Society, Culture & Communities

2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics

Jay Makarenko — Sun, 01 Jan 2006 00:00:00 -0700

On July 2, 2003, International Olympic Committee (IOC) President Jacques Rogge announced that Vancouver would host the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. This article provides an overview of Vancouver's Olympic bid. In doing so, this article provides discussions on the process and politics by which Vancouver was selected as a host city, opposition to the 2010 Vancouver Olympic bid, as well as the benefits and drawbacks of hosting an Olympics.

Process of Selecting an Olympic Host City

A breakdown of the formal evaluation process

Politics of Choosing the 2010 Olympic Host City

Politics played a role in Salzburg’s early elimination and Pyeongchang’s strong finish

Opposition to the 2010 Vancouver Bid

Politicians and social activists joined forces to oppose the Vancouver bid

Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of Hosting the Olympic Games

The Olympic legacy can range from increased employment to a massive debt

Links to More Information

List of links for more on this topic

*This article was originally written by Rhonda Lauret Parkinson (Sept. 2003), and was subsequently updated by Jay Makarenko (Jan. 2006).

Process of Selecting an Olympic Host City

A breakdown of the formal evaluation process

There are five stages in the process to select an Olympic Games host city:

Selection of the city as the country’s official candidate city.
Preparation of a formal bid detailing the city’s plans for hosting the Olympics and presentation of the bid to the IOC.
An initial selection phase in which an IOC committee examines each candidate city's bid. The committee publishes a report giving each city an overall mark based on its performance in several areas. The report establishes which cities make the short list for final selection.
A visit by the IOC to the candidate cities on the shortlist, followed by publication of a final report.
A final presentation by candidate cities, followed by IOC members voting to choose the host city.

The Olympic Bid Committee (a group of private investors) organized Vancouver’s Olympic proposal. In 1998, the group gained support from Vancouver City Council for an Olympic bid. In December 1998, the Canadian Olympic Committee selected Vancouver (and Whistler) as the candidate city for the 2010 Olympics. Vancouver beat out both Calgary and Quebec City in the competition. In June 1999, the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation was created to see the bid process through to completion. In March 2002, Vancouver City Council formally endorsed the bid.

In July 2002, the IOC Candidature Acceptance Working Group published its report on bids submitted by eight candidate cities. The IOC assigned each city technical marks in a number of areas, including general infrastructure, transportation, accommodation, government support, and public opinion. The report gave Vancouver and Salzburg high marks, and stated that both Pyeongchang and Berne, Switzerland met the minimum benchmark for hosting the Winter Games. (Berne withdrew from the competition following a referendum in which voters rejected taking out loans to co-finance the Games). On November 14, 2002, the City of Vancouver, the Resort Municipality of Whistler, the Government of Canada, the Province of B.C., the Canadian Olympic Committee, and the Canadian Paralympic Committee entered into an agreement setting out the rights and responsibilities of each group if the Vancouver-Whistler bid was successful.

In March 2003, the IOC Evaluation Commission visited Vancouver and Whistler. In May 2003 the IOC released its final report. The IOC’s comments on the Vancouver bid were mainly positive, but officials expressed concern over the winding two-hour drive between Vancouver and Whistler. Their evaluation of Pyeongchang questioned whether the plans for building an alpine ski run were feasible. In Salzburg’s case, IOC felt the number of world-class ski facilities had led organizers to spread out the venues to the point where it would increase costs and be difficult to manage.

Politics of Choosing the 2010 Olympic Host City

Politics played a role in Salzburg’s early elimination and Pyeongchang’s strong finish.

The International Olympic Committee announced the host city for the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games on July 2, 2003. The announcement was made on the first day of the Committee’s 115th session, held in Prague, Czech Republic. It took two rounds of voting, conducted by secret ballot, to select a winner. The results are as follows:

First Round

Total number of votes cast: 107
Abstentions: 3
Number of votes needed to win: 54

Results

Pyeongchang, South Korea: 51 votes
Vancouver, Canada: 40 votes
Salzburg, Austria: 16 votes

Austria was dropped from the list for the second round because it had received the fewest votes.

