Debates of March 17th, 1998

Supply

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to the hon. member. He has just challenged me and I will offer him a challenge in a minute in response.

Let me first quote a distinguished member of the House who said on February 15, 1996 about the Canadian flag celebrations:

I just wish there were some substance to go along with the symbolism. Setting aside a day for waving the flag, jumping up and down and singing stirring songs is a nice gesture. It's also a good way to keep warm in mid-February, but Canadians would rather see some substance from this government, a national unity plan, real job creation, a balanced budget and much needed tax relief.

The member for Edmonton North put that in writing in a news release on February 15, 1996. Now the true colours are coming out across the way.

I have a challenge for hon. members across the way. I will propose a motion and I will seek unanimous consent from all members of the House, and in particular members of the Reform Party members. If it is change they want there will be no games. I will ask for unanimous consent, for us all to agree, and I will make it very clear. If they really want change and if they want the issue to be studied, I move:

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.

I tell hon. members across the way that the test is on them. We will see right now whether sincerity rules or whether phoniness rules. Let us see.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Does the hon. government House leader have unanimous consent of the House to propose the amendment?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I am afraid there is no consent. The time for questions and comments has expired.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, instead of talking about employment insurance, instead of talking about the problems being experienced by the unemployed who are going to miss out on benefits, instead of talking about economic development, instead of talking about the battle against AIDS, instead of talking about the major social problems confronting this country, what are we talking about? The flag.

We are questioning whether the Chair's ruling about whether or not we can stick little flags on our desks ought not to be overturned. Most edifying, this 1998 Reform version of the Canadian vision of development.

Who was it who broke the rules of the House? Who was it who stood up at an inopportune moment to sing the national anthem and wave flags around? Not the Bloc Quebecois members, but the Liberals and the Reform members. Who was it who created a totally artificial crisis about the flag? Not the Bloc Quebecois, not the NDP, not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, but the Reform Party.

Who was it who refused to respect the House of Commons and its procedures? Not the Bloc, not the NDP, not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, but the Reform Party. Since the beginning of this story, Reformers not only caused the initial problem, but they exacerbated it. They let the rest of Canada think the Canadian flag was being challenged here in this House, which was never the case.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

No, never. They are liars.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

No fear, this is reassuring for the sovereignists. When there is no crisis in this country, Reformers cook one up.

But what is going on here? Do the people Reform represents have such a serious identity problem? Is there such a serious identity problem over there that it is necessary to wrap oneself in the flag daily, to stick them all over the place, wave them about, put them in our pockets, or paint cars to match the Canadian flag?

But what is going on with this political party? Is there no grasp whatsoever of what the rules of Parliament are?

Do they not understand that, in a Parliament, regardless of one's political opinion, one must respect the foundation, that is the Chair, its rulings and the rules under which debates must take place?

Why should we suddenly change the rules of this House following a show of enthusiasm by Reformers and Liberals? Why should we start waving flags at every opportunity? What is going on in this country? Do Reformers have a problem of perception, a problem of identity?

They are spoiling for a fight with the separatists. They are intent on scoring political points. They want to pass themselves off as the only patriots in this country. Just what is the problem with Reformers? What is the problem with the official opposition? What sense of responsibility do these members have? They were so happy to become the official opposition and replace the bad separatists in the House of Commons, so they could make things move forward in Canada, they could make things work in this country. What are they proposing to make things work? They are talking about flags. This is outrageous.

We heard all kinds of falsehoods. First, some tried to tell the rest of Canada that sovereignists wanted to deny the existence of the Canadian flag. This is false. Nothing could be further from the truth. We never said any such thing in this House. It was also said that separatists had objected to the singing of the national anthem in this House. In fact, we were among those who agreed that, on Wednesdays, at the beginning of our proceedings, the national anthem be sung. It is false to say, as Reformers claim, that we object to the singing of the national anthem in this place.

