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

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.

Topics

Points Of OrderGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.

SupplyGovernment Orders

March 17th, 1998 / 3:40 p.m.

Liberal

John Bryden Liberal Wentworth—Burlington, ON

Mr. Speaker, what foolishness this motion is. It has crowded the talk show lines in my riding and people believe that what this is all about is that parliamentarians cannot stand and speak in this House holding the Canadian flag as a symbol.

When I was elected in 1993, I put a Canadian flag pin on my lapel. In all that time, Mr. Speaker, you have never ruled me out of order because I have stood in this House with the Canadian flag pinned on my jacket.

Moreover, from time to time I have risen to speak in this House wearing a tie that had Canadian flags on it and you have never, Mr. Speaker, ruled that out of order.

There are plenty of opportunities to stand and speak in this House wearing a Canadian flag as a symbol.

What is wrong with having a Canadian flag at the desk? Well, we saw it with the Reform member for Medicine Hat. He got angry and took the flag, threw it on the floor and desecrated it. On this side we tried to figure out how to retrieve the flag from the floor of the House of Commons before it was stepped on.

I submit to the member opposite that a flag in the hands of the Reform Party or on a desk may be desecrated. It is safer next to you, Mr. Speaker. Why can he not have on his jacket, as I do, or even on his tie a Canadian flag? Why is that not sufficient for him?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring this back. It is very simple. We even heard members of the Bloc talking about the flag as being vulgar. Imagine that. People responded to that, including the people in the member's party. The government party stood up and responded like the people did here, appropriately. I stand on those words. I stood proudly and waved that flag and stood proudly and sang O Canada . That is what this is about.

This debate has elevated from that. We can all argue about this but that is the reality. That is what has happened and what has gone on for two weeks and it has to end. People out there have to know where we stand. We are going to make people stand up and be counted, that is what this is all about. We want to bring a closure to this issue once and for all today so we can address the other important issues.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:40 p.m.

NDP

Dick Proctor NDP Palliser, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have listened to a good deal of the debate today and the word that keeps coming back is the word “flagrant” which consists of two words “flag” and “rant”, which is what we mostly have today from the Reform Party.

I hear the member for Blackstrap bellowing away.

What we are seeing here today is a flagrant waste of time. I will be very proudly voting against this motion in a couple of hours time, but I will take no back seat to any of the members of the Reform Party in terms of their patriotic endeavours.

I am probably the only person in this House who had the privilege of being outside this building on February 15, 1965 when the Canadian flag was raised for the very first time on top of the Peace Tower. I remember it very well. I was a student at the university here and came down to a relatively small gathering. Prime Minister Pearson came out for the event. Had the Reform Party members been around in 1965 they probably would have voted against this new flag because of the red ensign. They would have wrapped themselves in the previous flag because they are very good at promising Canadians a better yesterday.

I have two questions for the previous speaker.

In the vast research the Reformers have done, could they tell us what other countries allow flags to be displayed on members' desks in their parliaments? If they want to bring an end to this debate today, why are they running ads on radio stations in Saskatchewan?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Gary Lunn Reform Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Mr. Speaker, the member asked me what goes on in other parliaments. I have been to many countries and have been to their parliaments. I have yet to hear people refer to their flags as vulgar. I have yet to hear their elected officials go off to other countries and say that there are too many of their own country's flags.

The people in this House responded and appropriately so by saying that was not acceptable. The ministers, the government and the Reform Party stood and said that we were not going to allow that. This has elevated from that.

How can we put an end to this? How can we stop it? How can we get on to the governing of the country? We said we would force them to stand and be counted, and that is what we have done.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to take part in a debate such as this one.

Many members of the House have turned what I believe to be a positive initiative on behalf of the official opposition into an us against them debate that would divide us rather than bring us together as Canadians.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

An hon. member

You should be ashamed of yourself.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:45 p.m.

