Evidence of meeting #24 for Canadian Heritage in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was flag.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
4:30 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
In my opinion, Mr. Abbott had every right to move this motion. I kept a very open mind as I listened to the comments expressed by the people seated at this table. Since learning of this motion, I have been asking myself if people really want a full review of Canada's policy on the flying of the Canadian flag. I was expecting to get some answers to this question, but that was not to be.
I understood colleagues to say that one problem would be our soldiers currently stationed in Afghanistan. This problem was addressed in the House with the passage of Motion M-310 moved by Mr. Telegdi. So then, like a number of my colleagues on this side of the table, I do not see the relevance of reviewing Canada's policy on the flying of the Canadian flag.
With respect to Mr. Siksay's subamendment, I find it rather interesting because it calls to mind the solemn gesture of MPs yesterday in the House.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I've been advised that we've gotten off track here a little wee bit. Right now we should be discussing and debating the amendment, but we've been forgetting about the amendment. We've been hitting it a little wee bit, but we've been primarily talking on the motion.
I'll go to Mr. Bruinooge.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Being simply a substitute on this committee, I'll keep my comments on this as brief as possible.
Speaking to the motion—although I know that we are discussing the amendment—I think that being able to study what we're contemplating would give this committee, and of course all members of our Parliament, a great opportunity to hear from the very individuals who are of course the subject of this half-masting suggestion, that being our Canadian military. I think it would be a great opportunity to bring soldiers before our committee and hear their opinions.
Knowing some soldiers as I do, I would suspect that every soldier we brought before this committee, and every single one of their family members, would want to stand in uniform, shoulder to shoulder, with all previous soldiers who gave their lives for our great country throughout history, including the 3,500 soldiers who died in an hour on Juno Beach. I would suspect that every single soldier we brought before this committee would want to stand shoulder to shoulder and be acknowledged on Remembrance Day.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I don't think we should be supporting this subamendment because it is not consistent with past practice in this country, and I think it would cause problems in the future as well.
I'll just give a couple of examples of why I think this proposed policy is a problem. In two world wars and other conflicts, over 100,000 Canadian soldiers died on foreign battlefields, and if each one of those soldiers' deaths was recognized by half-masting, the flag would be down at half mast on the Peace Tower for close to 300 years. I don't think that is the kind of policy or protocol that we want.
If at some future date Canada finds itself engaged in a conflict where the deaths are in the range of 400 a year—and God forbid that we ever find ourselves in that situation—our national flag, the most important flag in the country, which sits atop the Peace Tower, would be at half mast all the time. I also don't think that is a situation we would want to have.
The present protocol also has other problems. I'm not comfortable with half-masting the flag for the death of a former American President. I have respect for that office, I have respect for our neighbours to the south, but we are a sovereign country and an independent country on the north half of this continent, and my personal opinion is that the death of an American President should not require the half-masting of the Canadian flag on top of the Peace Tower. That's another example of where I think the present protocol needs to be re-examined.
Those are just some of the reasons I don't support the subamendment in front of us, and why I think the committee should study the broader issue around the protocol of when the flag is half-masted.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
I need just one thing for my clarification. We have here the amendment, and it specifically talks about the half-masting of the flag on the Peace Tower. There are flags all over the country, whether they be in Legions or in other government buildings. The process of half-masting of flags is bigger than what the motion was yesterday in the House of Commons. As big as that motion was, it concerns one flag.
Maybe I'm wrong, as chair, but what I understand with this study is that it would be half-masting of all flags around the country, and believe it or not, our country is in other countries, where our diplomatic offices are. That's part of Canada. Right now we have a town called Kandahar, in that area, so that is part of Canadian land, as far as I understand it.
Am I missing something here? Is the motion put forward by Mr. Abbott on half-masting of all flags, and the amendment that Mr. Siksay has brought forward on one flag? Just correct me if I'm wrong.
4:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
You are right.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
What I am coming to is that the amendment does not match the motion. We had the vote last night. We could debate about this for quite some time, but I am going to rule the amendment out of order because it doesn't match the motion.
4:40 p.m.
An hon. member
Let's vote on the motion.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
I think the mover spoke to the motion, Mr. Chair, and he closes debate. Does he continue to speak?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
One moment, Mr. Abbott.
Does someone else wish to speak to the motion?
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
To the motion, yes. You've already ruled the amendment out of order, so it's to Mr. Abbott's motion.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Okay, but we were debating Mr. Abbott's motion before the amendment came forward.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Now that you've ruled that amendment out of order, I thought we were going to go back to the main motion. Mr. Abbott had spoken to his main motion originally, and it's my understanding that if he speaks now, he's really closing off debate.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger
Then what we'll do is carry on with the list, and you get to speak later.
Thanks for correcting me.
Mr. Chong. Oh, we've already had you.
Ms. Fry. Now we've had you.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC
Thanks, Mr. Chair.
You're absolutely right in what you just said. Earlier on, when you took me by surprise, I said we had voted on this last night. I agree that Mr. Abbott's motion deals with a lot more than the motion of last night. So I want to expand on why I do not support Mr. Abbot's motion at this point in time.
First and foremost, as far as I'm concerned this is an issue that will require lengthy discussion across the country. It is a huge issue. There is a report that has been tabled. We are to go and hear what Canadians think. This will occupy a great deal of the committee's time.
I believe the committee should decide what it considers to be most important in terms of the order of things we need to deal with now. As far as I'm concerned, this is an important issue, but it is not an urgent issue or a seminal issue right now. I think we should move on and put this motion aside.
You can table it indefinitely, as far as I'm concerned, but I would vote against the motion because I don't think we should be dealing with this issue right now.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I really do think—and the couple of interventions since I last spoke have supported this—that the government does not intend to act on what happened last night, and that to some extent at least part of the debate on this motion has included arguments about the inappropriateness of the decision that was taken last night.
It occurs to me that to some extent the notion that we could have a vote in the House of Commons, a thoughtful one.... People have consulted in their constituency—certainly I have—about last night's vote. I felt that I was representing the views of the people I consulted, the people I represent, and my own conscience. I think the government has an obligation to respect what happened last night. To some extent, to support Mr. Abbott's motion is to be complicit in ignoring it, because I think it's being parked inside of this, and the debate so far has suggested that's true.
I don't want to be complicit in ignoring what happened last night. If you tell me that the government is going to act on the decision of last night, then I'm open to being convinced that we should move on to the broader picture. But I'd need to hear that first. Otherwise, you're dragging me down a road that would put me in contempt of what happened last night.
