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.
Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON
The Reform Party can laugh all they want but it does not intimidate me. I have been around a while.
Take any issue brought forward by a member of Parliament, put it to a committee for reasonable discussion and debate by all members who want to attend, because a committee is not restricted to membership so any member of Parliament can attend any committee of this place, include public debate, and only the Reform Party draws a parallel between that kind of important debate and burial.
Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON
The member for Calgary Southwest said that the government opposite does not stand up for Canada on the little things.
Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON
They are very selective in the circumstances that have led up to this particular debate. I remind my constituents in Hamilton West that it is the party opposite that decided not to go to Montreal and fight with the rest of Canadians when the country was in danger of separation. The country pulled together. Canadians came from my riding, from the riding of everyone on this side of the House, but not from the Reform Party members' ridings. They talk about the flag, the importance of the flag and the need for it on this table.
It is by the same party opposite for which the critic for finance took the flag out of its spot on his desk and threw it in the direction of the Speaker's chair. The member for Medicine Hat took this flag and threw it in the direction of the Speaker. He was asked afterward, “Why did you do such a thing?” He said “Oh, it's no big deal”.
It is questions and comments. I have made my comments. I am quite disgusted by the hon. member's motion today.
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I have three points. The member mentioned polls, he mentioned committee and then he rambled on.
On polls, we would just suggest that if the hon. member has this great faith in polls, he should put this issue to a poll. He can ask Canadians whether the Canadian members of Parliament should be entitled to have a small flag on their desks in the Canadian House of Commons. They can obtain the results of that poll and table them in this Chamber. That poll will show that the position of Reform on this issue is far closer to the thinking of the Canadian people than anything that is presently—
Preston Manning Reform Calgary Southwest, AB
The member raised our skepticism with respect to committees. The member will perhaps remember that it was this party that raised the simple business of singing “O Canada” in the Chamber. When we came here, it was not sung.
Of course, we were denied unanimous consent by the now government House leader. Eventually, it was sent to committee and it never came back. It came back later at our insistence. We brought it back on referendum day. It went to committee to be buried and not to be advanced.
My last point is why does the member avoid the main issue? The main issue is what could possibly be wrong with Canadian members of Parliament simply displaying a small Canadian flag on their desks? Has the hon. member consulted his own constituents on this issue? I find it inconceivable that they would deny that simple request.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
There is some confusion about the wording of the motion. Unfortunately, the wording of the motion that was handed in by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was incorrectly transcribed in the Order Paper for today, which is the document in effect that I read from when I put the motion to the House earlier.
I will re-read the motion, corrected to correspond with the way it was handed in yesterday, as it should have been. I apologize to the hon. Leader of the Opposition for this oversight.
The motion before the House then, is as follows:
That this House should recognize the Canadian flag as an acceptable symbol that may be displayed at any time on the desks of Members of Parliament in the House of Commons provided that only one flag be displayed on a member's desk at any given time, and that the said flag remain stationary for the purposes of decorum and be no larger than the standard recognized desk flag.
Resuming debate.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, you have just re-read the motion, therefore I will not do that. In essence, this motion today by the official opposition is a necessary motion and I will explain why.
First of all, I will explain why we need to debate it. I will argue that Canadians support this motion. I will argue that allowing members to put flags on their desks is a positive, beneficial change in this House of Commons. Then I will argue that it is the members of this House who must give direction to the House and to the Speaker, which we will do during today's debate.
I will also argue that this is, first of all, the very best way to put this issue to rest once and for all. I know other members think we should send it to committee, that that is the best way to look at it and so on.
We all know what happens in committee. Our victims' bill of rights was sent to committee two years ago. Where is it? No one knows. It is in committee. It reminds me of a little poem that talks about this a little bit. It says:
Oh give me your pity! I'm on a committee Which means that from morning 'till night, We attend and amend, and contend and defend, Without a conclusion in sight.
We confer and concur, We defer and demur, and reiterate all of our thoughts. We revise an agenda with frequent addenda, And consider a load of reports.
We compose and propose, We suppose and oppose, And the points of procedure are fun. But though various notions are brought up as motions, There is terribly little gets done.
We resolve and absolve, But we never dissolve Since it's out of the question for us, To bring our committee to an end like this ditty Which stops with a period—thus.
Committees are not the answer. I think if we asked most Canadians how complex is this issue that we are debating today, is it going to need indepth analysis from experts from around the world? Is it a royal commission that needs to be struck for this? Or is it, which it is, a simple straightforward motion that we have before us today.
The motion is, if we would like to, and I do not want to force anyone in the House, but if we would like to, should we have the right to display a small desk flag during our speeches, during an important occasion? Should we have that right? Yes or no?
