Debates of March 17th, 1998

Supply

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie, who became a Canadian about 20 years ago.

I simply want to remind him that, originally, there were two founding peoples in Canada, and the first one was a francophone people called the Canadiens. At the time, the term “Canadiens” referred strictly to francophones. Then came a period known as English Rule. Being the nice people that we are, we agreed that there would be two founding peoples, and Canadians who, until then had always been Canadiens, redefined themselves as French Canadians.

[Peter Stoffer, NDP, Sackville—Eastern Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I wish to point out to my hon. colleague from Chambly that there are three founding peoples of this nation: Aboriginal, French and English.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

That is not a point of order.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, if this can make my NDP friend happy, I will say that francophones were one of the first two founding peoples. It was only later, when the English came, that we called ourselves French Canadians. Then, when we realized that this definition put us in opposition with English Canadians, we decided to call ourselves Quebeckers, and today—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie has one minute to reply.

[Jacques Saada, Liberal, Brossard—La Prairie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon. member opposite has decided I needed a lesson on Quebec history. However, I feel I do know a fair bit about it.

I am very pleased that he raised the issue of the founding peoples. These days, we hear a lot about the people of Quebec, and I am glad to see that the member opposite knows that the founding people did not only settle in Quebec, but includes all French speaking people in Canada. Together they do form what I recognize as a founding people.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to state our view with respect to the Canadian flag flap caused by the antics of certain members in the House.

Today my constituents and I will be proud to vote yes to displaying the Canadian flag on the desks of the members.

We have other more important issues that we could be dealing with, but unfortunately we are being forced to debate this issue in the House today.

I would have thought it was understood that it is the right of every Canadian to have, to hold and to wear the Canadian flag in Canada. Of all the places on earth it is inconceivable and hard to imagine that Canadians could be prohibited from displaying even a small Canadian flag in the House of Commons.

Where else can we display our flag? Tomorrow someone could stand and ask me not to wear a Canadian flag pin. Is there a more sacred place to display our flag than in our own national legislature? In the highest law making body of our country we cannot have a flag on our desks. This is unbelievable.

When I embraced Canadian citizenship I assumed that I was given a bundle of rights. The first thing I did after my swearing in as a Canadian citizen was to sing our national anthem. I then carried home a Canadian flag which I respectfully put on my desk in my home office.

I am very proud of our flag like all other Canadians who have called my office in the last few days. I have a Canadian flag on my desk in my offices, yet today I am defending the right to place a Canadian flag on this desk, my constituents' desk in the House of Commons. This is unbelievable.

This is the most respected House and the highest court in the land. I strongly believe and join with my colleagues in their belief that we should respect decorum in the House. Every Canadian's voice is roaring without fear or intimidation in the House. Ridiculous heckling is allowed in the House and sometimes it is disrespectful.

What some Canadians would say are treasonous comments. Disrespect for our national symbols is allowed in the House. However, Canadians have a problem when our national symbol, the flag of this great country, is considered offensive in the House. I feel intimidated that my right to display the Canadian flag is being denied today.

It seems to me and my constituents that this weak government has been blackmailed by those who are bent upon tearing the country apart. It seems as if the government has been scared by the separatists. The Liberals are running like scared cats. They have spent $25 million of the taxpayers' money to give away Canadian flags so that our flag would have an increased presence in our country.

With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the number of flags around your chair has doubled since 1992 and now the presence of the Canadian flag is being decreased in the House. The government has given me large quantities of Canadian flags and Canadian flag pins to take to my constituency and present to my constituents.

What answer should I give to someone who may ask me where our flag can and cannot be displayed? This is not a flag waving issue today as stated by some members and as reported in the news. The issue is not that I must put a flag on my desk, but the issue is why I should be prohibited from putting a flag on my desk. It is about the infringement of my rights, freedom of speech and freedom of expression.

Just because someone feels offended by the displaying of the Canadian flag in the House, I feel more offended when I am prohibited from honourably displaying my country's flag.

The constituents of Surrey Central and I want the record to be very clear that this problem was not initiated by the Reform Party. Let me remind the House and Canadians that the flag we are debating today was distributed and displayed by Liberal members to all members in the House. Members from all the parties except the Bloc participated in singing the national anthem on the day when the issue arose. If props are not allowed, why were they distributed in the first place in the House? Even on the day the budget was tabled some Liberal MPs displayed a big flag in that corner of the House. Why were they not ruled out of order?

It is not the Reform Party that originated this issue. The official opposition is simply fighting a forceful denial of the right to exhibit the flag on our desks in the House because of a fear of the separatists.