I challenge them, including the Leader of the Official Opposition, to find a single objection to this effect raised by a Bloc Quebecois member. The Reform Party leader did not tell the truth. We did not create a flag crisis. We did not oppose the national anthem. We have always respected the flag, the anthem and the rules. We have complied with the rules.

The motion before us today challenges the Speaker's ruling, which is based on parliamentary law, on tradition and on what is being done in every Parliament. But why do Reformers want the Parliament of Canada to be different from all other parliaments? What is going on in their heads? Do they have such an identity problem that they have to wrap themselves in the Canadian flag to remember they are Canadians? Is this their problem?

Earlier, the Reform member said that, by the end of this day, those who are watching us would be able to judge who was more serious, who presented the best arguments, who is right. People made up their minds a long time ago. So did journalists. All parliamentarians on both sides of the House, in all parties except the Reform Party, understood long ago that there was no flag war, that we were being made to waste our time. Instead of addressing real problems, Reformers are having fun adding fuel to a possible debate between sovereigntists and the rest of Canada.

The reality is this. Reform members can rest assured that sovereigntists do not have to invent an artificial flag war to make Quebeckers understand that there is a problem in this Parliament. We do not need to invent quarrels with Reformers. They invent them all by themselves. We do not have to come up with things to explain to Quebeckers that there is an identity problem. They provide us with evidence on a daily basis. That is what is wrong with the Reform Party.

They do not respect the Chair, the Speaker and other political parties. They were unable to sign an agreement with other parties that was reasonable and that would have made it possible to resolve this supposed flag crisis.

They behaved liked Don Quixote. They invented a war. They embarked on a war against something that did not exist because their popularity is slipping, their party is not taking hold. Increasingly, people throughout Canada, real Canadians, want nothing to do with the Reform Party. These people invent wars, they invent causes. They set out like Don Quixote with his horse and his lance and are going to tilt at windmills.

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Must be panzomania.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

In closing, I would point out that, for Bloc Quebecois members, it is much more important to talk about employment insurance, use of the budget surplus, the problems faced by our constituents who no longer qualify for EI. These issues are much more important than painting jalopies in the national colours and parading around Parliament Hill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have certainly heard a lot of sound and fire, signifying nothing. I do not think this member or his party has anything to teach us about tolerance when we have his government in Quebec which says that even in Chinatown the use of English is incorrect on signs.

We have the Government of Quebec that has invoked the notwithstanding clause. We have the Government of Quebec that has a committee that says they cannot have an organization named the Montreal English Academy in spite of the fact that they are the language police.

I remind the member that it was his member who went to Nagano at Canadian taxpayers' expense, costing probably in the neighbourhood of $15,000, to attend the olympics.

She not only brought this whole issue to a boil as a result of her very intemperate comments with respect to the show of patriotism of our Canadian athletes in Nagano, but she also said that one of the reasons why she was there was so that she could make contact with and learn about international affairs.

If and when she and the colleagues in that party are ever to get their wish of being able to smash Canada, she would be able to represent the country of Quebec to the international community. She was doing this at Canadian taxpayers' expense.

I point out that if we had followed the Liberal motion proposed by the House leader rather than as an issue being terminated tonight, this issue at the Liberal request would be dragged out until the middle of June. I cannot imagine anything more destructive. It will be terminated tonight as a result of a vote.

Further, I quote Mr. Speaker yesterday from Hansard . He said:

—I have been challenged to show my colours as a patriotic Canadian by allowing the unfettered display of flags in the Chamber. This would constitute an unprecedented unilateral change to the practice of the House of Commons, a change, my colleagues, that no Speaker has the authority to make. So, whatever pressure that I have to do so, I cannot and I will not abrogate such authority to myself. Unless and until the House decides otherwise, no displays will be allowed and the current practice will be upheld.

His words, were “unless and until the House decided otherwise, no displays will be allowed”. The whole purpose of this motion is to get on to the floor exactly that question so that we will be able to see which members of this Chamber choose to support the separatists and not permit the display of flags in this Chamber.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have heard the member's comments, because I can now clarify certain things.