There are not going to be any maybe votes tonight. There are not going to be any qualified votes such as “I sort of support it”. It is going to be yes or no. Tonight we will know whether Canadians through their representatives feel we should have that right. I think our position is clear.
We believe that a small flag tastefully displayed is a freedom of expression issue, it is a patriotism issue at times but most of all it is the rights of members of Parliament to express themselves in that way if they so choose. I think Canadians would be fully supportive of this motion. I think it is straightforward. There is nothing unusual about it. It is just a straightforward motion and I think we will see tonight that this is a positive change.
It has been said, to quote Winston Churchill: “To improve is to change. To be perfect is to change often”. Do we need changes from time to time in the House of Commons? Yesterday the Speaker said we have never done this before so we cannot do it. As has already been mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, when we came here the singing of the national anthem was considered almost preposterous, outrageous. Imagine singing the national anthem in the House of Commons. We now do that. Some people said, you will know Mr. Speaker because I think you were involved in this, that the prayer had been here for a long time, we could not change the prayer. The prayer was changed. Life went on.
When we came here we could not mention the word Senate in this place. We had to talk about the other place and everybody listening on TV said what is he talking about? It is the other place. Now we routinely talk about the Senate, the problems in the Senate, what we would like to change in the Senate, individual senators, whether they are good or bad, and so on. It is routinely done and it is a good change, a positive change.
We talked about asking questions regarding Orders of the Day. When we came here if something was being debated in the House we could not ask a question about it. The Speaker every day or often jump up and say “I think that relates to the Orders of the Day so I am going to rule that out of order”. Everybody said that is what we are talking about, let's ask a question about it. Eventually we got the government to agree that it would be okay to change so we could ask questions about Orders of the Day. Not a big deal, life went on.
When we came here, it was contentious if we had laptop computers on our desks. I do not know if it was a prop or what it was. It was to me confusing sometimes but it is just a laptop computer. If we want to have it on our desk then let us do it.
We not only changed that rule to allow laptops we now have laptops at the clerk's table. It is commonly done, it is a good idea, so let us deal with it and move on.
When we started in 1993 or 1992, certainly before we came here, there was but one flag beside the Speaker's chair and the Speaker came in and said, all on his own, “I want two flags”. He increased the flag population by 100% and he did it because he said he thinks we can change. I do not think it is a bad idea. It looks good on TV to have a flag on either side. It looks good, and I like it, it looks fine. No committee was struck, no debate was entered into. It was just done. The Speaker decided and it was done. Life goes on and I think the Speaker looks great when he stands there on TV with the flags on either side.
Ordinary members of Parliament are not accorded such luxury. When the camera comes around to them there is no sign of the Canadian flag. I have a small pin on my lapel. That is allowed but it cannot be seen on TV.
Over the last couple of weeks we have seen many small flags on the desks. They look just fine. I think they give an idea that we are watching the Canadian Parliament as opposed to the U.S. Congress or something else. They look fine and are tastefully displayed.
Our motion talks about decorum, the proper use of flags. That is what this debate is about, should we have the right to have a flag on our desk if we want. I have already gone through all the changes made over the past few years, most of them on Reform initiatives. They have gone ahead. This is another good initiative. I think if members limit themselves to the motion today, they will in all good faith vote yes tonight. The members must give direction to the House.
Yesterday the Speaker in his ruling said flags are not allowed. However he said if the House would like to give direction on this issue and change that, it could do so. The best way to put this to rest once and for all is to have a vote on it and give that direction to the Speaker. The Speaker asked for it yesterday. He said that if the rules are to be changed it will have to be done that way.
This motion is the way to end the debate on it. After today the decision will be made. The House will give direction to the Speaker. The Speaker as a servant of the House will be expected to follow that wisdom.
As members of this House, the Reform Party strongly believes that we should move ahead with this change. Change is good. As I mentioned earlier in my quote, to change often is even better. If we can have a positive change like this one, let us do it. Let us not send it off to committee to die the slow death of a thousand cuts. Let us just get it over and done with and do it today.
We think this is the way to end a protracted debate. It will be over before we know it. Tonight when the votes are called the decision will be in and it will be over. I only ask that all members think how they are going to respond to their constituents back home, how they are going to argue against it. Again they are not compelled to have a flag. It can be there if they would like to have a flag on their desks, and some members would like that privilege.
We think it is a positive, beneficial change which would allow that freedom of expression we cherish in this place and across the country. Someone said earlier such freedoms could exist in the chamber of commerce but not in the House of Commons.
To strengthen our proposal, I would like to move an amendment that would make it just a little stronger. I move:
That the motion be amended by deleting the word “should”.
