House of Commons Hansard #75 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was flag.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane have the unanimous consent of the House to put the amendment?
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that the remarks we have just heard were tinged with so much hypocrisy. Let me explain.
The hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane is one of those whose conduct, since the very beginning of this flag business, has been—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Order, please. The hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane on a point of order.
Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON
Mr. Speaker, while members of the Bloc Quebecois claim to respect the rules of decorum in this House, the hon. member has just called another member a hypocrite. I think this is unparliamentary. I would ask that he withdraw his remarks.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
Does the hon. member for Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans wish to reply?
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
I will be happy to, Mr. Speaker. I suggest you check the blues, Mr. Speaker. I know you take your job seriously. I never called the hon. member a hypocrite, that is totally false.
Michel Guimond Bloc Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, QC
I must say, however, that he just gave us another example of his conduct, which I described earlier as tinged with hypocrisy.
Since the beginning of this flag business, the hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane has been displaying a small Canadian flag on his desk. I must say on the outset that members of the Bloc Quebecois are not allergic to flags or to the national anthem.
The national anthem is played in formal ceremonies in the riding of any one of the 44 Bloc members. Take Remembrance Day, for example. I personally hold Remembrance Day ceremonies in my riding. In fact, no fewer than four ceremonies are held in my riding in which we pay tribute to Quebeckers and Canadians who lost their lives on the battlefield. So, we are not against the flag.
I just want the hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane to confirm that he kept a flag on his desk for three days after all his colleagues had taken theirs off. He has never taken his flag off his desk. Has he not been at the centre of the masquerade behind all this? No way that was a spontaneous remark.
Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON
Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech I said that I would be making the Bloc members angry. I think I have succeeded in doing so. I must have touched a nerve, because they reacted to the truths I said in my speech.
Yes, I confirm that I had a flag on my desk for a few days. I had it there with pride, and I wore it with pride. I hope to be able to do so again some day. But the way to accomplish that is not to add fuel to the fire, but to refer the ruling to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I am extremely disappointed that Reform, which claims to be prepared to co-operate and to desire change, is refusing to use the same process as for the singing of the national anthem in this House.
Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB
Mr. Speaker, I respect the hon. member and his views. I also respect that he has now decided, apparently from his speech, to not support this motion which rather comes as a surprise to me since I thought he was in favour of this freedom of expression to display a small flag on our desks.
To my understanding he has tabled a private member's bill to permit this. Can he now clarify this. Is he going to withdraw the bill or will he stand by it?
Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON
Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of preparing a private member's bill with the legal department but it is not done yet. It will come in the future.
I want to emphasize that this private member's bill will need to have some kind of provision to prevent the Reform Party from throwing the flag on the floor. Their motion does not say much about their party because of what happened with the member for Medicine Hat. They have to put a provision in their motion that it will be stationary or glued to the desk because they cannot trust the conduct of their own members.
I would hope if and when a private member's bill is introduced it will have provisions to prevent that.
Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on the recent intervenor's behaviour in the last few days, traipsing around this city with a beat-up old Oldsmobile, painted with a Canadian flag. Is that respect for our institutions?
Ben Serré Liberal Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON
Mr. Speaker, yes, I will gladly comment on this.
If the Reform Party had conducted this issue with decorum, I would probably be standing here today in support of that motion. I agree with the idea per se, but the Reform Party took an issue that is dear to my heart and made a circus out of it. There is no way I will attach my name to this type of conduct.
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, several years ago, there was a vigorous debate in the House of Commons about a new flag for Canada.
What we are seeing here is the result of that debate. A few members displayed their favourite flag. The Speaker of the House then declared such demonstrations out of order.
After the new Canadian flag was approved by the Parliament of Canada, this tradition continued. The flag has a symbolic role for all countries of the world and for Canada. It is an expression of pride, of nationality and of authority. It is an important expression for many Canadians.
The Speaker said clearly that a unilateral change in the rules governing how this House operates. I accept this, but members themselves can reform those rules is unacceptable. That is the reason for today's debate. The motion before us clearly says:
That this House should recognize the Canadian flag as an acceptable symbol that may be displayed at any time on the desks of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons provided that only one flag be displayed on a Member's desk at any given time, and that the said flag remain stationary for the purposes of decorum and be no larger than the standard recognized flag.