First, he has just talked about what is going on in Quebec. I would like to say in this House and tell the hon. member and anyone else interested that no minority in Canada receives better treatment, has more institutions and enjoys more rights than the anglophones in Quebec.

Do francophones in Canada, wherever they live in Canada, have their own universities, colleges, CLSCs and hospitals?

The anglophones can manage their own school boards. They can do all that. They have their own press, television and radio, which are very much at home in Quebec. What francophone minorities in certain western provinces have anywhere near the privileges enjoyed by the anglophone minority in Quebec?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Not a one.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

Let the rest of Canada begin by giving francophones the same room and opportunities for development that Quebec offers anglophones, and we will take notes.

The hon. member has just said “It was the Bloc member who went to Nagano at taxpayers' expense”. Are you aware that Quebeckers pay more income tax than Manitobans, than Albertans, than British Columbians? Do you realize they pay 23 per cent of Canadian income tax?

[Yvan Loubier, Bloc, Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, QC]

Thirty-one billion dollars.

[Michel Gauthier, Bloc, Roberval, QC]

When are people going to realize that 25% of every dollar spent here comes from Quebec. They are not shy about spending our money. However, we would prefer to manage it ourselves.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, I very much welcome the opportunity to enter the debate on the official opposition motion which is before us.

I want to say a few words about what the debate may appear to be about, what the Reform Party would like to pretend this debate is about, and then I want to say something about what this flag flap issue is really about.

The Reform Party would try to create the impression that this is a simple, straightforward issue, that it is a simple question of whether members of the House want to display on the corner of their desks a Canadian flag. That is all it is about. That is all there is to it. Let us just vote for it and get on with it.

I want to say that I do not think that is what this issue is really about. I do not think that is why the official opposition has put before the House today a motion which it wants Canadians to interpret as meaning that we either vote for its motion on its terms and show we are for Canada, we are for the flag, or if we vote against the motion on its terms and then we are not for the flag and we are not for Canada.

This debate is about Reformers whose approach to politics is so simplistic that they would have Canadians believe that flags on the corner of the desks of members of Parliament will unite the country.

There is no committed federalist in this House who is not proud of the Canadian flag. There is no committed federalist in Canada who is not proud of the Canadian flag. Let us be clear. What this is about is the Reform Party trying to create division among those who were elected to this House of Commons to stand up for Canada and to fight for a united Canada. We will not be divided by those crass, cheap political tactics.

Let me briefly review the tactics used by the Reform Party in this flag flap.

First, in what our Speaker has properly ruled as inappropriate, Reformers used a proud symbol of Canadian freedom, our flag, to stifle the freedom of speech of one of our colleagues. Then, not having got their way with the Speaker, out of respect for the Canadian flag, a Reform member threw it on the floor of the House of Commons and marched out of this chamber.

Then Reform members, again not in a very proud moment in the history of this Chamber, tried to intimidate the Speaker by suggesting that if he dared to rule that Reform members had used the flag improperly he should fear for his job. Those kinds of intimidation tactics of the Speaker have no place in this Chamber and have no place in parliamentary democracy.

To make matters worse, the leader of the Reform Party suggested that this kind of hooliganism by his members was perfectly acceptable; it was, after all, just a question of freedom of speech. When I last checked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it did not guarantee the right of people to threaten and to intimidate, particularly in this parliamentary institution. It was a shameful display by the official opposition and its leader. It did no credit to any of us.

This is not a debate about the flag. The Reform merely wants to take advantage of any opportunity to create division and confusion. Major issues for Canadians, such as jobs, education and health care, are too important for us to waste the precious time we have here in the House of Commons on other matters. But the Reform members do not seem to find them important.

It is ironic in the extreme that this is the week Reform members wrap themselves in the flag and say they are the true loyalists, the true patriots of Canada. This is the very same week that Canadians across the country are calling on their government and their members of Parliament to stand up for Canada's future, to say no loudly, clearly and without equivocation to the multilateral agreement on investment.