Second Round:

Total number of votes cast: 109
Abstentions: 3
Number of votes needed to win: 55

Vancouver, Canada: 56 votes
Pyeongchang, South Korea: 54 votes

The final result was not surprising, since the IOC’s working report gave Vancouver high technical marks. However, Pyeongchang’s second place finish was unexpected. Vancouver bid organizers considered Salzburg to be their main competition. The Austrian bid included plans to locate one Olympic village in the world class ski resort of Kitzbuel and another in Salzburg itself, a renowned cultural center and Mozart’s birthplace. By contrast, Pyeongchang did not even have a downhill ski run. In total, the tiny South Korean mountain town would need to build eight of the thirteen venues required for the Winter Games. Nonetheless, Pyeongchang came within three votes of winning on the first ballot. Meanwhile, despite the support of former IOC president Juan Antonio Samaranch, Austria received only sixteen votes and was knocked out of contention.

Analysts believe three factors played a role in South Korea’s favor:

The international political climate
Financial considerations
Future Olympic aspirations of IOC members.

The International Political Climate

Pyeongchang’s final presentation emphasized that the Winter Games could help ease tensions between South Korea and Communist North Korea. Given the ongoing dispute between North Korea and the United States over its nuclear weapons program, it’s not surprising that this had an impact on IOC members.

Financial Considerations

Pyeongchang promised free flights for Olympic teams and cheap accommodation. This type of aid is particularly attractive for poorer IOC member countries, as it increases their ability to participate in the Olympics. Even without the guarantees, accommodation in Pyeonchang is inexpensive compared to Vancouver and Salzburg.

Future Olympic Aspirations of IOC Members

With fifty-eight members, Europe controls a large block of IOC votes. This should have worked in Salzburg’s favour. Instead, it’s believed several European countries chose Vancouver over Salzburg, both to increase their own chances in 2012 and to weaken those of a competitor. The IOC prefers not to hold consecutive games on the same continent. Several European cities, including Madrid and Paris, are bidding for the 2012 Summer Games. A Vancouver win increased the possibility that the 2012 Summer Games would be held in Europe, while virtually eliminating New York City from the competition. It’s also believed that New York City’s hopes for 2012 kept the United States from supporting Vancouver.

Opposition to the 2010 Vancouver Bid

Politicians and social activists joined forces to oppose the Vancouver bid

Despite widespread business community support, the Vancouver bid was quite controversial. Critics argue the B.C. government shouldn’t be spending millions on the Winter Games while it is making significant social spending cutbacks. Furthermore, politicians representing Vancouver’s East Side are determined to prevent a repeat of Expo ’86. Area residents were overlooked for jobs on the World’s Fair site and tenants were evicted from low-rent hotels to make room for tourists paying much higher rates.

Organized Opposition to the Olympic Games

The No Games 2010 Coalition spearheaded opposition to the Vancouver bid. The Coalition’s mandate included creating “an active mobilization against the Olympic bid,” and promoting “the collective vision of a just, democratic society that uses public funds for public priorities.” Their strategy to kill the Vancouver bid included:

Encouraging opponents to write to the IOC voicing their concerns;
Lobbying governments to hold a referendum to allow the public to decide whether Vancouver should host the Winter Games;
Attempting to draw media attention to the opposition; and
Staging demonstrations during the inspection tour by the IOC evaluation team.

The No side had mixed success gaining media attention. (In a CBC interview, a spokesperson complained that the media was showing more interest in the Coalition now that Vancouver had won, than they had during the period leading up to the final IOC vote). Some argue that mainstream media coverage was biased toward the Yes side – CanWest Global, which owns the National Post and both the Vancouver Sun and Province, donated $1 million worth of free advertising for the Games. In contrast, the No side had a very limited budget.

The Coalition’s greatest success came from launching a lawsuit to try and force the Insurance Corporation of British Columbia (ICBC) to return a $1.76 million donation to the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation. The Coalition argued that ICBC acted outside the bounds of the Insurance Act, and was attempting to recoup the donated funds by raising car insurance rates. News of the lawsuit reached IOC members, who were surprised to learn that there was opposition to the bid.

