Evidence of meeting #20 for Canadian Heritage in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was carmichael.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

12:05 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL

Yes.

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Mr. Calandra is next.

12:05 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

I'm hoping we can get to a vote soon, but if it's the desire of the opposition to retain the penalty clauses....

I understand that another amendment is coming forward. I thought that during debate in the House of Commons there was some discussion from the opposite side expressing great support for the Canadian flag and what the private member had brought forward, but that some of the penalties couldn't be supported by all members of the House. We're trying to work together to bring amendments forward, but if the opposition or the members of the committee as a whole would rather see the penalty clauses remain, perhaps we can vote this motion down and move on with the bill.

I'd like us to call the vote.

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Your request is noted.

Mr. Aubin, followed by Mr. Cash.

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Robert Aubin NDP Trois-Rivières, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I am walking on eggshells here, but I cannot seem to grasp the relevance of this bill because in its original form, it talks about preventing forbidding. I am no mathematical genius, but I was always taught that two negatives give a positive. So if we are talking about preventing forbidding, what we are saying is “allowing”.

This bill would allow Canadians to fly the Canadian flag, which they are already allowed to do. In Quebec, we like flags too. We even have them in different colours. We have permission to fly them as well, and everyone does so with no problem.

It seems to me that passing legislation to allow what is already allowed is going overboard. If I put myself in the shoes of a member of the board of directors of a co-op building and I have to handle a situation like that, the only question that I should be asking myself is about what the law says. This bill provides me with no additional answer to that question.

If we want to encourage certain behaviour, it seems to me that that does not belong in the law either. If we want to encourage the behaviour, we have promotional campaigns, awareness campaigns, and we organize events. It seems to me that if we pass a law to encourage behaviour, we are deluding ourselves a little. I would like to have more clarification about this, because it does not seem to be relevant to me.

12:05 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Mr. Cash has the floor.

12:05 p.m.

NDP

Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We come up against this issue around apartment buildings all the time, particularly at election time, when we ask them to put signs up on their apartment balconies and they say they're not allowed to, so I understand the issue here. However, as I read this, I doubt that the flag protocol allows people, if they follow the protocol properly, to hang a flag over their balcony and be in compliance with it.

We're against criminalization, but you're also asking us to vote on an amendment, and no one here can actually say whether this will encourage, help, or solve the problem you initially brought forward, which is that people in apartments and condos who want to hang a flag on their balcony should be able to do so. When I read the flag protocol, to me it's a little up in the air. I think we need to understand what the flag protocol means.

Can you actually tape a flag up? It says here,

Nothing should be pinned to or sewn on the National Flag of Canada.

As well, it says,

The National Flag of Canada should always be flown on its own mast - flag protocol dictating that it is improper to fly two or more flags on the same mast

Then there are a variety of other prescriptions.

In other words, in our attempts to simplify and correct a problem, the problem got more complicated. Do we understand this issue? Do we know what it means? It strikes me that we'd have to actually understand and know what this means before we can vote on it.

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Mr. Benskin is next.

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

In an effort to find a way to make this bill work, I'm going to jump back to what Mr. Simms brought up earlier.

From our point of view, because it was as extreme as it was with the penalty situation, and because that was such a significant part of the bill, we're now looking at striking those elements, which means that clauses 1 and 2 have to conform. I understand that's the process we're going through.

I go back to the question Mr. Simms asked. There seem to be grounds for the Speaker to choose not to accept those amendments, and if the Speaker chooses not to accept them, we will be put in a position of voting on this bill pretty much as is. That is a concern. How do we address it?

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Your turn, Mr. Young.

12:10 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

Thank you, Chair.

I appreciate that we've had a very full discussion. I wonder if we can call the question, please.

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Are committee members ready to move to the vote on this amendment? Mr. Cash, you have the floor.

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Andrew Cash NDP Davenport, ON

Could we have a very small adjournment while we have a small conversation?

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

As it was explained to me, I am pointing out to everyone that the committee has the right to delete a clause completely.

12:10 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Do you mean without its being rejected by the House, or by the Speaker?

12:10 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

That is correct.

I propose a suspension, Mr. Calandra. I am suspending for two minutes to give members time to read the amendments.

12:15 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Let's continue with the session.

We are on clause 2, and dealing with Mr. Calandra 's amendment.

Are we ready to vote on that amendment? Is there any further discussion on it?

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Mr. Chair, could we suspend for another minute to allow members of the official opposition more time to consult with one another?

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

That is so nice.

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

In the spirit of cooperation, why don't we allow a moment to them, and to the Liberal caucus as well? I move that we suspend for another minute so that they can--

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Thank you, Mr. Calandra--

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

--talk about it among themselves.

12:20 p.m.

An hon. member

That joke never gets old, does it?

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

All right, then.

Once more, we are suspending for 60 seconds.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Are we ready to vote on the amendment to clause 2, presented by Mr. Calandra?

I suggest that we move to the vote.

(Amendment agreed to)