If the adolescent pranksters of the Reform zealots had their way, all that would be left of our country would be the flags in the corner of our desks. They want to see the MAI, an investors bill of rights, approved, an MAI without protection for Canada's culture, without protection for our health care, our environment or our employment standards.

The job of running the country would move from Parliament Hill to corporate board rooms in New York, Tokyo and Seoul. We might be able to have flags in the corner of our desks, but in Reform's Canada after the MAI, MPs would not be able to effect most of the issues that directly affect the lives of Canadians.

That is Reform's vision for Canada. That is Reform's vision for the flag, a small flag on the corner of our desks in a toothless, powerless parliament.

The Reform members showed no respect to the Canadian flag when they threw it on the floor of the House of Commons. I want Canadians to know what the Reform is up to. They are playing a dangerous game, a divisive game, a childish game, and we must join forces to put an end to it.

The official opposition is behaving like a school yard bully. We all know the way to deal with bullies and that is to stand up to them. Mr. Speaker, in your ruling yesterday you did that. In our dealing with their antics today we also must do that.

The motivations are suspect and transparent. They say they want to reduce the question of whether we are for or against Canada to a simplistic question of whether we are for or against flags in the corner of our desks.

Last week it was Reform members who thought so little of our Canadian flag and who were so disrespectful of the Canadian flag that they flung it on the floor in this Chamber and retreated from the debate. That kind of cheap, crass approach to politics has no place in this parliament. That partisan petty form of politics will not strengthen and unify the country.

New Democrats are proud Canadians. We can match the pride and the patriotism of any federalist party. English Canadians, French Canadians, allophones, immigrant Canadians, aboriginal Canadians, our caucus is made up of people who choose Canada and are proud each and every day to stand up for our Canadian flag.

What is to be done about the motion? What is our responsibility as members of Parliament? Our caucus has carefully reviewed this matter. We have debated this matter. We are absolutely unanimous in our view that Reformers have been irresponsible in their handling of the issue.

They are playing silly games to avoid the reality that they have nothing to say. They do not want to deal with the substantive issues that are at the real heart of the future of a united Canada. That is why we will not play their silly games. We will not dignify those silly and dangerous games by reducing the future of our great country to whether we can accept on their terms that the future of Canada depends on the display of a flag in the corner of our desks.

That is why the New Democratic Party caucus will vote against this official opposition motion and for a united Canada.

[Odina Desrochers, Bloc, Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think what the Reform members are suffering from is a lack of discernment.

They have trouble differentiating between a desk in the House of Commons and a podium in a public meeting. They are far from the same. In a public meeting, a partisan meeting, a person can do as he pleases, spout whatever propaganda he pleases. But what is involved here is a desk in the House of Commons. There are rules, this is an existing institution. The Reform Party is therefore suffering from an inability to differentiate.

As I see it, we in the Bloc Quebecois, and the other opposition parties, are in a position to see what the real problems are: employment insurance, the budget surplus.

I would ask the hon. member for Halifax if she sees the problems which are facing us, at this time, and which are doing enormous harm to the Canadian and Quebec economy.

[Alexa McDonough, NDP, Halifax, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the member raises the issue of whether this is simply a matter of poor judgment on the part of Reform members, whether it is a matter of discernment. The member suggests, as others have already suggested including myself, that it is really about two very serious issues.

It is about Reform members playing games that on the surface may just look silly. They may annoy Canadians, and heavens knows by all the indications we are getting in our offices that people are becoming very impatient. Reform members are wasting the time of the House and trying the patience of Canadians to reduce the issue of Canada's future to one of whether we will display flags on the corner of our desks as the key to Canadian unity.

It goes much deeper than that. It is more serious than that. It is an insult to Canadians. Reformers think they can wrap themselves in the flag and present themselves as the only true patriots because they have chosen this tactic. At the same time they are escaping the real issues. Each and every one of us were elected to the House to represent our constituents, not in a simplistic or petty partisan way but to the best of our ability and to try to grapple with finding a consensus on how to strengthen and improve this great country.