It is not an issue between the Reform Party and other parties. It is an issue of calling a spade a spade and having the right to fight, to defend our country's flag, to defend the integrity of our great country and to respect our national symbols.

The issue separates those who are afraid from those who do not like the Canadian flag. Those who are afraid to defend our Canadian flag are those who are afraid of offending anyone in defence of our flag. Those are the members of the Liberal Party and other parties in the House. They wanted to unnecessarily drag the issue on and bury it in a committee. They have made the issue a political football. It is shameful.

They fail to recognize the consequences of their cowardliness in Canadian history. They are not only leaving behind high debt and high taxes for future generations, but today they are leaving behind a legacy of a shameful story in our history. What else can we expect from the government?

Everything the government does raises suspicion. The House and the government voted against my motion asking the government to call a Canadian a Canadian and discourage the concept of hyphenated Canadianism. That motion could have been uniting and integrating Canadians rather than segregating them further. It could have helped restore national pride. Instead, the Liberals do not want Canadians to be encouraged to call ourselves proud Canadians. They do not foster and develop Canadian culture. Now they allow our right to sing the national anthem and the right to display our flag to be attacked.

On the weekend my 13 year old son, Livjot, asked me what country all members of Parliament represent in the House of Commons. I said “Canada of course”. He asked if Quebec was a country. I said “no”. Then he asked why there was a problem about the Canadian flag in the Canadian parliament. I was ashamed. I could not answer.

To conclude, a vote against the Canadian flag being displayed by an elected and sworn Canadian is like a vote against motherhood. The flag flap has gone on long enough and certainly should not be decided by backroom negotiations but by Canadians through their MPs in the House.

On behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I will vote in support of today's official opposition motion and I will be proud to have the Canadian flag displayed on our desks in the House of Commons. I urge hon. members in the House to put the issue to rest and focus on more important issues. Let us have a free vote on the matter in the House.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

On questions and comments, we have the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and then we have the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood who has been trying to get up for the last hour.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I continue to be quite shocked at the way the Reform Party attempts to divide the country. What it is doing in this assembly, in this House of Commons, is what a very famous writer by the name of Samuel Johnson once said about actions with respect to so-called patriotism or the flag.

Samuel Johnson, a great political writer of another century, wrote about this kind of action, this kind of party, and said that patriotism was the last act of a scoundrel, a desperate act of a scoundrel.

The Reform Party is exercising hooliganism tactics of former decades which political parties of other countries have used to bully people around this issue.

I love my flag as much as I love my country and as much as I love my family. I wear my flag over my heart, not on my desk.

If the Reform member is so patriotic about the flag, how many Reform members have a flag on their property, on their homes, hanging in front of their houses on poles or in their offices in their ridings? How many have those flags in their houses to show what great patriots they are?

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, we expect these comments from the member of a party that is out of touch with Canadians.

The issue is not putting a flag on a desk. The issue is why we are not allowed to put a flag on our desks when we want to put one there. For many years there were no flags on the desks of members of the House. We did not start the problem.

The members who are not listening now are the ones who are using it as a political football. The issue was decided upon by members on the other side. They displayed the flag. Why did they not object the other day when the flag was displayed on the other side of the House? It is simply because they want to get political mileage out of it, which they will be unsuccessful in doing.

We respect the Canadian flag. If we respect the Canadian flag then why are we forced not to display it in the House?

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, this debate is unbelievable. The Reform Party motion talks in its last sentence of “purposes of decorum”.

We can look around this Chamber which was designed and built by some of the greatest craftsmen and women in the history of our country. We see stained glass windows and woodwork. This Chamber is very much like a cathedral in Rome or in some other great European city. This is a room of decorum.

Reformers are missing the whole point of what this Chamber is all about. They are trying to suggest that none of us really care about the flag, even though there are two flags on either side of the most respected chair in the House of Commons. They could not be in a more prominent place.

In that Reformers are so interested in the decorum of this place, the look or the design of this place, they should also present some other ideas that I have heard from that side. What about flags of different sizes across the banisters here from left to right or from north to south like we see at gas stations or at Canadian Tire stores? Is that the kind of decorum the Reform Party wants in the House of Commons? These guys—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

I am sorry to interrupt. The hon. member for Surrey Central has about 35 seconds.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to answer the question. He is one of the members who displayed the six foot flag on the other side of the House the day the budget was tabled. Where was he or his colleagues—

[Dennis Mills, Liberal, Broadview—Greenwood, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can stand in the House of Commons and say that on the day that display took place I was at the opposite end of this Chamber. I did not have a flag—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

The hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood has made his point. Now perhaps the hon. member for Surrey Central could finish up. You have 10 seconds.

