Debates of March 17th, 1998

Supply

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it was mentioned earlier that this was not about the flag. It is mostly about the flag but I would say it certainly goes deeper than it. It is about everything the flag represents. It is about the symbolism, the pride and patriotism of being a Canadian and I want to talk about that for a few minutes in the 10 minutes I have allotted to me.

It was mentioned earlier by the government House leader that I was the one who brought forward the motion to sing O Canada. It was I at the beginning of the 35th Parliament in 1994. I was proud to do that. It had never been done. The members said they were not sure we could do that. They denied unanimous consent and of course it went to committee.

The whip across knows that it went to committee and then they said today that we were playing political games because we knew it was in committee.

Mr. Speaker, you were on that committee and I think you will remember the dates and the times. Let me just remind you and get it into Hansard . It was almost two years later, at least a year and a half, when I said what happened to this thing. I asked the committee, of which you were the chairman, if I could be a witness in front of that committee and you granted me that opportunity.

It went through committee not by any grand gesture of any government member but because I phoned and asked where is that thing, let us get it going. You granted me that opportunity to come as a witness. It was by no magnanimous gesture of any government member who said we want to get this thing through as fast as we can. I appreciated being allowed to attend the committee as a witness but it was at my request as a result of referendum day 1995.

We are not talking about who is more or less patriotic. That is not the issue. I am not trying to say I am any more patriotic than other members. I am not trying to say I am a better Canadian. That is not the issue. It is about freedom of expression and being able to express patriotism on the particular days when it hits us, when we feel like it. If I want to celebrate Canada, there ain't nobody who can tell me that is not my privilege and experience as a Canadian citizen.

I want to give a few personal thoughts in this debate. Heaven help me if I would ever use a prop as I know that is not appropriate in the House of Commons, but I have my birth certificate here and I want to read something from it. I promise not to throw it. It reads: Name, Deborah Cleland Grey. Birthday, July 1, 1952. Place of Birth, Vancouver, British Columbia. It can be seen that this flag means a little more to me than just something I want to put on my desk, or something I will wear proudly and passionately, the red and white and you bet I will.

I am the fourth child in my family. I was born three and a half weeks late, which is practically unheard of. My mother said to me, and it still rings it true today “You knew exactly the day you were waiting for, Deb”. I had no idea I would ever be a member of Parliament yet the symbolism of that—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

They can snort and say whatever they like but no one in the House can challenge or dare me and say, “Isn't she cute, doesn't she play stunts, doesn't she play gimmicks”. These people who are sneering say they deserve freedom of speech. I would ask for the same respect.

It is so deep, the symbolism of the flag. It is not just the flag. It is the symbolism of my flag. I am speaking here for myself and that is all. When I say it is important to me, you bet it is. Maybe it is a first, that someone else would sneer and snort, but I am here to say to him and to everybody else, ain't nobody who can tell me that my Canadian flag is not important to me.

It is not just the flag on my desk but deep within myself. I was 13 years old in 1965 when the first flag debate took place. I was proud to see the end of that flag flap. I was a teenager and I loved the maple leaf. I have travelled in Europe. That maple leaf was sewn on my knapsack. I was proud to be a Canadian, not just for the flag but for everything it represented.

One of the highlights of my elected life was on October 1, 1996, right after the Atlanta games when the Speaker of the House invited all the Olympian athletes here on the floor of the Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you were here and I know you shared my excitement.

I want to look for a few moments at Hansard from that day because we have heard today that the rules in this place cannot be changed. The Speaker made his ruling yesterday and it cannot be changed, do not mess with it.

Here is what he said in Hansard on October 1, 1996: “We are going to do a few things differently in the next few minutes”. Then he went on to say: “For the first time in the history of our country, we are going to bring on to the floor our Olympic athletes”.

What a day that was. I sat farther down toward the door. Silken Laumann, Donovan Bailey and Curt Harnet, and all the others with the special Olympics, when they wheeled in and walked in, that was a rush. People on all sides of the House had goose bumps because for the first time ever they stood on the floor of the House of Commons. Let me say I was proud. The Speaker said: “We do not usually have guests here on the floor of the House of Commons but this is an extraordinary day and we wanted to bend the rules just a little because we here in this Chamber and we 30 million Canadians want to pay tribute to you and to congratulate you”.