Reform

Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

I am ashamed right now to listen to these heckles. Here we are talking about pride in Canada and the flag, and here we have people yelling at us from the other side. As a relatively new Canadian who has adopted this country and takes pride in its flag and what it stands for, I do not know why in a democracy I cannot rise in an institution like this one to address those things and say how proud I am to be a Canadian.

We have heard from the other parties today that Reform does not respect rules. I beg to differ. We were waiting for the Speaker to rule on the issue. He took some time to rule. If we look around today we see that members on the Reform side have respected his decision. We took the next step, which was to hear from other Canadians in the House on how they feel about the flag, if they feel it is a positive initiative to display it on their desks.

If many members opposite feel it is not a positive initiative then they can say so. That is what the debate is all about. We on the Reform side continuously argue that if members of the House representing people from across they country who are proud to be Canadians want to display that flag on their desks on behalf of the people who elected them, why not allow them to do so. It is a positive initiative. I have yet to hear some constructive debate from the other side as to why it is negative, instead of attacking this side for being proud about our symbols.

We have heard from members of different parties that this is a negative initiative. This is what the House of Commons is all about. It is a place in which to freely debate ideas that may be of contention, that may mean something to some and not to others. Bringing this issue to the floor and letting the members decide is not negative. Members opposite and members from all parties have the right to vote yes or no in the end to the motion, whether they like it or not.

I resent the fact that people have been so negative overall in the debate when the initiative in the official opposition motion is very positive. I wish we would hear less rhetoric and more about why a flag on a desk is so negative.

To some extent I was happy for a little while to hear members from all sides talking about what Canada means to them and what the flag means to them. It was somewhat enlightening to hear some of the stories of various members of Parliament and their families and what exactly the flag means to them. To have this kind of debate once in a while is healthy for parliament.

I briefly touched on what that means to me. I am a recent Canadian. I have been here for 26 years. I came here as a little child. I adopted the flag and the country. It is mine and it is my home. For me it means freedom. It means opportunity. It means democracy. Those are things that did not exist in the country my family had to flee from as refugees.

To be able to take a moment to reflect on those things in the House is the perfect place to do it. I am very proud that we have the opportunity to do so. I resent the fact that we are hearing such negative comments from all other sides of the House on this issue.

I heard members of the New Democratic Party yelling out that no other parliament or legislature in the world may necessarily have flags on their desks. This is an opportunity for us as Canadians, as we have been in the past, to be leaders and maybe start something positive, start something to be proud of. It is not negative.

It is a chance for us to stand and actually start something new. If we took the time to reflect on that for a moment and reflect on how it could bring us together, maybe we would have more support in the House than what we see today.

Those are some of the issues I would have liked to address. Many of us have misinterpreted what the motion is supposed to be about and how positive it is.

I would now like to address the people of Quebec, people who love Canada and the Canadian flag. Do not be mistaken: while Quebeckers love their province, they also love their country. If the members opposite refuse to give them a way of expressing their patriotism in this House, I will be proud to take on that responsibility.

The flag is an emblem, a deeply important symbol. Displaying the Canadian flag shows commitment to Canada, but this commitment to Canada is not one to the geographical boundaries of our country. To display a flag shows commitment to the values honoured within those boundaries.

My family and I came to Canada looking for a place to rebuild our lives. We were not looking for handouts, but opportunities, which we found. Canada gave us the opportunity to go to school and to build prosperous businesses. So, when we see Canadian flags, we are reminded that Canada gave us a second chance.

I am now a part of a country which gave me the opportunity to represent the electoral district of Edmonton—Strathcona in the House of Commons. I came from a country where there was no respect for democracy to a country where, at age 26, I was allowed to speak as an equal in this House.

The community of Edmonton—Strathcona judged me on the basis of my abilities and allowed me to come and represent it here because it liked what I had to say. So, when I look at the Canadian flag, I also see freedom. When I look at the Canadian flag, I am reminded that, in Canada, democracy is the principle of equality which is part of our laws and our government institutions.