[Gurmant Grewal, Reform, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, maybe he is not the member who displayed the flag but it is in that same corner that the flag was displayed.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Order, please.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to contribute to this most important and emotional debate. I take pride in being a Canadian in a country where any so-called commoner can aspire to a legislative role. Two short years ago I held my breath with millions of others as Canada barely survived Quebec's referendum vote.

Today I take part in a debate about our flag, the symbol of our land. As with all that occurs in this honourable House, our contributions are made both with a view to the current benefit of Canadians and as a testament to our time and our history.

Be it 10, 20 or 50 years from now, students and scholars of Canadian history will read our words and interpret what has gone on here. We should always be mindful that every time we speak as members of this honourable House we contribute to the history of our nation.

I trust that the words of myself and my colleagues will be viewed in this light. I trust that my colleagues' expression of support will serve as a catalyst to do more to help break the bonds of apathetic Canadianism, to usher in a new found spirit of love for our country and its symbol, our flag.

Permission to display a small, aesthetically appropriate desk flag as we speak to the world and as we speak to history is all that is being requested. For those who wish, as I do, to have the choice to be identified with a flag in this way as we debate, why not?

For those who know why I strove to arrive in this House, they understand. For those who fought, spilled blood, lost friends on foreign lands for our great country in three wars, they understand. For millions who held their breath two years ago when the no side came through, they understand. For the 150,000 people who gathered in Montreal two days before the referendum, they too, understand. For the 2,000 people from all parts of Canada who gathered in Quebec City one year later, they also understand.

I wish Hansard to show how I see this debate. I want history to record my sentiments toward our flag and how our flag has been viewed in this debate, and the events leading up to it.

I speak to my hon. colleagues and to history as follows. How a nation views itself is a measure of its pride and self esteem. How a nation is viewed by the world is a reflection of its collective deeds. How a nation projects this image is through its national symbols.

Our nation is known throughout the world for its deeds in war and peace. Canada's symbol is its flag which floats over this very House. Our flag is the embodiment of our nation's heart and soul. Our flag is inseparable from our national will. This House must carefully ponder why my voice should be put to rest when the flag stands by my desk.

We wish to reflect our support. We choose to have a small flag on our desk for the country we represent, to identify our role.

I was privileged to have been elected to this House by the constituents of Edmonton East. I am privileged every day I am permitted to sit in this honourable House at this desk, a desk that shall never belong to me or any politician of the day but instead remains the property of my constituents.

It is with this sense of privilege that I express myself today. I am one of the parliamentarians who declined to remove the Canadian flag from his desk when requested to do so by the Deputy Speaker. In doing so, my privileges as a member were adversely affected. I was not recognized for the purpose of speaking.

Out of respect for the office of the Speaker and out of respect for the need of orderly regulation in this House, I did not protest further. I was saddened but I did not protest.

The Speaker now has ruled. It is out of respect for the office of the Speaker that I have removed my Canadian flag today. I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate to support a motion to allow my flag to return to my desk.

I wish to speak about respect for our Canadian flag and respect for our Canadian institutions, of this institution, this honourable House and the Supreme Court of Canada or any other through which our democracy is preserved and enhanced.

To my great sadness, I notice that the display of the Canadian flag has been regarded by the separatists in the House as a form of provocation. I notice, too, that the request to remove the flags from our desks came from a separatist. Provocation is a word used many time in the House, both today and last week, provocation by the Liberals and provocation by Reform. The simple fact is that this sad affair was started by the Liberals bringing flags into the House, exasperated by Bloc members wanting them to be removed.

Now closure has been effected by the Reform motion.

I have received many e-mails on this issue in the past three weeks. Almost every one of them has been supportive. Over and over again Canadians asked: How can it be provocation to fly the flag of our nation? Many of these grassroots Canadians suggested that if a member has a problem with the sight of the Canadian flag, perhaps he or she should look in the mirror for the source of the problem.

As I have indicated in my motion which is on the Notice Paper, the flag should not be considered to be offensive and should always be welcome in the House. I agree that it should not be used to suppress the rights of a fellow member, but the mere sight of the flag does not do that. It is a symbol of our commitment to our country.

For most of the history of this House there was not a Canadian flag present, until the efforts in 1973 of Alexandre Cyr, then the hon. member for Gaspé. Today that riding is represented by the Bloc. Representing his constituents, Mr. Cyr brought a flag to this House 25 years ago. Now there are two, twice as many as the 1973 motion allowed.