For whom does this statement represent a problem? For journalists? Why? For the Liberals? Why? For the other parties in the House of Commons? Why?
This is a constructive debate for Canada. The vote is simple and clear: a vote for the flag of Canada here in the House of Commons, if a member wishes. A flag on each member's desk, if a member wishes. A stationary flag, if a member wishes.
I have consulted my constituents in Macleod, Alberta, on this issue; 89 of them gave a very clear yes to the flag in the House of Commons. I listened carefully to what other Canadians had to say. They said yes to the flag in the House of Commons. And for those who say this is not an important problem, I say that Canada's emblem is very important.
My father defended the flag during World War II. If the flag is not important in the House of Commons, then where is it important? This evening, we have an opportunity for a free vote on an important issue.
I ask each member: why not Canada's flag here in Canada's House of Commons? Why not?
Stan Keyes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, having listened to the debate since it began at 10 o'clock this morning and especially in the last hour and a half, in my almost decade of service for my constituents in this House of Commons, quite frankly I have never heard so much bombast and so many half truths.
Earlier today the hon. member for Edmonton North made reference to the appearance on the floor of the House of Commons in 1996 of the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic athletes. She seemed to imply that the Speaker cast a blind eye at the rules to permit what proved to be a very exciting experience.
With one glance at the official record any member of this place would see that the rules were not ignored at all. In fact the Journals of the House of Commons for October 1, 1996 read: “By unanimous consent of the House, the House resolved itself into committee of the whole to recognize Canada's 1996 Summer Olympic Games and Paraplegic Games medalists”.
This clearly shows that the reception of the athletes in 1996 was done with the unanimous consent of the House. There was no breaking of any rules by Mr. Speaker. The Speaker permitted the athletes on the floor only with the unanimous consent and agreement of the House to waive the normal rules.
I have one quick, simple question for the member opposite. My question for the hon. member of the official opposition is would he think any less of me and my patriotism toward the country I love if I do not put a Canadian flag on the corner of my desk?
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, I think the member makes a point very eloquently. Of course I would not. The opportunity though to be able to do that is something which I think members would both value and accept with the responsibility we have here. It would be completely voluntary. It would have nothing to do with force. It is patriotism by desire, rather than patriotism by design.
In answer to the member, the choice would be his. My choice would be to display a flag at times when I felt most patriotic. I guess I would go back to the question of what would his constituents say to him when he had the opportunity to simply display the flag here, yes or no?
Andrew Telegdi Liberal Kitchener—Waterloo, ON
Mr. Speaker, I have two questions for the member. Was the member at Place du Canada in Montreal on October 27, 1995? Does he feel that members of the Reform Party who threw the flag on the floor should be disciplined, and if not why not?
Grant Hill Reform Macleod, AB
Mr. Speaker, although I was born in Montreal, I was not at that demonstration in Montreal. Having considered that question very carefully however it is interesting that when I made the representation to those who in fact guided me on this issue—and they were not members of my party—I was advised not to go. That may or may not have been good advice, but it was the advice I received.
On the issue of what should happen to an individual who deals with the flag inappropriately, I would turn that question back to the member himself.
The inappropriate restriction of the flag in this House as I said in my speech came about when the debate was on a brand new flag for Canada. It was being used inappropriately. I do not think that should take place in the Chamber any more than the hon. member does, but to be able to demonstrate a small flag, what would the hon. member's constituents say?
I listened to another member say that this could have been done another way. I will grant that there are different ways to bring an issue forward. I will grant that making a circus of an issue is not appropriate. But this is important. We are not talking about the process here. We are talking about a simple declaration, should the flag of Canada be allowed in the national House of Parliament. What would the member's constituents say about him having—
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)
The time for response has expired.
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is really a pleasure to be speaking in the House on this particular motion. This is not what I thought I would be debating. I was preparing for a debate on the budget.
The ruling of the Speaker yesterday put it very clearly that he was not in a position to decide, and that Parliament, this House of Commons, had to make the decision itself. I think it is very appropriate that this motion be on the floor today so that this House of Commons deals with the issue and we put the issue to bed.
This debate about flags in the House of Commons did not start three weeks ago. Half of all Canadians are too young to remember the first great flag debate 34 years ago when the red maple leaf replaced the red ensign. It was one of the most emotional debates both inside this House of Commons and outside by all Canadians.