I am sure that the people of Quebec see what I see when they look at the Canadian flag: freedom, opportunity, democracy and equality. I am convinced that, given the chance to speak with one voice in this House today, the people of Quebec would ask their representatives to make the best decision and support our motion.

On the last note, I would like to focus specifically on the fact that we have gone through a really strange week in the House. We have had funny behaviour on both sides. It is an emotional issue and it goes without saying that people react the way they do when issues of symbolism and patriotism are discussed in the House.

I encourage all members to take a moment to see the principle behind the motion and to support it because they are proud of their country. If all hon. members take a second to take a step back, they will see that the motion in its principle is something positive for all of us. It allows freedom of expression for individual members in the House who are proud to be here.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Bloc

Paul Crête Bloc Kamouraska—Rivière-Du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member who spoke before me say that a spirit of democracy and respect was needed. I invite him to bring that up with the Reform member who spoke before him. That member accused a member of the Bloc Quebecois of having called the Canadian flag vulgar. I challenge him to find a single instance of a Bloc member having called the Canadian flag vulgar.

What the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis said was that she found there were too many Canadian flags in Nagano. It was an assessment, and as far as I know we are entitled to our personal opinions on the subject.

I want to point something else out. He said we have been elected here for the good of Canadians. For those who elected me as their member of Parliament, what would be good for the whole of Canada would be to create two sovereign countries that would enter into a partnership.

This is the message I have for the House on behalf of my constituents. In 1993, more than 50 members of the Bloc Quebecois were elected. Today, there are 44 of them. This is still a majority of members from Quebec who, as sovereignists, have been elected to pass on the message that the solution in Canada, in fact, is to create two sovereign countries having economic ties with each other.

In conclusion, I agree with him that the Liberals also had a hand in the initiative that led to this crisis, and that they are now adopting a position I find unacceptable. I agree with him on that.

I would like the hon. member to answer my question. For Quebeckers and Canadians to become proud of living in this country, instead of putting a flag on the desk and waving it about whenever the spirit moves them, would it not be preferable for the members of this House to have democratic debates on the issues of real concern to Quebeckers and Canadians, including the national issue?

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to whether or not it is good to debate this type of motion in the House, given the fact that his mandate is to create two sovereign nations.

We are talking today about whether a member of Parliament, who is proud to be a Canadian member of Parliament and wants to display a flag on his desk in the House, should have the right to do so. That is the fundamental basis of the motion. That is what we are debating.

The hon. member said that most electors in his riding elected him and his party to create a vision of two sovereign nations. They are free to work to that end. However, as it stands right now, we are still a united country. While we are in the House we should have respect for the symbols that represent the country. It is not negative to have the flag displayed on anyone's desk in the House.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Liberal

Marlene Catterall Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Mr. Speaker, like the member opposite, I too come from an immigrant background. My father came here over 70 years ago. Before I learned my first nursery rhyme, I learned how lucky I was to be a Canadian.

I take no back seat to anybody when it comes to pride in this country. That is precisely why nearly two weeks ago I stood in the House and did something that I knew was absolutely out of order. I waved a flag. I sang my national anthem. I was quite content then to sit down and let the member for Rimouski—Mitis have her say in the House.

I had to respond to an insult to something that means more to me than a symbol of a country. For me it is a symbol of my father's life which was dedicated to this country. That is precisely why I will not vote for the motion tonight. I will not have the flag sitting here to be knocked over, to be fiddled with, to fall on the floor, to be trampled on, to be treated with the kind of disrespect I saw from some of the members in the House last week.

I value the flag too much to use it as a symbol to point to separatists members of the House and say “in your face”. That is not what it is for. It is to cherish.

SupplyGovernment Orders

3:55 p.m.