On their official opposition day Reformers could have dealt with some of the issues of substance. They could have put forward recommendations for good substantive debate that might actually help to improve the unemployment problem in Canada. They could have come to the House and said that they understood it weakens and divides Canada to continue down the path of Americanizing our health care system so that it is two tier. They could have come to the House and said that they have reconsidered their position on universal access to education and would no longer advocate two tier education so those with personal wealth could gain the education they need to get into the new economy and enjoy prosperity in the future. They could have said they realize that if we do not deal with the issue of access, only those who could afford to gain education would get it and the others would fall further behind. The very kind of growing gap between the super rich and everyone else which the Reform Party has been fuelling with its policies would grow even wider.

We were really hoping these were the kinds of issues that would be debated on an official opposition day from a variety of perspectives. We have five different parties in the House with different views on how to deal with substantive issues. However Reform Party's contribution to official opposition day and to solving these problems is to push them aside, push them under the rug, and to wave the flag on their terms and the heck with whether or not the concerns of Canadians get dealt with.

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

Mr. Speaker, this is probably the saddest day I have spent in the Chamber since being elected. As a young member I hope there will not be many more like it.

This evening in the House of Commons we will be asked to approve billions of dollars in public expenditures. Today is the last day in this supply period on which we would have been able to debate issues that affect the lives of Canadians who are unemployed and looking for work, Canadians who are waiting in medical line-ups and in waiting rooms in hospitals across the country. It was an opportunity to debate the real issues Canadians want to hear about most.

There are substantial issues that are life altering, yet here we are at the bequest of the Reform Party debating whether we can have a little flag on the corner of our desks in the Chamber. I suggest we have entered the theatre of the absurd, not the chamber of the House of Commons.

Mr. Speaker, as I look at you sitting in the chair, you are a symbol of Canadian patriotism. The flags that adorn the chair next to you equally symbolize that. There are flags outside the door of the Chamber, flags that fly from the Peace Tower. Many of the members in the Chamber are sporting lapel pins to express their patriotism.

I ask a rhetorical question. By putting another little flag on your desk are you somehow elevating your level of patriotism? Are you somehow improving yourself, your country and all the constituents you represent when you sit at this desk in the House of Commons? I would have to say no. The level of debate we are reaching today is again a new low brought about by the Reform Party.

There are lessons to be learned in all this. Let us look carefully at how the Reform Party members have behaved over the last number of days. In all candour I feel that our priorities have been derailed, soiled by the mendacity of the motion. Perhaps it is a good example of what drives the member for Calgary Southwest, the policies of division. Perhaps that is what is driving the Reform Party.

Members of the Reform Party have used the flag in the Chamber as a weapon to assault another member of the House. Members of the Reform Party have used it as a weapon in an attempt to intimidate the Speaker of the House. Members of the Reform Party stood in the Chamber and threw the flag on the floor of the House of Commons, which has been referred to a number of times.

I refer to a letter sent to the Speaker by a gentleman named Thomas Sigurdson from Surrey, British Columbia. He was here in the gallery the day the Reform Party erupted. I quote from his letter sent on March 14, 1998: “I must comment on the shameful behaviour of the official opposition the day that followed your ruling. I have never, ever witnessed this kind of tantrum that exploded from the benches of the Reform Party. From the public gallery I had the sad misfortune to watch some members yell not only verbal abuse at you but also hurl paper, books and flags off their desks in an act of infantile defiance”.

He goes on to say that this was the most shameful thing he had ever seen. Most shameful of all was the throwing of the small Canadian flag on to the floor of the House of Commons. His letter ends up with the final comment that flags that surround the dais indicate to all members and visitors of our nation that the identity as well as the national pride is here in the House of Commons signified by those flags.