That was a wonderful day. We celebrated those Olympian athletes. What a job they did in Atlanta. I was so proud of them. The Speaker unilaterally made new rules to celebrate, allowing those Olympic athletes to come to the floor of the House.

The editor's note reads: “After the singing of the national anthem, Canada's 1996 Paralympic and Olympic athletes left the Chamber”. It was a spontaneous, exciting and passionate rendition of O Canada . And today we are saying that maybe that will not happen again.

What about the Olympic athletes in Nagano? What about the athletes who did such a superb job for Canada? They love our flag, as do I. They serve it, as do I. They celebrate it, as do I.

What about Sandra Schmirler? With the time zone change I would love to ask who got up at 3.30 in the morning to watch a live curling draw.

What about those of us who watched Pierre Lueders from Edmonton sailing down the run in the bobsled with the Canadian flag on the front? He won the gold.

What about Catriona Lemay-Doan? I hope she is in this Chamber with that grin from ear to ear celebrating what it is to be a Canadian.

What about Annie Perreault with her speed skating? What a day that was.

Are they going to be coming to the floor of the House of Commons? Knowing the Speaker as I do, I would bet a dollar that he would want them to come. He has opened up this place. I appreciate that. They are going to be here on the floor of the House of Commons. And I bet a dollar they will be in their red and white Roots Canada jackets. I bet they will. But we will not be allowed to, judging from what has happened here today.

They can go into any building, any parking lot, any mall, any radio station anywhere in this country and they are allowed to show the flag. However if they come here to the floor of the House of Commons and if this motion is not supported today, there will be no little Canadian flags to celebrate them. Will we be allowed to have a spontaneous rendition of O Canada ? I am not sure. Apparently not. It does not sound like it.

This will be the only building in Canada where the Olympic athletes will not be able to be spontaneous. Why in the name of common sense, why in the name of freedom of expression are we not allowed to jump out of our seats, wave the flag and sing O Canada at the top of our lungs to celebrate the Olympic athletes? They have come home from Nagano. They love the flag. They serve it and they celebrate it. I want to be there to celebrate with them. I want to show my patriotism in any way I can when they are here in the House of Commons.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the words of the hon. Reform member. She delivered a very passionate message to Canadians. However, I would suggest that it is not an accurate picture of what this debate is about.

I ask her honestly and straightforwardly, how she can make that monumental mental leap to suggest that having a little flag on the desks is somehow going to bar our Canadian athletes from walking in here as they have in the past and having a spontaneous rendition of our national anthem.

That is not the issue at all. That is a blatantly misleading statement.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, if I want to do something which is spontaneous because my flag means so much to me, I think I should be given the privilege, the right and perhaps even the obligation to stand. If I want to wave my flag as a symbol of what is inside, I figure I ought to be able to do that. If I want to sing O Canada in this Chamber, I tell you, Mr. Speaker, I will do it. If they are here I will do it.

The issue is that we be allowed when we choose, not all the time but when we choose, to have that flag which is so much deeper and which represents so much about what it means to me to be a Canadian. It is the symbol and that is why I should be able to use it at my desk, because I love it and because I serve it.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member talks about spontaneity. I certainly do recall the spontaneity when she tore down the back aisle after a member of Parliament, Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, and threatened her in this Chamber.

I was also reminded of something because of the way she was hurling her papers around that she made a statement in her speech that far be it for her to use props. I wonder if the member recalls an incident whereby she took a platform document of the Liberal Party during question period and hurled it onto the floor of the House. I wonder if the member would think that was a prop.

Given what the member has done compared to what she has said, how is anybody to believe anything the member has said?

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the member will remember that the case he is talking about, about a defeated member from New Brunswick, had absolutely no merit to it. The Speaker ruled on that once and for all. It is unbelievable that he would bring up some silly thing like that again.

The member talked about the red book. Yes, I must admit on that day I thought that was just where the red book deserved to be, right smack on the floor. I have never thrown a flag. I never will. Is it not ironic that the red book would be allowed in the Chamber of the House Commons, but the red flag would not. What a caution, what a pathetic statement.