Reform

Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, we have heard from members opposite that people had disrespect for the flag in the House. I would like to put that issue to rest. The hon. member for Medicine Hat had lunch with the snack pack prior to that event. His hands were greasy because he had a greasy meal and I believe he dropped the flag.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Reform

Rahim Jaffer Reform Edmonton Strathcona, AB

Mr. Speaker, if I could just have a second—

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

The Speaker

I should point out that on questions and comments we try to be fair. If members have been in the House during the course of the debate, for most of the day, we would normally recognize those members before others who have just come in. Sometimes it seems a little arbitrary, but it really is not.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4 p.m.

Winnipeg North—St. Paul Manitoba

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Prime Minister

Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party, by putting this motion before us, is trying to create the impression that it is leading the country in patriotism. The motion purports to start a practice of allowing the displaying of the Canadian flag on members' desks in the House as an act of patriotism. That is what it would like the Canadian public to believe.

How can we take the motion of the Reform Party with any modicum of seriousness and sincerity when barely two weeks ago it condoned utter disrespect for our national emblem?

This is the same Reform Party which allowed one of its members, the member for Medicine Hat, to desecrate the Canadian flag on the floor of this Chamber, duly documented in the media.

Indeed, when Canadians realize all of this, the motion before us quickly loses its moral edge, particularly when it is realized by all that the Reform Party did not introduce the motion before the Speaker's ruling but one day after that ruling.

Recall that the Reform Party has been widely reported in the media as having threatened the Speaker with a vote of non-confidence if he ruled against the Reform's pleading. This motion is a classic example of the Reform Party's sense of procedural justice.

Frankly, I would like to display the Canadian flag on my desk. I know I would treat it with the utmost respect and dignity befitting our national emblem, the embodiment of Canadian dreams, a sentiment aptly articulated by John Matheson in his book Canada's Flag: A Search for a Country : “The traditions of our people, their accomplishments, and their hopes for the future are summed up in the symbolic meaning of our flag”.

How then can the House show support for this motion when its authors belong to the same party which has failed to discipline one of its own members who showed a complete lack of decency in handling the Canadian flag on his desk?

Let me remind all colleagues and all Canadians that the said member of the Reform Party, a senior member of that party, instead of apologizing for his cowardly act, had the arrogance to tell the media “it was no big deal”.

The Reform Party ought to heed the words of Jennifer Robinson, that our flag is not a prop for the Reform Party's stunts, which appear in a column in today's issue of the Montreal Gazette : “Reformers may love their country, but they do no honour to the flag by using it as a prop for their political stunts. There is no honour in singing the national anthem if it is only to drown out political adversaries, no patriotism in waving a flag if it is only to show contempt”.

A distinguished member of the House, the hon. member for Sherbrooke, correctly said on the weekend: “A flag is meant to be cherished and is to be a symbol that unites people, not something to be bandied around for the purpose of trying to make a political point”.

The leader of the Reform Party said: “We think there is a second principle, equally important, the freedom of expression”, in hinting his disagreement with the ruling by the Speaker, who based his decision on the principle of decorum and order in the House.

Let me remind the leader of the Reform Party that freedom of expression, like all freedoms, is not absolute. As the old saying goes, my right to swing my fists ends where your face begins.

I agree with the wisdom of the Speaker's ruling yesterday. He said: “Without order there is no freedom of speech and, fundamentally, that is what this place is really about”.

The Winnipeg Free Press in today's issue timely reminded Canadians about the Reform Party: “Above all, they declared their determination to restore seriousness and decorum to Parliament and to put an end to the raucous disorder that infected question period. So what has happened to turn the Reformers into the bunch of merry mischief makers that they are today?”

Truly it is an appropriate question begging for an urgent answer from the Reform leader.

I agree with today's issue of the Toronto Star : “The two and a half week controversy that led to yesterday's ruling was damaging and unnecessary. It cheapened Canadian patriotism, hurt national unity and put the Speaker in an impossible position”. It went on to say it is a shame that the Canadian flag was used to disrupt the proceedings of the House.

The Toronto Star posed a challenge to the Speaker: “The Speaker should set himself the higher task of ensuring that the Canadian flag is used to symbolize tolerance and pride in the House of Commons”.