This is not about pride. I borrow the words of my colleague, the hon. member for Chicoutimi. It is not about pride, it is about provocation, it is about intolerance, it is about partisanship. Pointing to the flag and grunting and making these comments is a way to avoid meaningful debate.

Members of the Reform Party have returned to the in your face style of politics that we have seen in this country. By surrounding or wrapping themselves in the flag they get themselves off the hook.

Up until this week there has never been a suggestion that we should have these flags on our desks. They are prepared to stop free speech by anyone who disagrees with them and then wrap themselves in the package of the flag.

If I were to search for words to somehow describe what is going on and to describe the conduct that we have seen in the Chamber, they would be found in Beauchesne's but I could not use them because they are all unparliamentary.

Canadians have seen that those new defenders of patriotism, those who threw the flag on the floor of the House of Commons, are the same patriots who ran advertisements during the federal election campaign that called a leader from Quebec a person not fit to be the prime minister. I share my leader's description of those ads and I also share his description of those who designed and perpetrated those ads.

This past weekend I was in the province of Nova Scotia in my constituency and I spoke with many people about this issue. When it came down to the final analysis as to what was going on I was asked why we are discussing this when there are so many important issues. With the expiration of the TAGS program, with the sorry state of national health care, the high unemployment and the many substantial issues that we do discuss in the House of Commons, why are we wasting our time discussing a tiny flag on the corner of our desks?

My hope is that Canadians will see this attempt by the Reform Party to divide the House for what it is. It is a shameful attempt to derail the national agenda. What people do not want is this debate to go on and on. What they want is trust and respect for members in the House of Commons, but it has to be earned. What they want is a sense of honour and respect for national institutions, which the House surely is. Let us work to bring some decorum back to the House.

The flag is above all to be treated with dignity and respect. It is not a desk decoration or to be hung as a drapery in a window as proof of one's patriotism. We will oppose this motion and we will do so not because we do not love the flag, for we do. The Progressive Conservative Party has been around this country since its inception. We have been around this country carrying the flag for all Canadians since that time.

A ruling was made from by Chair and that ruling has now been brought into question by the Reform motion. Again we are talking about decorum, we are talking about respect, we are talking about order in the House of Commons. It would be improper for anyone to stand up between the second and third period of a hockey game and sing the national anthem. It would be improper to break out into enthusiastic flag waving in the middle of a church sermon or in the middle of a child's recital at school.

I would suggest those are apt examples of what the Reform Party is trying to do here and it is doing so for all the wrong reasons.

I want to emphasize that this is not simply about a flag. It may be the simple common denominator that the Reform Party would have us believe, but this is about decorum, dignity and order. I would say that from the Reform perspective, this is about trying to get its way against the will of everyone else.

What I find most ironic of all is the Bloc, the big bad separatists, as perhaps one of the most respectful parties in this House when it comes to the dignity and decorum that we are supposed to surround ourselves in. There is a great irony in that when my colleagues to the left in the Reform Party engage in this infantile behaviour.

As much as I value the flag, as much as I hold it dear, democracy must hold a higher place. Indeed the flag stands for that principle among many others. When a member of the House, a member who has been democratically elected here, is shouted down and drowned out in the name of patriotism I say that is wrong. Democracy has to be given a higher priority.

As much as I take no great offence to a flag being on a desk, what I take offence to is the manner in which this has been presented and the manner in which this has been brought about by the Reform Party for, again, all the wrong reasons.

Let us put our shoulders to the wheel and do what Canadians expect us to do. Let us come to this House and discuss substantial issues. Let us get on with the nation's business. Let us put this matter to rest and do the right thing. Let us dismiss this motion and get down to the job that our constituents sent us here to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I know that it is your intention and always has been your intention to be very fair in questions and comments. I note, however, that this is Reform bash day and I was just wondering if you would give precedence to Reform people to ask questions of people who have been bashing the Reform Party and this motion.