As a teenager I recall the debate taking place around the dining room table. I can remember vividly the emotions in that debate. My father, like many men of his generation, had a particular attachment to the red ensign. As a naval officer and a medical doctor serving in the North Atlantic during the second world war, my father saw too many men die fighting for Canada and for the red ensign. He was very emotional about the defence of the red ensign.
Many others objected to the adoption of the maple leaf as our flag because the broad leaf maple is native only to the eastern part of the country and not to the western part. Still others thought it was a Liberal plot. In spite of these objections, today most Canadians have a very emotional attachment to the flag. Most Canadians felt a very deep sense of pride when they saw the maple leaf rise up the flagpole at the Olympics.
It was at the recent winter Olympics that the member for Rimouski—Mitis announced to the Canadian public that there were too many Canadian flags on display at the athletes village. In response to this pronouncement when the hon. member returned to this House, members on both sides of the House demonstrated their objections to those comments. I was one of them. I was one of the many members on both sides who were out of order in that demonstration.
The member for Rimouski—Mitis was never denied her opportunity to speak. She was just delayed. Many of us have been delayed in posing questions in this House because other members were out of order and causing distractions.
The flag waving and singing of the national anthem should have been the end of it. However, because of the overreaction of certain members in this House and the joy of continuing this debate in the media, we have found ourselves in the middle of the second great flag debate. What should have been a one day story is now reaching its third week. Efforts to reach a compromise by the various House leaders were unsuccessful because people and parties refused to budge in their positions.
Yesterday the Speaker ruled that he did not have the power to change the rules of the House. Therefore today we are having this debate to see if members of Parliament are willing to change the rules to allow a small Canadian flag to sit on a member's desk in an unobtrusive manner. But make no mistake about it. The debate will not end here with this vote because we still have the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examining another aspect of this story.
Why are we having all these debates at all? When people have asked me why we have reached this position, the only answer I can give is that this entire debate is due to an excess of testosterone in this House. People have become so intransigent in their positions that reason and logic have left the debate and it is now based on pure emotion.
This brings us to today's motion. I do not believe that anyone who does not have a Canadian flag on their desk is any less a Canadian than someone who does. I spent my first four years in this House without a Canadian flag on my desk and I feel no less a Canadian for it.
The question in today's motion is should the Canadian flag be allowed to sit on a member's desk in the Chamber. The only argument I have heard against having desk flags is that they can be used as props to cause a disruption in this House. We do not need flags to cause a disruption in this House. We are a clever group of people and to get our point across we find many other means of causing distractions and disruptions in this House.
I wonder what would have happened if some members started to disrupt the proceedings by banging their shoes on their desks like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev did at the United Nations in the early 1960s. Would we then have motions to outlaw shoes from this Chamber? Of course we would not because everyone would realize that it was not the shoe that was the problem but the way it was being used.
It is the same point with the flag. Today's motion makes it clear that the flag is to remain stationary and is not to be used as a distraction to the debate. How can this be objectionable?
If a member decides to use the flag to create a disturbance, he or she would be clearly out of order and subject to the authority of the Speaker. If a member cannot bring a small Canadian flag into this Chamber, then where can we bring a flag?
As I conclude my comments on this subject, I would like to make the following observation. The federalists have no reason to apologize to the separatists in this House. We must counter their separatist arguments with intelligence, logic and positive use of emotion and patriotism. The separatists would like nothing more than to provoke another incident like the desecration of the Quebec flag in Brockville in the early 1990s.
We must be diligent to keep the debate focused. It would be refreshing if all parties and all members would take the high road and get on with the serious debate that Canadians expect us to carry on in this House of Commons.
Alex Shepherd Liberal Durham, ON
Mr. Speaker, the member just stated if we cannot bring the Canadian flag into the House where can we bring it. I and many of my colleagues have been bringing the flag on our lapel pins into the House ever since we were elected. I do not know where the member has been.
This debate is not about flags. It is about the institutions of Parliament. It is about the institution of free speech. It is about the ability of expression in this House. The Reform Party does not seem to understand or respect our basic institutions of Parliament. Is it fair to wipe out somebody's ability to speak freely in this House just by having demonstrations? What other kinds of flags can we bring into this House? The Canadian flag and what about some provincial flags? Would that be acceptable to the member?
Val Meredith Reform South Surrey—White Rock—Langley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to bringing provincial flags into the House but the motion is—