I remind all members and respectfully inform all Canadians that we already have in full view two full size Canadian flags on each side of the Speaker's chair. Moreover, we sing O Canada every Wednesday before question period.

Perhaps I could even force myself to understand the Reform Party's frustration or political argument with the Speaker. But the utmost of my understanding cannot condone any immature display of temper, to say the least, or any unconscionable deliberate insult to our flag, an act unbefitting any citizen, let alone a member of Parliament.

The Reform Party would like Canadians to believe that it is serious and sincere with this motion to display the Canadian flag on our desks as a manifestation of patriotism. Anyone can see through the Reform Party's motion a veneer of hypocrisy. A disguise is a disguise is a disguise. A disguise of outrage cannot hide a vacuum of sincerity in the motion.

Yesterday the Speaker of the House issued his ruling, pointing out that such a display of the Canadian flag on members' desks is not sanctioned under the present rules of the House. It should be said that the Speaker's ruling is not without precedent. In 1964 the then Speaker of the House in a precedent setting ruling prohibited flags at MPs' desks to be used as props.

Part of Reform's motion reads “that the said flag remain stationary for the purposes of decorum”. Yes, by this motion the Reform Party pretends to be the defender of decorum in the House.

The Reform motion purports to do one thing while its behaviour in the House clearly showed manifest disrespect for the flag and for decorum.

Mr. Hugh Windsor of the Globe and Mail in yesterday's issue rightly observed in his column “The Power Game” that the Reform Party has, to some extent, effectively used a staged photo opportunity as a tactic to draw media attention but that in the case of the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, alluding to the flag waving fuss which should have been another one day wonder, it carried the game too far by totally disrupting proceedings, denying the MP her right to speak and turning the Commons into a minstrel show by jumping up and singing O Canada.

In today's issue editorialist John Dafoe of the Winnipeg Free Press writes: “Obviously inspired by the success of that photo opportunity, they moved on to their newest caper, fun with flags. They turned the Canadian flag into a prop for yet another of their sight-gags”.

That is why even before the Speaker's ruling I regretted the disruption to the proceedings of the House the incident caused. I imagined before the Speaker's ruling what would happen to the business of the House were we to allow ourselves to be drawn to such actions so often. That is why, in all humility, I see the wisdom behind the ruling of the Speaker who emphasized the need for civility in the Chamber.

A wise man once said he who says he has learned everything, for him that is the beginning of educational death. There is a place for a dose of humility in the House.

The Reform Party did not hide its threats, its displeasure of the Speaker on the flag issue. Why did the Reform, in the interest of a greater goal, to allow the business of the House to proceed, decline to give its hands of peace, setting aside partisan politics?

Without decorum and order, the House cannot be expected to conduct its business, government proceeding with its legislation and the opposition holding the government accountable. What a pity that we are using this time not to debate the budget, education and health care but this issue.

Displaying flags on the desks of the members could invite further indignity to the flag as exhibited by the Reform Party. I intended to propose an amendment, but I will decline.

In his book The Story of Canada's Flag published in 1965, George F.G. Stanley, a leading Canadian historian, captured the historic and emotional significance of the Canadian flag when he wrote: “A flag speaks for the people of a nation or community. It inspires self-sacrifice, loyalty and devotion”.

This motion is just that, a motion, an empty statement devoid of sincerity, good will and respect, a parody of patriotism and a travesty of civility and decorum in Parliament.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Speaker, when the incident occurred, two weeks ago, I rose and said I was a proud Canadian. I said I was a proud Canadian from New Brunswick with a flag in both his Ottawa and New Brunswick offices, but that I was not proud of what the Reform Party and the Liberal Party had done, particularly when a Reform member threw the Canadian flag on the floor. I said all of that.