[Ghislain Lebel, Bloc, Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the Reform Party member. Thank goodness she was not born on December 25, because she would think she is God Almighty.

I was here when the incidents occurred and what concerns me about the attitude of Reformers is that they behaved like a bunch of fanatics. People who, individually, are usually sociable, tolerant and understanding behaved like a pack hunting some prey, and this scared me. History tells us—and there is no need to refer specifically to Germany during the second world war—that people wrapped in their flag like that often commit the worst possible crimes.

Could the hon. member tell us whether she is proud of the attitude displayed and the means used here by her colleagues in the Reform Party, including the threats made to the Speaker of the House, such as airing his private life in public? I wonder if she is proud of her fellow party members and if she is proud of herself, considering she was born on July 1.

[Deborah Grey, Reform, Edmonton North, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I did not get the point about December 25. I am not sure what the hon. member was referring to. I must admit I did not have a whole lot to do with the family planning. I was born when I was born.

He will remember that the incident which happened last week had nothing to do with the flag flap. It had everything to do with some comments the Speaker had made elsewhere which he straightened out. He did not recognize the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition. That is why many members were angry.

Something happened that day which was regrettable. My seatmate, the member for Medicine Hat, tossed a flag up in disgust. He was exasperated, he was frustrated and he said that he is very, very sorry and very ashamed that he did that. I appreciated the honesty in that. I think all of us need to say thanks for being honest.

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is a great honour to stand today in this House of Commons to debate this motion. The motion is a very simple one. In the positive as it is stated it says that members will be permitted to display small flags at their desks if they so choose. That is the essence of it.

For me it was really defined at a time when I was denied that permission. Because I have been quite involved with this story, I appreciate the opportunity to rise today.

I will give a little background. I am a first generation Canadian. I had no choice as the previous member had about when and where I was born. However, I am very glad that I was born in Swift Current, Saskatchewan, in a province of Canada. I grew up in a family which had chosen to make Canada their home.

Along with other people in their immediate group, my grandparents while living in southern Russia during the first world war, suffered from a lot of persecution. The revolution came after the war. Members of our family in that country were killed in that revolution simply because of their beliefs and not because they committed any crime or anything else. They were not on the right political side.

My grandparents having escaped from the same disasters made the decision to move their family out of that country. They literally fled that country and came to Canada. They came here because this was the country of freedom, opportunity and safety for their family. Though they did not know each other, this happened in parallel to my grandparents on both my mom's and dad's sides.

As a youngster growing up in a farm home, we had central heating which was defined as being a stove in one of the main floor rooms. There was a hole in the ceiling that allowed the heat by convection to go upstairs. There was a grate at the hole and we could hear what the adults were saying downstairs. I remember hearing my grandparents, my uncles, aunts and some of their friends discuss how things were in the old country. Over and over I remember hearing how wonderful that we could come to Canada.

This was not part of my speech but it is tremendously important. I was asked this week a number of times whether I was proud to be a Canadian. I said yes. The word that describes it better is that I am grateful to be a Canadian. I am thankful to be a Canadian. I am so thankful that my grandparents made that decision to leave that country and come to this country. There is deep within me feelings and convictions of the importance of preserving freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of choosing one's faith, all these freedoms in this country which I and my family value so highly.

I will go back to February 26 when the member came back from Nagano. At the suggestion of one of the Liberal members, a member of this House had placed flags on all our desks. It was agreed that when the member who had said things about our Canadian flag came back from Nagano that as loyal Canadians we would wave these flags and show her that we love our country.

At that stage I did not know who had made this suggestion. No one in our party had said they had done it so I did not think it was from our party, and I did not care. I said I agreed with this. Yes, I confess to engaging in a spontaneous demonstration in this House of Commons when the member who had spoken disparagingly of our flag came back from Nagano. I confess I joined in that demonstration.

The question is should I now apologize for it? The answer is no, I should not. If we do not have freedom of expression in this country, in this very House, then really what else matters?

Shortly thereafter we went back to the budget debate. This is the defining moment for me. This is the moment in my entire life where my flag meant more to me than at any other time. That was the same Thursday when, a few minutes later, there was a Liberal member droning on about how wonderful their budget was. I had heard most of the things before, therefore I will confess again that I was not paying a great deal of attention to what he was saying. I was reading.