I am concerned that this flag debate is considered by some to be provocation and by others to be frivolous. Provocation is in the eye of the beholder. No provocation is intended in my contribution to today's debate, nor in my earlier actions. However, I must say that I certainly do not approach this debate with a sense of the frivolous.

Canada's problem is a deep-seated inferiority complex. Canadians have been uncomfortable with flag waving, celebrating our country and singing our national anthem. There is little hesitancy in other countries. The national pride, as exemplified by the waving of flags, is seen everywhere in England, France and the United States.

Let me provide the House with an example of how the display of flags, both in this House and elsewhere, is important to our future as a nation.

I recall a well published event which took place outside Montreal's city hall. Visitors from France spoke to Jacques Parizeau and a group of his separatist cohorts on the steps of the city hall. Many Quebec flags were visible. Where did the flags come from? From inside Montreal's city hall. What was the problem? There were several veterans present who wished to see the Canadian flag displayed before the delegation from France.

I was in Montreal that day on one of my frequent visits to the city. The veterans who I met that day were beside themselves with angst. To describe matters in a most charitable fashion, it appeared that the display of the Canadian flag had been very much discouraged at the time of the appearance of the visitors from France. France is free today, due in no small part to the efforts of our proud veterans.

Today I ask the House to allow the display of this symbol of our country when we speak in this honourable place. I want to show to all that our national symbol may sit with us in this honourable place as a symbol of how close it is to our hearts. When I speak to Canada, there is no flag visible to those who see and hear my words. I wish only to do as I did at the chamber of commerce meeting in Edmonton two weeks ago. I placed the flag of Canada on my table in that chamber. I would like to do likewise in this Chamber.

[Gerald Keddy, Progressive Conservative, South Shore, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is a passion filled debate today. I do not think for a second that members of the House should forget why we are here and what this is about.

I listened closely to the words of the hon. member and I have some serious problems and difficulties with where he was coming from and what exactly he was talking about. There are a number of people who are watching this debate who may not understand it. It is simply a question of respect and trust.

There is one group in the House of Commons, along with some members opposite, who wave the flag and use it as a type of sledgehammer to beat upon someone else who may not be willing to wave it. That is why we do not have flags on our desks. That is why there are flags beside the Speaker.

This is not about the Canadian flag; this is about a waste of time. We are wasting the Canadian taxpayers' time to debate whether we should have flags on our desks.

I want to add another point. We are listening to talk about the flag today. On February 15, 1995, the leader of the member's party was the guy who stated that the debate over the Canadian flag on Canada's flag day at that time was frivolous and a waste of time.

You don't wear the flag—

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)]

Excuse me. I would remind members to address other members through the Chair. It tends to keep the tempers in control.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is missing the whole point of this issue. The point of this issue is that we are in the television era. We are in an era where I can speak here and I can speak directly to the constituents in Edmonton East.

As I view the TV camera and if I am speaking in my critic area of veterans' affairs or some other important issues, there is nothing visible here to say where I am from. If I wish to have a Canadian flag on my desk which would help indicate my loyalty to the flag and to the country when I speak on veterans' affairs issues, I think it is important.

I specifically wish to have this flag on my desk.

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has about a minute.

[John Cannis, Liberal, Scarborough Centre, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is funny that the Reform Party which came here after the 1993 election, four years down the road has just discovered where it is from. I am surprised why its members did not put on a flag in 1993 when they first got elected.

The point I want to make is this. They talk about the flag and the pins. I happened to be in Nagano during the olympics. I want, for a moment, to tell this House what the member from Rimouski—Mitis did.

She was very proud to give out the Canadian pins, one that I wear today. She was very proud to wave the Canadian flag celebrating our athletes. I do not see their Canadian olympic pin being worn.

My point when they talk about a form of provocation, was the member for Rimouski—Mitis provoking when she was handing out the pins, when she was waving the flags celebrating our athletes? I do not think so.

Many people have said to me what has taken the Reform Party so long to discover that they want to display the flag? In the opinion of my constituents, the flag is best suited right on each side of your honourable chair.

In the many parliaments that we have visited, we have not seen members displaying flags on their desks. I see no reason why we have to do that now. They are best presented right where you are.

[Peter Goldring, Reform, Edmonton East, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opposite is forgetting what I just said in my speech. I will repeat it.

The simple fact is that this sad affair was started by the Liberals bringing flags into this House. They were exasperated by the Bloc and wanted them removed. Now the Reform Party is affecting closure on it by bringing forth this motion.