The planned demonstrations during the IOC inspection tour didn’t take place. Instead, organizers allowed groups opposed to the Vancouver-Whistler bid, including First Nations band members and a Green Party MLA, to meet with the IOC evaluation team. While the meeting was brief, the No side felt that IOC members listened to their concerns.

Political Opposition to the Olympic Games

City of Vancouver Olympic Plebiscite

In 2002, newly elected Vancouver Mayor Larry Campbell promised that, if the B.C. government refused to hold a province-wide referendum, Vancouver would hold its own referendum on the Winter Games. The Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation opposed any referendum because they were concerned that a “No” vote would negatively impact Vancouver’s chances.

When it became clear that a province-wide referendum wouldn’t take place, and that a citywide referendum was too expensive, Vancouver held a plebiscite. A record 46 percent of voters turned out for the plebiscite, held on February 22, 2003. Sixty-four percent supported Vancouver’s participation in the 2010 Winter Olympic and Paralympic Games.

Using the Olympics to Help Vancouver’s Dispossessed

Impact of Olympics on Community Coalition

In 2001, several community organizations formed the Impact of Olympics on Community Coalition (IOCC) to serve as a watchdog over the bid process. In August 2002, the IOCC presented the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation with twenty-two recommendations. In response, the Vancouver 2010 Bid Corporation put together a “2010 Inclusive Inner City Commitment Statement,” stating that the purpose of the Commitment Statement is to “maximize the opportunities and mitigate potential impacts in Vancouver’s inner-city neighbourhoods from hosting the 2010 Winter Games.” It guarantees that renters won’t be evicted to make way for tourists, and commits to converting a section of the athletes' village into social housing and to providing inner-city residents with affordable tickets. The statement was included in the Vancouver bid book.

City Councilor Jim Green

Vancouver City Councilor Jim Green used the Olympic bid and his influence on Vancouver City Council to gain concessions for the city’s homeless. Elected in 2002, Green is a long-time advocate for residents in the Downtown Eastside, a section of Vancouver known for its high percentage of homeless people and drug addicts.

In 2001, the provincial NDP government purchased an abandoned Woodward’s department store building and announced plans to build 245 units of affordable co-operative housing. In 2002, the recently elected Liberal government froze the project. In protest, homeless people picketed outside the store for three months.

Green threatened that, unless the province stuck to the original plan, he would use his council position to ensure the City of Vancouver did not support the Olympic bid. Eventually, the two sides reached an agreement whereby the City of Vancouver purchased the building and the provincial Housing Department funded 100 units of social housing.

Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of Hosting the Olympic Games

The Olympic legacy can range from increased employment to massive debt

Potential Benefits of Hosting the Olympic Games

Job Creation: A winning bid means the creation of thousands of short-term jobs, primarily in the construction or service industry. Transportation systems are upgraded, and sport venues, housing, and other facilities are constructed. Numerous jobs are created in the service industry, including ticket sales. Frequently, the number of jobs exceeds the number of available workers and a massive volunteer effort is required. While few jobs are permanent, the length of preparation time for the Olympics means several years of increased employment for the host city.

Money for Large Scale Transportation Projects: Hosting the Olympic Games allows a city to undertake major transportation projects. Several major transportation projects were undertaken in association with the 2010 Vancouver Olympics, including expansion of the city's light rail transit system (the SkyTrain) and improvement of the Sea to Sky Highway between Vancouver and Whistler Village.

Major New Sports Facilities: Once the Games are secured, work begins on high calibre sports venues that remain in use after the Olympics.

Increased Tourism: Hosting an Olympic Games benefits both the host city and the region. Tourists travelling long distances to the Games often take time to visit the surrounding area. However, Olympic organizers sometimes overestimate the benefit to local tourism. For example, in 1988 Seoul had significantly fewer tourists than originally anticipated. On the other hand, Australia experienced a major tourism surge from the 2000 Summer Games held in Sydney.

