a comprehensive
conference of representatives of the Provinces be held for the purpose of
considering:
1. The existing legislative and administrative organization in the provincial and federal spheres.
2. A more expedient allocation of powers as between the provincial and federal authorities.
3. Ways and means of facilitating the drafting, the adoption and the implementation of a Canadian constitution in keeping with the rights granted in the Statute of Westminster.
I contend, Mr. Speaker, that such are the actions, which should be taken before it is appropriate to adopt a distinctive national flag. I submit that the adoption of a new flag of our own designing should be the crowning act to putting our constitutional house in order.
I believe that the statements, which I have placed upon the record, are historical facts. I believe that the conclusions, which I have drawn from these facts are the only ones, which can be drawn from them, and I believe, consequently, that the solution, which I have suggested, is the only one adequate for the circumstances. If hon. members of this assembly can successfully dispute either the facts which I have submitted or the conclusions which I have drawn there from, I shall be prepared to withdraw those conclusions, but if they do not do so, I believe the
people of the country have a right to know what they propose to do in the circumstances.
It was my intention to move an amendment, but as one has been moved already I shall refrain from doing so until the amendment already moved has been dealt with. So far as the substance of that amendment is concerned, I repeat what I have previously indicated. I think it is premature to consider any flag, either the one suggested in the amendment or any other. There are other and more important actions to be taken before we can consider the adoption of a new flag.
Meyers owns 200 acres of farmland, including close to 60 acres of woods, which the government considers part of the farms.
