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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Clerk of the Committee  Ms. Catherine Cuerrier
Marc Toupin  Legislative Clerk, House of Commons

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

I don't think I had my hand up, but I'm always ready to take advantage of the opportunity to speak, Mr. Chair. Mr. Fast can tell you that.

Maybe I am being extraordinarily naive, and I do understand Mr. Abbott when he says it hasn't been dealt with before. But it's my understanding that Parliament spoke pretty clearly on this issue yesterday. In my book, Mr. Abbott's motion is now redundant.

If we go through all the motions and present a report, it will have to go through the House. In yesterday's vote, the House already said what it wanted to do.

There are so many other things we need to deal with on the vibrant arts and culture and many other issues. We should get on with those things and just accept what the House had to say about this issue.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Fast.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Actually, when I asked to speak, it was on the CBC issue and not the flag issue. I think that was when Ms. Fry had also asked to speak.

I just want to make sure that the witnesses who come from CBC are given a heads-up on some of the issues we might want to raise with them.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Yes, we can make sure there are no surprises. They probably know already, because the motions have been on the docket before--they've been mentioned.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

I want to make sure Mr. Stursberg is one of the individuals who appears before us.

4:10 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Thank you.

Mr. Coderre.

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Denis Coderre Liberal Bourassa, QC

Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss the motion moved by my colleague Mr. Abbott.

First of all, I have to say that I agree with him that this motion must be debated with all due respect. It must be clearly understood that this motion is of a non-partisan nature.

I want to explain to him why I will oppose the motion. We made our position known yesterday. Since I was with my son yesterday, I was therefore unable to vote on the original motion. There is no question that I would have voted in favour of that motion.

When we're talking about respect, dignity, honour, and recognition, all those values and concepts are very sensitive, as we know. When our kids make the ultimate sacrifice of their lives for those values, I think recognition is in order.

My tendency is to say that for the sake of the family and the country, every time we have a casualty of war, on the basis of the values I just mentioned and that we all share here, I believe it is the least we can do to proceed.

Of course, we can have all sorts of anecdotes on the reasons for lowering the flag. Some people might say it devalues the gesture itself. But to reopen that Pandora's box will have some major impacts, because in some cases we'll have to choose between which category is better than the other one, and why we say no to one and yes to the other.

There was the incident at École Polytechnique which occurred on December 6. We lowered the flag because this day is very symbolic, in terms of our struggle to combat violence against women. We also do this to convey a message, just like we do on Remembrance Day.

We should always remember, and that's why we're proceeding with it.

It is the same in the case of police officers and for other events. Certain gestures are made and a protocol is followed. We made some decisions in the case of our soldiers who died while on active duty in Afghanistan. Obviously, veterans feel that the emphasis should be placed on Remembrance Day. In my view, because of the delicate nature of these cases...

Even if we do wish to discuss this very respectfully with experts, we are going to create more problems by giving the impression that we will need to subjectively select one event over another. What justification is there for denying someone their vested rights?

In order to settle this manner once and for all, with all due respect for my colleague, Jim Abbott who I know has his heart in the right place, and even though I understand exactly why he is doing this and I know the committee of experts has nothing to do with the government's position, I would respectfully suggest that we vote against this motion, while bearing in mind the importance of this symbolic gesture in terms of our values and collective memory. The symbolism here is too important. If we start to fiddle with things, some people will not be happy, and that is already a few too many.

Thank you.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Chong.

4:15 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm not sure what topic we're on. I thought we were talking about the CBC, but we're on the flag issue now.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

No, we went past the CBC.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

I want to talk about both—so I'll talk about both.

First, with respect to the CBC motions in front of us, I would support your suggestion that we wrap them into one motion asking CBC/Radio-Canada to appear in front of the committee. Have we done that already?

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Yes, we've done it.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

Michael Chong Conservative Wellington—Halton Hills, ON

Okay, that's done.