Enhanced International Profile: A successful Olympic Games can propel a city to world-class status, leading to increased tourism and business opportunities.

Potential Drawbacks of Hosting an Olympic Games

Cost of Living Increases: Staging an Olympic Games leads to rising demand for basic goods such as food, with resulting price increases. The Olympic impact on the pocketbooks of city residents may begin years before the Games, as youth and adults move to the city seeking employment. During the sixteen-day event, prices for everything from restaurant meals to entertainment can skyrocket. In most cases, but not always, the cost of living returns to normal after the Games.

Legacy of Olympic Debt: Every host city wants to have a debt-free Olympics, particularly since the IOC assumes no financial responsibility for any debt incurred from staging the Games. However, it’s easy for construction projects to come in significantly over budget. Labour disputes, overtime pay for workers, mismanagement, inflation, and financial graft can all increase costs. Furthermore, after the Games, sports facilities may be more expensive to maintain than originally anticipated. It takes accurate budget forecasting and careful management to ensure the Games come in under budget.

Money Spent on the Bid could be Spent Elsewhere: A successful Olympic bid requires a massive injection of funds by several government levels. Vancouver Olympic bid critics pointed out that the provincial government committed millions of dollars to Olympic projects at the same time that it was making severe cutbacks to health, education, and other social programs.

Policies Affecting Renters and the Poor and Homeless: Renters as well as the poor and homeless can be negatively affected, both before and during the Games. Poor and homeless people tend to frequent the city’s downtown core, near low-rent hotels and homeless shelters. Consequently, they are highly visible to the media and tourists, and are considered "embarrassing" for a city’s image. Prior to an Olympic event, police often make “street sweeps”: they harass and even arrest homeless people to force them off the streets and out of public view. In addition, landlords of low-rent hotels may evict tenants to make room for Olympic tourists paying exorbitant rates. Apartment owners hoping to increase profits may also try to force out current tenants. Methods used can include eviction, raising rents to the point where the tenant chooses to move, or converting permanent rental accommodation into temporary hotel accommodation.

Links to More Information

List of links for more on this topic

The Canadian Maple Leaf Flag

Rhonda Parkinson — Fri, 01 Jul 2005 00:00:00 -0600

On February 15th, 1965, the modern Canadian flag, bearing its hallmark maple leaf, was raised for the first time on Parliament Hill. Today, the maple leaf is a recognized symbol of Canada; it has also come to symbolize unity, tolerance, and peace. This article provides a history of Canada's modern flag, and describes the events and debates leading up to its adoption.

Historical Overview of Canadian Flags

Historical overview of the past flags used by Canada

A National Flag for Canada

Events leading up to the decision to adopt the Canadian maple leaf flag

Why the Maple Leaf?

Why was the maple leaf chosen as the official symbol on Canada’s national flag?

Links for Further Information

List of links for more information on this topic

Historical Overview of Canadian Flags

Historical overview of the past flags used by Canada

Flag Terminology

The following terms are used to describe the various parts of a flag:

The hoist is the half of the flag nearest the flagpole;
The upper hoist is the upper left-hand quadrant of the flag;
The lower hoist is the lower left-hand quadrant of the flag;
The fly is the half of the flag that is farthest away from the flagpole;
The upper fly is the upper right-hand quadrant of the flag; and
The lower fly is the lower right-hand quadrant of the flag.

A Commonwealth Symbol – The Union Jack

Until 1965, Canada did not have its own national flag. Since Confederation, the Union Jack, the national flag of the United Kingdom, served as Canada’s unofficial national flag. Accordingly, the Union Jack flew over government buildings in Canada, as well as other government-related facilities such as RCMP camps and military forts.

The Union Jack represents the political union of England, Scotland, and Ireland. The flag combines the following three heraldic emblems:

England: the St. George’s Cross, a red cross on a white background.
Scotland: the St. Andrew’s Cross, a diagonal white cross on a blue background.
Ireland: the St. Patrick’s Cross, a diagonal red cross on a white background.