After a little demonstration, without thinking instead of putting my flag back into my desk, I placed it into my little water holder. As a result, it just sat there, this little, tiny flag, three inches by six inches, and for those who are metric, seven and a half centimetres by fifteen. There it was. I was reading a paper. A Liberal member was droning on.

Suddenly, there was a point of order. A separatist member of this House got up and said “Madam Speaker”—it was the one of the Acting Speakers who was in the chair—“I see flags and I would like to have them removed”. That is a paraphrase, not a quote.

I basically ignored it. I will admit that. The Acting Speaker did ask for members to remove their flags. I was busy reading and really did not pay too much attention to it. It was also in a language that I do not understand, and I regret that I do not understand it.

He stood up immediately again and said “Madam Speaker, I still see flags” and she did not see them. My flag was very small and very unobtrusive. It certainly was not bothering the Liberal member from speaking.

He pointed right at me and then she looked at me and said “Will the member for Elk Island remove his flag?” I have to say at that moment that flag meant more to me than anything. When I was asked to remove it, I did not.

Am I sorry? No, I am not. See how torn I am. The rules do not permit me in that instance to display a simple, little, Canadian flag and that is wrong. There is not another geographical location in this whole country where we cannot display our flag.

We have it in our offices. That has already been mentioned. I do not think there is a business in this entire country where, if an employee of the company would have a little flag on their desk, anyone would have the audacity, the nerve to say “Take it away”.

For me, it is not the permission to have the flag. It is an assurance that it will not be taken away from me. That is what happened on that day. That was the defining moment.

We have bombasted here today. We did not plan this. We honestly did not. I said that on very many talk shows this week. It was not a planned thing by the Reform Party. I did not know until two seconds before this happened that this is how it would develop.

I will say one thing. If I am asked to stand up for my country and my flag, I will do it and there will not be a member who is trying to tear this country apart who will stop me, nor any other Canadian or non-Canadian.

If I do not have that kind of fortitude, I do not have the right to stand here. It is a formidable task we have. Judging by the debate so far, everyone is against this motion. They are somehow trying to judge our motives. Because our motives are wrong, they are going to vote for what is wrong instead of for what is right.

I am appealing, I am begging, I am doing everything I can to ask hon. members on all sides of the House to do what is right. What we are asking is for a small incremental change.

Yes, I believe in rules. I believe in law. I believe in order. I believe that we have limits to our freedoms of expression. We are moving. We want to move those limits ever so little in this House so that when a member gets into a situation like I was in, the rules of the House cannot be used to defeat and to destroy my freedom of a very simple expression which I value so highly.

[Andrew Telegdi, Liberal, Kitchener—Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, let me say, since the previous speaker mentioned that his parents were refugees from another country, that I was a refugee from Hungary and came to Canada in 1957. Let me tell him that there are ways of celebrating flags and there are ways not to celebrate flags.

If members recall communist countries, every May 1 was May Day. The factories emptied. All the workplaces were empty. Those workers were forced to march past the reviewing stand in order to celebrate May Day. I recall when I was five years old going along with my mother because we had to bring family members along. I could not understand why all the adults around me wanted me to carry their flags. It was because they did not want to carry the flag.

Let me further say that October 27, 1995 was one of my proudest moments. I was at the Place du Canada in Montreal with my family and 600 people from my riding where we proudly carried the flag. That was an expression of our love for our country and our flag.

The only question I have for that member is where was he?

[Ken Epp, Reform, Elk Island, AB]

Mr. Speaker, it is not accurate to say that there were no Reformers there. It just has not been advertised. There were some, and some pretty high profile ones.

Besides that, the member mentioned the old countries. This is what distinguishes this country from other countries and why I am so grateful that my grandparents chose this as their country. In those other countries people are punished if they do not fly the flag. Does that make them patriotic or right? No. I could even ask the question: Does the distribution of free flags around the country, causing people to wave them who otherwise were not doing it, make them patriotic? I think not. The difference is that in this country and in this place we are punished if we do fly the flag.