I am proud because the flag is close to my heart. It does not have to be displayed on my desk. I am truly proud of that. And the flag will not be thrown on the floor because I am proud of it. But I cannot be proud of the fact that, today, Parliament is spending over $1 million of Canadians' money to hear about the flag, while some children in our country go hungry because their parents are on welfare, and while 730,000 people will be forced to rely on social assistance because of the changes made to the employment insurance program. This is what we should be debating here today. We should be debating the budget, because that was the issue before the House on the day the incident occurred.

I have a question for the member opposite. Reformers claimed that the member from Quebec was still able to put her question that day. However, since oral question period lasts 45 minutes and since each member only has 35 seconds to put his or her question, is it not true that, because the proceedings were interrupted that day, some parties were prevented from asking a fourth question, as is the custom? There was an interruption which may not have had an impact on the hon. member from Quebec, but which had one on the New Democratic Party. We were entitled to a fourth question, but could not put it.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with the member that we should be spending this time debating the issues that matter most to Canadians, the issues of the budget, health care, education, research, job creation and all those many issues.

I also concur with the member that we ought to discipline ourselves. We cannot tolerate any behaviour that will insult our colleagues. However, when the record says so, we must state the record. For that, we have a duty to perform.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:10 p.m.

Reform

Ken Epp Reform Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, a number of people today have said that we should be debating important things, and I agree.

However, I think this is best summed up in what a writer of a fax sent to me. He said that we can debate the budget all day but that the Liberals, with their majority, will do whatever they want anyway. He said that the debt will not go down any faster because of our debating this all day.

What he suggested was that if we lose the most fundamental of freedoms, the freedom of expression, then really it does not matter anyway. This is really a matter of freedom of expression.

I would like to ask the member a question. I presume he also stood and waved the flag and joined in the singing of our national anthem as a way of saying to the Bloc that we love our country. I agree, it was a demonstration that obviously has been ruled out of order and which we are not proposing. In fact, we are proposing the opposite in this motion.

Later on I was asked by the same separatist party to remove my flag because I had not had the sense to put it away. I left it sitting here. I stood on principle and said that I do not want to comply because of a party that wants to tear the country apart asking me, a loyal Canadian, to put away the flag of this country. That is why I refused. That is what this motion is about, to say that if a member has a small flag he cannot be required by someone else to take it away, thereby taking away his freedom of speech.

I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

The parliamentary secretary has 60 seconds, please.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Rey D. Pagtakhan Liberal Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my debate, no freedom is absolute. There has to be a limitation. I must admit that I too stood and waved the flag. I too sang O Canada as a spontaneous show of love for the country.

I ask myself what would happen to House proceedings if we would do it every 10 minutes during question period. That is why I deferred to the wisdom of the ruling of the Chair.

On the question of the flag, I discussed it in my debate. It being so reachable, it can be played with, it can be used as a prop during the passion of debate. We have the two big flags on both sides of the Speaker's chair. That more strongly signifies the commitment to patriotism we have for this country. If I may say the Bloc's commitment—

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Bonwick Liberal Simcoe—Grey, ON

Mr. Speaker, before I speak to this motion I might convey my feelings as a Canadian, as a first time elected member. The day I walked into this House, the day we started to sing the national anthem, I cannot put into words the sense of pride I felt as a young Canadian, as a third generation Canadian, as a representative of Simcoe—Grey. It hurts me to see the Reform Party twist that feeling. It has damaged the pride of this House. I have great concern over the Reform Party's approach to this thing.

Where does it stop? Today, a small flag on the desk? Tomorrow should the curtains behind us be Canadian flags? The next day should the windows in front of us be Canadian flags? We should make no mistake why the Reform Party is doing this. It is simple grandstanding. Nothing more than that. It should be absolutely ashamed of itself for what it has done. It is showing absolutely no respect for this House. It is showing no respect for the Canadian flag. Most important, it is showing no respect for the Canadian people. For that I say shame, Reform. You have turned yourself into a mockery. You are looked at both in Canada and—

SupplyGovernment Orders

4:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

I would ask members to address each other through the Chair.