With respect to flag issue, it is one that we should study. I think it's important to realize that this is not to question people's intentions here, because on both sides of this table, I think, everyone has the best of intentions when it comes to honouring those who have died either on foreign battlefields or here at home, for various reasons. So I don't think anyone here has anything but the best of intentions when it comes to the half-masting of the flag; but I do think it's an issue that's very important. Symbols are important. The country's flag is important, and I think it's important how we treat these symbols and what protocols are followed.

I think it's incredibly important that we have a consistent protocol. These things are very important, not just for today but for the future as well; and I think it's important that we set in place a consistent protocol. I don't think the protocol we have in place today is in fact consistent. There are some very odd things that are inconsistent with the protocol, which I think need to be studied by the committee.

I was surprised to find out that when former President Gerald Ford died, the protocol dictated that we half-mast the flag. I thought that was a very odd protocol. Some people may not find it untoward or odd at all, and I don't question their intentions in that respect; but I think there are a number of issues with the present protocol that have just come to be, I think, because of the gradual evolution of the protocol over the course of many, many decades, which have created some very odd, or seemingly inconsistent, protocols.

So I would support the committee studying this issue and coming to some sort of recommendation as to what the new protocol should be. I think it's something we should study and we should come to a recommendation on.

4:20 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Scott.

4:20 p.m.

Liberal

Andy Scott Liberal Fredericton, NB

First of all, I'd like to perhaps establish that it's a little unfortunate that we even have to express the fact that something shouldn't be fundamentally partisan. I think we should all come here with the broader interest in mind, truthfully. So whatever expression I take—and I take all members, frankly, as coming here with the best intentions, in terms of the interests of the country—I have a fundamental problem with the idea that I think is implicit in Mr. Abbott's comments. Again, I say this with all respect.

I've read articles in the newspaper to the effect that the government doesn't intend to act on the recommendation voted by Parliament last night, and that bothers me as we advance to this other discussion. I would respectfully submit that of all the things that have been said about our respect for our symbols, we have to show some respect for Parliament—if not as a democratic institution, at least as a symbol.

So for my part, and for what it's worth, I'm extending to the people.... Having a large military base in my constituency, I've had an inordinate number of people affected by this, and I couldn't imagine that something that would be available to me would somehow be denied to those people. But I would hope, given that Parliament has expressed itself the way it has, this would be the opening position of Mr. Abbott's motion; that given what's happened, the government will accept the will of Parliament, in this case, but that he feels there are other things he'd like to explore, so that at least he has that as his opening position.

Secondly, and finally, because of the vote last night and the way that some groups are posited as being against other groups—not because anyone's doing this on purpose, but because that's what these kinds of debates sometimes involve—I think it's probably not the best time to do this. I don't mean to suggest that there's never a good time to do this, but maybe not just at this moment, given the observations that have been made about who has this right and who has that right, and so on and so forth. I'm not sure this is the best time to have the discussion.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Mr. Siksay.

4:25 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate the importance of this issue. Chair, I supported the motion that we debated in the House, which we voted on last night, because I believe there isn't a more serious decision that Parliament can make than sending members of the Canadian armed forces to war. Members of Parliament and senators have to struggle with the consequences of that kind of decision.

It strikes me that ensuring that one of the key symbols of our Parliament—the flag on the Peace Tower—reflects the kind of concern we have for the decision we made and the resulting consequences of that decision—deaths of Canadian soldiers overseas—is an appropriate action for us to take.

I also believe that the other piece of the motion that called for a moment of silence when a Canadian makes the ultimate sacrifice overseas while doing work we've asked him to do is even more important for us as members of Parliament to undertake.

That's my bottom line on this, Chair. I'm not unhappy with the decision that was taken by the House last night. I don't believe there's a huge problem with how flags are half-masted in Canada. It seems people understand those protocols. People do it in different ways in different parts of the country for different reasons. We do it in very particular practices developed around the flag on the Peace Tower here in Ottawa.