My comment would simply be that the sequence is most important. I believe, for myself and probably for most Canadians, that we should fly the flag because we are patriotic rather than thinking that we will become patriotic by flying the flag. There is a huge difference there.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Foreign Affairs]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane.

The debate today cannot be separated from the incident in the House on February 26 from which it arose. If we go back to that incident we will find that there was some anger and concern on both sides of the House with remarks attributed to the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis in far away Japan. As reported, the remarks were deemed offensive by a number of people. I believe this is what produced the incident.

I have since seen an explanation of it by the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis. As many of us know from her work in committee, she has been a good committee person and has been respectful of House rules in her conduct. I have seen the explanation since, but in the origins I think there was an anger in her remarks that was considered intemperate and offensive to many members.

What happened I think needs to be traced. On February 23 I was told to look in my desk in the House. When I looked in, I found a small flag with a note which read “As a loyal Canadian, please wave this flag the first time Suzanne Tremblay, BQ, stands to speak in question period”.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I think the hon. member knows that he must refer to members by their constituency and not by name. I urge him to comply with the rules in that regard.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the hon. member in the context of a document in which her name was mentioned, but I will accept—

[The Deputy Speaker]

I appreciate the hon. member's argument but the rules of the House are clear, that one cannot do indirectly what one cannot do directly, even quoting a document. Your Speaker has experience with this from having had made the same mistake.

I have checked the authorities and I am satisfied it is quite correct that you may not refer to the hon. member by name, even when quoting from another document, so I would urge the member to comply with the rule in that regard.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would defer to you because of your charm as well as your learning.

I was really saying that what would have been an understandably spontaneous action lost some of its attraction when there was a three day interregnum. I think it is correct to say, as an hon. member on this side who was associated with the incident said on March 9 in the House, it may have been ill advised but it never was supposed to go this far. It took intellectual courage and honesty for the hon. member concerned to make that remark and I think he is right. This debate should have been closed then and there.

Since we have a motion on the order paper today, let me simply say that our reaction and attitude to our country and the symbols of our nationhood are changing. The two founding nations, perhaps because they regretted their 19th century history which was rather bloody and rather inconsiderate of other people, tended to develop a certain self-restraint. What was very noticeable in the twenties, thirties, forties, the World War II period and just before, was an absence of the breast beating nationalism in many parts of continental Europe.

I remember the greatest of the Conservative leaders in Canada during the post-war period, Premier John Robarts whom I advised, defending the choice—and it was much in controversy—of the maple leaf flag as the Canadian flag against some very angry Conservatives who said that people fought and died under the Union Jack in the last war. He replied, as somebody who had served in the Mediterranean theatre in small boats, that none of us fought and died under flags in Word War II, that you would have given away your cover. Let us be realistic. Symbols of that sort were more relevant in the 19th century. He was representing an attitude of self-restraint which reflected the thinking of people in the two founding nations at that period.

The United States Supreme Court in World War II gave two massive rulings. I remember studying them as a law student. They were key to the evolution of American constitutional democracy. One sometimes thinks in Canada that the Americans are given to excessive breast beating displays of nationalism. In 1942, in the Gobitis case, the court ruled by an eight to one majority that school children could be compelled to salute the flag even though it violated their religious beliefs.

There was such a flood of criticism of that decision, including from marines serving in the Pacific theatre, “is it the country we are fighting for”, that the court reversed that decision two years later. It was a defining moment in Americans' attitude to themselves and to their symbols.

We recognize the change in this country, the influence of immigration, the influence of our passage to a multicultural, plural society in which the views of new cultural communities are as relevant and determining as those of other people.

In 1994 the Speaker of the House introduced what you have on the left and the right of his chair, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian flag. It was not displayed before but he introduced that and it has been a practice supported by all of us. In 1994 he also introduced the practice—and I think it was first suggested by the hon. member for Edmonton North—of singing the national anthem each Wednesday afternoon. Again it is a practice that all parties in the House have supported.

Each generation of Canadians has the right to redefine its attitudes to the nation including its choice of symbols. It may well be that we have been less demonstrative than we should have been.

