This week, I changed much of the tech behind this site. If you see anything that looks like a bug, please let me know!

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

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Now we move to the vote on clause 2, as amended. Those in favour of the clause?

12:20 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

It's on division.

12:20 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

So it is

on division.

Bilingualism is a wonderful thing.

(Clause 2 as amended agreed to on division)

We now move to the amendment to clause 3.

Can Mr. Benskin read us the amendment to clause 3 that he is proposing?

12:20 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Quite simply, it's an amendment to strike the enforcement portion of the bill, which is the most contentious portion. The bill itself was meant to be an encouragement of Canadians, even in its original form, but one can not encourage people by threatening to throw them into prison. In my response to Mr. Carmichael's very eloquent speech, I said that patriotism cannot be legislated, but that is what this section of the bill, in my opinion and in our opinion, seeks to do.

For that reason, I'm looking to amend Bill C-288 by striking clause 3 in its entirety.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

You have all read the amendments to clause 3 proposed by both sides. My wise counsel are suggesting that I remind you of a passage from House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

It says that an amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order, since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect. So the amendment you are proposing, according to that document, would be inadmissible. Just voting against clause 3 is the same thing.

I feel that Mr. Calandra's amendment is similar, because it deals with removing the title and the heading, which is also the same as voting against clause 3.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Presumably we can deal with it the same way. We can reject both of our amendments and just vote the clause down, right?

Okay, we'll do it that way. That's fine.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

Since the amendment is withdrawn for the same reasons, we are going to move to the vote.

Those in favour of clause 3 as written in the bill?

(Clause 3 negatived unanimously)

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

We now go back to the title. Shall the short title now carry? Does anyone want to comment on that?

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

The title refers to an act respecting the national flag of Canada.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

It's on division.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

When I read that, it still seems to carry the weight of a law demanding that people respect the flag.

February 2nd, 2012 / 12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

Excuse me; on a point of order, you're referring to what's written under “Bill C-288” at the top.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

It's “An Act respecting the National Flag of Canada”. Is that the title we're referring to?

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

No; if you go down to clause 1, the short title is listed there. I think it's acceptable to you.

12:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

Are you talking about the summary?

12:25 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

Oh, the short title may be cited as “This act may be cited as the National Flag of Canada Act”.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

Okay.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

For your information, you can find it under “SHORT TITLE”, two-thirds down the page.

12:25 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

It's on division.

12:25 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

So we will vote now.

Shall clause 1, the short title of the bill, carry?

In English, under “Short Title”, it is “This Act may be cited as the National Flag of Canada Act”.

(Motion unanimously agreed to)

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

We will now go to the preamble of the bill. I think Mr. Calandra proposed an amendment.

Could you please read it to us?

12:30 p.m.

Conservative

Paul Calandra Conservative Oak Ridges—Markham, ON

Everybody has a copy of the proposed amendment that Bill C-288, in the preamble, be amended by replacing lines 12 and 13 on page 1 with the following:

interest to encourage the displaying of the National Flag;

It strikes me that if we have voted on clause 2 and eliminated clause 3, we have to change the preamble to reflect that. That's what this amendment does.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

I am being told that the amendment is in order. Does anyone have anything to say about it?

Since no one does, we are going to proceed with the vote.

(Motion unanimously agreed to)

12:30 p.m.

NDP

The Vice-Chair NDP Pierre Nantel

We are now going to vote on the title of the bill as written. That is what Mr. Benskin was referring to earlier.

12:30 p.m.

NDP

Tyrone Benskin NDP Jeanne-Le Ber, QC

That title is “An Act respecting the National Flag of Canada”.

As I started to say, I find the term “respecting” the national flag of Canada, although there is not a desire to disrespect, has a heavy-handed sound, tone, or image to it. I suggest that something along the lines of an act “supporting” the national flag of Canada be entertained.