I don't know that there have been any concerns raised about what we do with showing respect by half-masting the flag on the Peace Tower. They certainly haven't been raised with me over the years I've been here, Mr. Chair.

I really don't think I'm prepared to see this committee undertake this kind of study at this time, because I just don't believe there is an issue. In fact, what I'd be prepared to do is suggest that the committee reaffirm the decision made by the House last night.

My understanding would be that Mr. Abbott has put the motion that he originally moved back on the table, and I would move an amendment to it that replaces everything after “committee on Canadian Heritage” with “affirm the position taken by the House of Commons on April 2, 2008, when it passed the following motion”. Then the text of the motion we passed in the House last night would appear, and there'd be a final phrase, “that the Chair reports the motion to the House”.

I'd move that amendment now, Chair. I have it written out here, too.

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

Hedy Fry Liberal Vancouver Centre, BC

Do we have to debate the amendment?

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Gary Schellenberger

Yes, we have to debate the amendment.

Mr. Fast.

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Mr. Chair, could I share my perspective on this issue?

Mr. Chong referred to a much broader issue of protocol for half-masting in Canada. It's not restricted simply to the half-masting issue that was addressed in Mr. Telegdi's motion. I want to remind the members of the committee that an expert panel was charged with reviewing flag half-masting protocol in Canada. The panel was chaired by Robert D. Watt, who is the Rideau Herald Emeritus, and there were a number of other experts in the area of protocol. In their report they came out with recommendations that perhaps not all of us would support.

It had been my hope that their report would form the basis of a study at this committee. I sense that what we're getting here is a discussion about Mr. Telegdi's motion. I'm hoping this is not what's happening here, because that's just one small part of the whole half-masting protocol issue.

Mr. Chair, I would seek support from the other members of this committee to actually take the report of the expert panel that was just released and study it as it relates to many other issues relating to half-masting.

Mr. Siksay made a suggestion that Canadians seem to understand the protocol of half-masting. In fact, most Canadians have no idea what that protocol is. They understand what half-masting is, but they don't understand the protocol. There are different protocols for different occasions; there are different protocols for different individuals who lose their lives in the service of their country.

One of the criticisms of the Telegdi motion was that it focused exclusively on our armed forces and neglected a number of other first responders who put their lives on the line every day, such as police officers and fire rescue workers. That is a much broader discussion than Mr. Telegdi's motion, and I'm not sure I want to make revisiting Mr. Telegdi's motion the focus of our discussion. I want to deal with the larger issue of flag half-masting as a matter of protocol.

I had a chance to review some of the recommendations the expert panel issued, and I think there's much room for a broader discussion. I might not agree with all those recommendations; in fact, we might all disagree on a recommendation-by-recommendation basis. I would expect that this type of study would not be one for which the timing is inappropriate. Mr. Telegdi brought his motion forward; it was debated and passed, and no one suggested it was out of order because the timing wasn't quite right. I thought there was a suggestion coming from across the floor that somehow this is the wrong time to discuss this. I don't think there's a wrong time to discuss the broader issue of flag half-masting as a form of protocol in many different settings.

If in fact the objections that I hear from the other side of the table are focused strictly on Mr. Telegdi's motion, I can understand that, but I don't think that's the purpose here. A study was just issued, and I believe the Prime Minister had expressed his hope that this committee would actually study that report.

I just want to make sure we're clear. Was that the intention of your motion?

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

That's correct.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

All right. That was just for clarification.

4:30 p.m.

NDP

Bill Siksay NDP Burnaby—Douglas, BC

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair. Mr. Abbott's motion came long before the Prime Minister ever had the heraldry committee's report in his hand.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Ed Fast Conservative Abbotsford, BC

Understood, Mr. Chair, but in response, Mr. Abbott has just confirmed that with the issuance of that report, it becomes a much bigger issue.

4:30 p.m.

Conservative

Jim Abbott Conservative Kootenay—Columbia, BC

In fact, just as a point of information, I believe my motion was done in February, and the Prime Minister had the report in his hands in January. That's just to be clear.