I remember visiting India in the post-war period 15 years after independence and being struck by the fact that the main traffic circle in town, which had a huge, monumental plinth, was still dominated by a statue of King George V of Great Britain. One said to the Indians “Does he not represent the past?” The Indians said “yes, but we have no inferiority complex. In time we will remove the statue,” and they did 10 years later. In other words it should not be assumed that the new immigrants will follow the attitudes of colleagues from the other side of the House just referred to.

One remembers the East German regime of Mr. Honecker, which was dramatically in evidence for the gymnastic displays, those three or four hours of sporting exhibitions accompanied by literally thousands of flags. In 1989 the Berlin wall fell and the particular flag Mr. Honecker had supported disappeared into the dustbin of history.

We are looking for a way of reconciling new attitudes, new expectations of what our national symbols should be with the more traditional values which I think have been toward self-restraint.

Perhaps with a certain degree of smugness Canadians have set themselves aside from other people. We do not need to say that we are Canadians. We know. We have confidence in our future. We know that we have a great future. We know that we are a tolerant people. This process is a legitimate one and one that we would all welcome, but I wonder whether, in the aftermath of the incident in the House on February 26, this is the right time and context in which to consider it.

I believe that the House put forward a sensible suggestion that it go to a very powerful and prestigious committee of the House which you once chaired, Mr. Speaker, in one of your earlier periods. You were an erudite, an eloquent and perhaps a loquacious incumbent of the chairmanship of that committee, but you did well by us and we did well by you.

My suggestion to the hon. members opposite, to the hon. member for Edmonton North who was active in the movement to display the flags on either side of the chair and the singing of the anthem, why not recall the motion? Why not let it go to the committee so in a proper context of calmness we can consider what redefinition, if any, we want to make of what we have already done?

[Jim Gouk, Reform, West Kootenay—Okanagan, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I cannot believe, in light of arguments that have already been presented, that the Liberal member who just spoke still wants to send such a simple yes or no issue to committee to languish there, as has been already stated, never to see the light of day again.

I would just like to bring forth two other points. I have in my office on my desk in my riding a Canadian flag. I have in my office in Ottawa near my desk a Canadian flag. I have three desks. The third desk is this one that I occupy in the House of Commons on behalf of my constituents and all Canadians, where I try to make valued judgments on legislation brought forward for people in my riding and for all Canadians. Why, on this third desk of mine, should I not be allowed the symbol of what I represent?

I would ask, if I may, why, when his own former deputy prime minister and heritage minister spent millions, nay tens of millions of dollars, promoting the Canadian flag and telling Canadians to be more—

[The Deputy Speaker]

The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think it assumes too much to imagine the committee over which you presided so eloquently will take 19 years to reach a decision. It is the sort of thing that could be decided promptly and we would recommend it.

I also have the flags in my office. I added them recently. I have been a serving member of the armed forces. I think one of the difficulties perhaps with the House is that it has too little acquaintance or contact directly with the last war or military service. I always found that military people are more modest in displaying nationalism than those without it.

[Jim Abbott, Reform, Kootenay—Columbia, BC]

Mr. Speaker, this is a question of decorum and practice in the House. When the original flag flap was happening, Progressive Conservative members physically stormed the Speaker. Jim Fulton, a member of the New Democratic Party, intentionally brought a raw fish into the House that he slapped down on the Prime Minister's desk. A former member of the New Democratic Party actually ran after and grabbed the mace, which represents the power of the House.

In the Speaker's ruling yesterday he said “Unless and until the House changes its rules this will not be permitted”. What we are doing, very simply, as my colleague has said, is asking for a simple yes or no. Why can we not have a simple yes or no? Why can we not simply change the rules so we can display the flag and get on with business?

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know that I made no pejorative remarks about him or any other member of the other side of the House, but I would suggest that there is a feeling on this side of the House that his party should have followed the course the member on this side did in saying that enough time had been given to this issue. Let us put it off. Let us consider it in that context.

I believe that on his side a gaffe was made. I also believe that the art of politics is to retire gracefully from situations such as that.

[Alex Shepherd, Liberal, Durham, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the member could comment on the observations I have made. The leader of the Reform Party a couple of years ago could not have been bothered to attend the flag day celebration because it was not very important.