The emblems on the Union Jack mark the union of England and Scotland in 1606, and the subsequent Act of Union — of Ireland, with England (and Wales) and Scotland — in 1801. The official name of the Union Jack is the Union Flag; in Canada it is called the Royal Union Flag.

Displaying the Union Jack Throughout the Commonwealth

The Union Jack design is displayed on the national flags of many Commonwealth countries, representing a given country’s historical ties to Britain. Normally, the Union Jack is displayed on the upper hoist, while symbols specific to the country are displayed on the fly (this is called defacing the fly), and possibly the lower hoist.

This pattern is found on the national flags of Australia and New Zealand. Both flags display the Union Jack on their upper hoist and the Southern Cross — the most visible star in the southern hemisphere — on the fly. The stars representing the Southern Cross on New Zealand’s flag have red shading and are larger than those on the Australian flag. The Australian flag also has the Commonwealth Star — a seven-pointed star representing the six Australian states and the territories — in the lower hoist. Like many Commonwealth countries, both flags also have a royal blue background to represent the sea that surrounds them.

Other Commonwealth countries that display the Union Jack on their national flag include Bermuda, Fiji, and Gibraltar.

From the Union Jack to the Red Ensign – Canada’s Quest for an Official Flag

While the Union Jack was Canada’s unofficial national flag at Confederation, over time another flag, the Canadian Red Ensign, began to overtake it in popularity. An adaptation of a British naval flag, the original version of the Red Ensign, consisted of a square red flag with the Union Jack on the upper hoist, and a shield containing the coat of arms of the provinces of Ontario, Quebec, Nova Scotia, and New Brunswick (the four provinces that originally entered Confederation in 1867) displayed on the fly. As other provinces joined Confederation, the shield design on the flag was updated to include their coats of arms.

The Canadian Red Ensign was first used on naval vessels, even before the British government officially gave Canada permission to display the flag in 1892. While Canadian troops fought under the Union Jack flag during World War I, some veterans have memories of the Canadian Red Ensign being flown (unofficially) as well. In World War II, Canadian troops fought under the Red Ensign.

One obvious reason for the Canadian Red Ensign’s growing popularity was that, in addition to the Union Jack, it also displayed symbols specific to Canada. Interestingly, one of the symbols found in both the earliest versions of the Canadian Red Ensign, as well as subsequent incarnations, is the maple leaf.

In 1924, under the Liberal government of William Lyon Mackenzie King, the provincial shields on the Canadian Red Ensign were replaced with the shield from the Canadian Coat of Arms. The shield from the Canadian Coat of Arms contains five features (the first four represent the European peoples who founded Canada, while the fifth is meant to be a distinctly Canadian symbol):

On the top left, three golden lions, serve as symbols of England;
On the top right, a Scottish red lion is bordered with a red fleur-de-lis, alternately pointing inward and outward;
On the middle left is the Irish harp of Tara;
On the middle right is the golden fleur-de-lis of France; and,
On the bottom half are three maple leaves set against a white background.

The federal government approved the use of the newly designed flag on Canadian buildings abroad, such as at Canada House in London. In 1945, its use was expanded to federal buildings within Canada.

Why Didn’t the Canadian Red Ensign Become Canada’s National Flag?

Given the similarity in design between the Canadian Red Ensign and the national flags of other Commonwealth countries, it is interesting to speculate why it never became Canada’s national flag. Partially, federal officials feared a negative backlash from the French Canadian population. Many French Canadians viewed the Union Jack — which is featured on the Canadian Red Ensign — as a symbol of colonialism, representing France’s defeat at the hands of the British on the Plains of Abraham in Quebec City in 1759. French Canadian hostility to the Union Jack (and all British symbols) increased during World War I, as Robert Borden, the Prime Minister at the time, was forced to bring in conscription (compulsory service in the military). French Canadians resented being forced to serve under British commanders and a British flag in war, even if they were defending France.