[The Deputy Speaker]

The Chair is aware of the nature of the discussion. However, what your Speaker has tried to do is ensure a relatively fair distribution of questions. The New Democratic Party has not had an opportunity yet to ask a question or make a comment at the end of any member's speech and that is why I recognized the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in this instance. He has been rising consistently in an effort to get the floor. In respect of each of the government speakers, I gave precedence to the Reform members since they were members of the official opposition and since it was their motion.

I feel it is incumbent on the Chair to ensure that all parties get an opportunity to participate in questions and comments. The Bloc Quebecois has had one person rise on questions and comments to be recognized and this is the first time the NDP has had that opportunity.

[Lorne Nystrom, NDP, Qu'Appelle, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a comment and preface that with a short question for the House leader of the Conservative Party.

What I resent about this debate is the Reform Party playing politics with a very important national symbol of this country. I think that can be very dangerous in terms of the flag waving and the political games it is playing. Let us really call it what it is. It is the Reform Party wanting to go around the country after this is over and say “We stood up to those terrible separatists. We stood up for the flag and for Canada but those other parties did not”. That is exactly what it wants to do.

The Reform members are smirking here this morning because they are going to have the four other parties voting against this motion. This is the most pathetic partisan politics I have ever seen. It is an abuse of the flag and of our national symbols. I really resent that. I have never seen that happen in all my years in this House.

What about games? Who was it in this House who threw the flag on the floor of the House of Commons? Was it a separatist? No. It was the member for Medicine Hat, the Reform Party finance critic, who threw the flag on the floor of the House of Commons. If that is not playing politics with the flag then what the devil is it?

Who was it that took an old convertible and painted it the colours of the Canadian Flag? Was it a member of the Conservative Party, the NDP or the Liberal Party? Who was it? The Reform Party. It is the Reform Party that is using the flag as a gimmick, as a narrow partisan instrument for its narrow partisan political beliefs.

Reformers are trying to divide Canadians, be divisive, pit Canadian against Canadian. I resent that as someone who has been in this House for a number of years. I have never seen this kind of gamemanship in the history of the House of Commons. That comes from a political party that said it wanted to do politics differently, bring decorum to the House of Commons. We are seeing the true Reform Party in this House of Commons here today. When I am out in my riding, as I was last weekend, people are saying to me why do we not talk about the real issues, the real issues confronting all Canadian people.

This Parliament costs over $1 million a day in terms of sitting days to run. The budget of the House of Commons is over $200 million a year. We sit for approximately 140 or 150 days per year, over $1 million a day. The Reform Party is wasting that kind of money trying to divide Canadians by being partisan with the flag of Canada. I resent that and I want to have a comment from the House leader of the Conservative Party whether he agrees with me that it is narrow partisan politics on the flag and a waste of money. We should be dealing with real issues of this country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question and I welcome the remarks by my colleague in the NDP who has been in this Chamber a lot longer than I and has a very eloquent way of making his point. I agree very much so with what he has said.

The same comment was made this morning by my colleague from Fundy—Royal that this is indeed a strictly financial argument, removing all the rhetoric and removing all the emotion that has surrounded this debate. I do not know if it is $1 million or $500,000 but to think that we are spending that kind of money to discuss this issue certainly raises the hackles on the back of my neck. I am sure it offends Canadians greatly.

As for his comment about the disgraceful display of throwing the flag on the floor of the House of Commons and his comment with of whether it was the separatists who did it, let me raise this point. Maybe it was. Maybe there is something more insidious here that we are not quite aware of.

Reformers have brought a different agenda to this House of Commons, a different agenda from that which they held themselves out to be when they were elected in western Canada. I am hoping and praying that those who supported them in western Canada will look at the display and look at the way they have behaved and performed in the House of Commons when they make their decision the next time.

[The Deputy Speaker]

I might suggest to the House that if there is considerable interest in questions and comments at the conclusion of members' speeches, we could revert to that good practice of one minute comments and one minute responses, which I am happy to do if the House is agreeable for the rest of the day. That will try to ensure wider distribution of the questions and comments in the limited time we have.