Today members of the Reform Party are cloaked in the flag. Somehow they are the great defenders of the flag. I wonder if he could comment on what I believe to be a very shabby and shallow patriotic venture on the part of Reformers.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that patriotism like religion is a matter of personal choice and personal taste, at least in its display.

I go to flag ceremonies. I do so proudly. I think we should leave it to each member to make that judgment.

[Ben Serré, Liberal, Timiskaming—Cochrane, ON]

Mr. Speaker, contrary to most members who have spoken previously, I am not pleased to participate in the debate today. I do so out of a sense of duty not to my party but to my country.

Today I will probably give the most difficult speech of my political career. I understand fully the predicament we have put the Speaker in with the so-called flag issue. I too feel caught between a rock and a hard place. My heart is torn apart.

On the one hand I would like to support the motion, as I have previously been adamant about my right to place a flag on my desk. On the other hand, because of the manner in which members of the Reform Party have conducted themselves on this issue, I cannot and I will not support the motion. I will try to explain why to the best of my ability.

Before getting to the heart of the matter, let me remind the House of the events that led to this dilemma. I feel that after doing so I will have managed to upset both the separatists and the Reformers. In any case, it is important to set the record straight.

The separatist member for Rimouski—Mitis made some comments at the Nagano Games that upset Canadian parliamentarians, and in fact all Canadians. We could not let her get away with this. We had to respond to the member and to proudly defend the use of the Canadian flag, and we did. We did so spontaneously and with pride.

The Chair ruled that the way we did it was against the rules. I respect the decision. However, I am warning separatists that whenever they attack our flag, I will be there to defend it.

I have a suggestion for the member for Rimouski—Mitis and all her separatist colleagues: if they are offended by the Canadian flag, if they cannot loyally represent Canada at international events, then they should stay here and leave that opportunity to other members who will represent our country with pride and dignity.

Let me now address the motion of the Reform Party. Let me say from the outset that I favour having a Canadian flag on my desk. Two weeks ago I would have supported such a motion. I hope that through the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or through a private members' bill we will one day be able to do so. However, to bring such a motion today in light of the recent events is divisive, disruptive and plain low politicking.

It would be a lot easier for me to grandstand today and be the lone Liberal hero by supporting this motion. But when one is elected to the Canadian Parliament, one must not ask himself what is best for the party, one must not ask himself what is best to be re-elected, one must ask himself what is best for Canada. That is a lot harder to do.

The manner in which the Reform Party conducted itself on this issue, and other facts which I have learned in the past week, has led me to reconsider my position. Here we are in the House of Commons saying that we want to promote the Canadian flag and teach respect for the flag. What does the Reform Party do? It throws the flag on the floor. It took a very serious issue and turned it into a circus. I have too much respect for the Canadian flag to support and witness such disrespectful acts.

Where was the Reform Party when we had the flag rally in Montreal on October 27, 1995? We were there. The Reform Party opposed the fly the flag program brought forward by the Minister of Canadian Heritage. We supported it. Yet, it comes into the House pretending to be holier than thou and somehow making the impression that it is more patriotic than we are.

We on this side of the House have no lessons to learn from the Reform Party on patriotism. We want the flag to unite Canadians, not divide them. By forcing this issue now, today, they are playing right into the separatists' hands. They are pouring gasoline on the fire.

I have done some research in the past week. In other legislatures around the world, the use of flags on MPs desks is not permitted in the British Parliament, Australia, the American Congress or the American Senate. Maybe we could set a precedent in this House and become the first parliament to do so, but today is not the time. We must put this issue to rest for now by referring the matter to a committee. We have important matters and bills to debate in this House. It is time for us to move on with the business of governing this country.

I suspect that most Canadians would agree with MPs having a flag on their desks. I also suspect that first and foremost they demand and expect that we conduct ourselves in a civil manner and that we do the job that we were elected to do, which is to help create jobs, improve our social programs and pass legislation for the betterment of all Canadians.

The Reform Party is saying that it wants change. I too want change. I challenge the Reform Party to show that it is not just playing politics with this issue. I challenge the Reform Party to give unanimous consent to the House to an amendment that I am prepared to put forward. The amendment is:

That the motion be amended by inserting immediately before the words “this House” the words “the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to prepare a report by June 15”.