Although the Canadian Red Ensign contained other symbols in addition to the Union Jack — including the French fleur-de-lis — French Canadians still rejected it. Quebecers were more loyal to their own provincial flag, consisting of a white cross on a blue background, with a white fleur-de-lis in each of the four quadrants, and no British symbols. Any move to make the Canadian Red Ensign Canada’s national flag would inevitably inflame ethnic tensions between English and French Canada, particularly within the province of Quebec.

To complicate matters, many British descendants felt the Canadian Red Ensign did not do enough to emphasize Canada’s ties to Britain. Groups such as the Imperial Order of the Daughters of Canada argued that the Union Jack — the flag under which Canadian soldiers had laid down their lives during World War I — should remain Canada’s official flag. These two groups would continue to play a prominent role in subsequent debates over choosing a national flag for Canada.

A National Flag for Canada

Events leading up to the decision to adopt the Canadian maple leaf flag

In 1925, capitalizing on the patriotic fervour following the Allied victory in World War I, Liberal Prime Minister William Lyon Mackenzie King made his first attempt to adopt a national flag for Canada. King appointed a parliamentary committee to recommend a design for a national flag; however, it quickly became evident that it would be impossible to gain widespread agreement. The Prime Minister quietly dissolved the committee before it released its final report.

Following World War II, when patriotic fervour was again high, Prime Minister King made a second attempt to adopt a national flag for Canada. In 1946, King appointed a parliamentary committee to choose a flag design. This time, the committee submitted a final report to Parliament. The design they recommended was a variation on the Canadian Red Ensign. The proposed flag still included a Union Jack; however, the shield from the Canadian coat of arms was replaced with a gold maple leaf with a white border.

The flag was designed to strike a compromise between English speaking Canadians who wanted to keep the Union Jack, and French speaking Canadians who wanted a flag that did not contain any British symbols. Predictably, the proposed design pleased no one. The Prime Minister let the issue drop without bringing it to a vote in Parliament.

The Flag Debate

Well over a decade later, during the 1963 federal election campaign, Liberal leader Lester B. Pearson promised that if the Liberals formed the next government, Canada would have a new flag within two years. Following the election of a minority Liberal government, Pearson was true to his word; in the early months of 1964, the new Prime Minister met with several flag experts to discuss flag design.

From the outset, Pearson rejected following the route of many other Commonwealth countries whose flags included the Union Jack to represent their ties to Britain. Pearson had vivid memories of the 1956 Suez Crisis, when, as Canada’s Secretary of State for External Affairs, he had played a key role in brokering an agreement between the relevant parties over the future operation of the Suez Canal. When Pearson suggested the United Nations create a United Nations Emergency Force (UNEF) to keep the peace in Egypt while a political settlement was being worked out, President Nassar of Egypt objected to including Canadian troops in the UNEF because their flag, the Canadian Red Ensign, was too British-looking.

This incident made a lasting impression on Pearson. He wanted a “made in Canada” flag — one that contained a uniquely Canadian symbol to promote Canadian unity, one that would also assist in buffering a growing separatist climate in Quebec.

In May 1964, Pearson formally announced the new flag design. Pearson’s proposed national flag consisted of three red maple leaves on a white background, bordered by two vertical blue bars to represent the fact that Canada stretched “from sea to sea.”

Before making the official announcement on May 19th, Pearson tested the new flag design with an audience of Veterans at a speech in Winnipeg. Their reaction was indicative of what was to come. The Veterans, who had fought under the Canadian Red Ensign — unofficially in World War I, and officially in World War II — heckled the Prime Minister throughout his speech.

Reaction to the proposed flag design among Members of Parliament from the Progressive Conservative opposition was equally negative. Progressive Conservative Leader (and former Prime Minister) John Diefenbaker quickly dubbed the proposed maple leaf flag “Pearson’s Pennant.” Diefenbaker’s opposition to the flag design was based on the fact that it did not include any historical symbols recognizing Canada’s British and French heritage. He favoured the Canadian Red Ensign, as it contained both British and French symbols, specifically the Union Jack and the fleur-de-lis (the Union Jack is found on the upper left-hand-side of the Canadian Red Ensign, while the fleur-de-lis forms part of the shield from Canada’s coat of arms which is on the fly). In a memo from Diefenbaker’s personal files he wrote:

The Pearson flag is a meaningless Flag. There is no recognition of history; no indication of the existence of French and English Canada; the partnership of the races; no acknowledgement of history. It is a flag without a past, without history, without honour and without pride.” (Source – I Stand for Canada: The Story of the Maple Leaf Flag).

Throughout the summer of 1963, the Progressive Conservatives used techniques such as ‘filibustering’ to prolong debate on the flag design, so that a vote on the matter could be postponed.

While the remaining opposition parties generally supported Pearson (with some modifications to the basic design), the Liberals needed the support of the Progressive Conservatives in the House of Commons to support the legislation that would officially give rise to the new flag. Furthermore, for the flag to be a unifying symbol, it would need an overwhelming show of support from Parliament.

Reaction outside of the House of Commons to the new flag design was mixed. Some groups, including Veterans’ organizations and the Imperial Order of the Daughters of Canada, actively lobbied for the Red Ensign. At the same time, the new flag, which was supposed to be a unifying force between French and English Canada, proved to be a relative ‘dud’ with French Canadians; it received a largely lukewarm reception.

By September, it was clear to Pearson that he would need to change tactics. The following outlines the detailed sequence of events that ultimately led to the adoption of the Canadian maple leaf flag as Canada’s new national flag:

In September 1964, Pearson agreed to refer the matter to a 15-member all-party Parliamentary Committee. The Committee's makeup was designed to ensure regional representation and include a mix of English and French speakers. (The Committee also included one woman.) With respect to political party representation, the Committee consisted of seven Liberals, five Progressive Conservatives, one New Democrat, one Social Credit, and one Créditiste.
Over the next four weeks, the Parliamentary Committee considered more than 2,000 designs, including hundreds submitted by the public.
On October 22nd, following weeks of heated debate among its members, 14 committee members voted unanimously (the 15th member was only to vote in the case of a tie) for a modification of Pearson’s proposed flag, with a red background and a single, stylized 11-point maple leaf on a white square in the middle.
Although the Committee members from the Progressive Conservative Party voted for the new design, they did so with the mistaken belief that the Liberals would vote against it, since the modified design did not include the three maple leaves originally proposed by Lester Pearson. The Progressive Conservative members of the Committee also voted against a subsequent motion to submit this flag design as the Committee’s choice for the country's national flag. (The motion passed anyway.)
With a few minor alterations, the final version of the design, which had been submitted to Cabinet, was approved.
Over the next two weeks, Members of Parliament debated the new design. During this period, Diefenbaker, and the members of his party who sat on the flag Committee, resorted to ‘filibustering’ to forestall any real debate on the design.
Several Conservative MPs became concerned about media and public backlash to the filibustering. On December 9th, Diefenbaker’s Quebec Lieutenant, Léon Balcer, rose and invited the Liberal government to invoke ‘closure,’ so the new flag design could be put to a vote.
On December 11, following further debate, the Prime Minister invoked closure; that is, a motion to end debate on the flag, and thus the filibuster. On December 14th, the closure motion passed by 152 to 85 votes, meaning that a vote on the actual flag could proceed in the House.
On December 15 1964, following a speech by Pearson, Parliament approved the new flag in a crucial vote, with 163 MPs voting in favour of the new flag and 78 voting against it. This vote occurred despite significant opposition from former Prime Minister Diefenbaker to the new design.

On January 28, 1965, the Queen signed the Royal Proclamation giving Canada a national flag. On February 15, 1965, an official flag-raising ceremony was held on Parliament Hill, as Canada’s new national flag was flown for the first time.

Why the Maple Leaf?

Why was the maple leaf chosen as the official symbol on Canada’s national flag?

Some may question why the maple leaf was eventually chosen as the symbol used on Canada’s flag, particularly given that the sugar maple, used as the model for the maple leaf design on Canada’s national flag, is found only in eastern Canada. Further to this, the majority of Canada’s maple trees are, in fact, only found east of Manitoba. By contrast, the beaver, a symbol of industriousness, and responsible for Canada’s burgeoning fur trade in the 1800s, is found widely across the country. In 1849, when famous Canadian engineer Sandford Fleming was asked to design Canada’s first adhesive postage stamp, he chose to portray a beaver building a dam near a waterfall.

There are several reasons why the maple leaf was a more appropriate choice. For one thing, the maple leaf is simply easier to draw. For another, the maple leaf is red, one of Canada’s national colours (the other is white). Finally, the fur trade is a part of Canada’s historical past, and the image of the beaver no longer resonated with Canadians in the same manner that it would have in the nineteenth century.

Further to these arguments, historically speaking, the image of the maple leaf has frequently been used as a symbol of Canada. To cite a few examples:

In 1860, the design of the badge for the Prince of Wales Royal Canadian Regiment included a maple leaf. Also in 1860, the maple leaf featured prominently in decorations for a visit by the Prince of Wales.
In 1867, Alexander Muir penned “The Maple Leaf Forever” as a song for Confederation.
Between 1876 and 1901, the maple leaf was featured on all Canadian coins; today, the maple leaf is found on the penny).
Between 1899 and 1902, Canadian soldiers fighting in the Boer War (a conflict in South Africa between the British and descendents of South Africa’s Dutch settlers) wore a maple leaf on their helmets.
In 1904, Canadian athletes competing in the Olympic Games wore shirts displaying the maple leaf.
In World Wars I and II, the maple leaf was displayed on soldiers’ caps, badges, and military equipment.
In 1921, the Canadian shield was revised so that the provincial emblems were replaced with a maple leaf.
In 1980, for his ‘Marathon of Hope’ run across Canada, Terry Fox wore a white T-shirt with the maple leaf embedded on a map of Canada.
Throughout the 20th century, Canadian teams wore the maple leaf on their uniforms in international competitions.

Today, around the world, the maple leaf is inextricably linked with Canada.

On a final note, and a little ‘closer to home,’ when the founders of Mapleleafweb.com were looking for a name, and a visual symbol that would immediately communicate the website’s focus on Canada, the maple leaf proved to be an obvious choice.

Links for Further Information

List of links for more information on this topic

Society, Culture & Communities

2010 Vancouver Winter Olympics

A breakdown of the formal evaluation process

Politics played a role in Salzburg’s early elimination and Pyeongchang’s strong finish

Politicians and social activists joined forces to oppose the Vancouver bid

The Olympic legacy can range from increased employment to a massive debt

List of links for more on this topic

Process of Selecting an Olympic Host City

Politics of Choosing the 2010 Olympic Host City

First Round

Results

Second Round:

The International Political Climate

Financial Considerations

Future Olympic Aspirations of IOC Members

Opposition to the 2010 Vancouver Bid

Organized Opposition to the Olympic Games

Political Opposition to the Olympic Games

City of Vancouver Olympic Plebiscite

Using the Olympics to Help Vancouver’s Dispossessed

Impact of Olympics on Community Coalition

City Councilor Jim Green

Potential Benefits and Drawbacks of Hosting the Olympic Games

Potential Benefits of Hosting the Olympic Games

Potential Drawbacks of Hosting an Olympic Games

Links to More Information

The Canadian Maple Leaf Flag

Historical overview of the past flags used by Canada

Events leading up to the decision to adopt the Canadian maple leaf flag

Why was the maple leaf chosen as the official symbol on Canada’s national flag?

List of links for more information on this topic

Historical Overview of Canadian Flags

Flag Terminology

A Commonwealth Symbol – The Union Jack

Displaying the Union Jack Throughout the Commonwealth

From the Union Jack to the Red Ensign – Canada’s Quest for an Official Flag

Why Didn’t the Canadian Red Ensign Become Canada’s National Flag?

A National Flag for Canada

The Flag Debate

Why the Maple Leaf?

Links for Further Information

Government

Other Sources