That way the House can speak unequivocally on this issue and tonight it will give that unequivocal direction to the Speaker. We look forward to that later.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
The Chair takes the view that the amendment proposed by the hon. member affects the English version only and on that assumption I will put the motion to the House. The debate will be on the amendment.
Lee Morrison Reform Cypress Hills—Grasslands, SK
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member from Hamilton has already spoken. You will recall that the two members were dividing their time. The hon. member has already addressed the question.
SupplyGovernment Orders
The Deputy Speaker
For questions and comments there is a new slate for every speaker. The hon. chief opposition whip has made another speech. While it may be splitting time, obviously if the parliamentary secretary rises, I am going to recognize him. The parliamentary secretary has the floor.
Stan Keyes LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport
Mr. Speaker, this motion is so full of holes that I will probably comment on every speech if you will recognize me.
The whip of the opposition party is suggesting that we on this side of the House have not consulted with our constituents on this matter. In my hometown of Hamilton, radio station CHML's Talk Line with Roy Green had an open line show for two or three days on this issue. He asked three questions: Do you want them to have a flag on their desks? Should they sing O Canada in the House of Commons? If they do not, should they be thrown out of the House of Commons? After a couple of days and about 36 calls he said the response was unanimous for all three.
He asked me if I had received any calls. My constituency office in Hamilton received 62 calls before the radio show ended. My constituents told me to just get on with the job I was elected to do. That job is to put legislation through the House. It is not to get in line behind this opposition party which needs to bring forward these arguments about the flag because its members are not being heard much by the press. They are the opposition. Their kissing cousins in the Tory party are getting all the press because its leader is thinking of becoming a Liberal. They need all this attention. That is why they have to create all this malarkey.
Stan Keyes Liberal Hamilton West, ON
Yes, I say to the hon. member opposite.
We did consult with my constituents. After that radio show we received another 40 or 50 calls in the constituency office within about an hour and a half. Again 70% told me to get on with the job which I was elected to do in the House and not to carry on with the nonsense in the motion which the Reform Party has put before the House today.
I am forced to speak to it because that is the only business we can do today. The only business we are allowed to do in the House today is the ridiculous motion which has been put forward by the official opposition.
There is one last thing I want to address with the whip. I heard him on television this morning and I heard him in the House of Commons today. He talked about freedom of expression and its importance. Freedom of expression is a necessity for the democracy of this country and the House of Commons.
Would the hon. member opposite not admit that freedom of expression has borders? It has to have borders. Freedom of speech and freedom of expression mean that we can do such things as stand up in a crowded movie theatre and yell fire but that is against the law. Freedom of expression means that we have to do it in a responsible fashion.
The hon. member opposite must understand that when we are talking about flags, and when we are talking about a decision made by the Speaker yesterday in the House, there are borders. Order has to be maintained and not the disorder which brought about this motion.
Chuck Strahl Reform Fraser Valley, BC
Mr. Speaker, I am glad that the parliamentary secretary has taken such a calm, rational approach to this debate.
He may be the main man for the Liberals today, I do not know. He may have been asked to pose these insightful questions, I do not know. But I hope he will not continue down this road of equating a small standard desk flag attached to the desk for decorum and tastefully displayed with crying fire in a crowded theatre. It is such a ridiculous thing to say. I cannot believe he is trying to bring that kind of an argument into this debate.
He went on to suggest that the radio program asked whether we should have to display the flag; whether we should have to sing O Canada or get kicked out of the House of Commons. What kind of nonsense is this? No one is suggesting that. No one suggests that we have to have a flag on your desk. No one suggests that we have to sing O Canada . Every Wednesday those who like to sing it do so.
This motion is not going to force someone to do anything. It permits a freedom. It is that balance between decorum which is why it is tastefully displayed on the desk and the freedom of expression. That balance is what this motion talks to and it handles that balance very well.
Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to participate in this debate today.
Yesterday we had the Speaker's ruling. Today we have an opposition motion which among other things serves, in a way which is not totally wholesome, as a mechanism to appeal the Speaker's ruling. This is something that has been disallowed for the last 30 years in this Parliament.
Our flag is an important national symbol. As I pronounce these words there are two flags beside Mr. Speaker. There are two flags outside the door of the House of Commons. Every MP can have one beside his or her desk; I do in my office just a few feet away from the door. I usually wear one as a lapel pin. There is one on a flagpole in my yard at home. As well I have one in my office in my residence.
The question before us today is not whether or not Canadian members of Parliament are in favour of the Canadian flag. I do not believe any of us on this side of the House need lectures from the official opposition on the Canadian flag and its value. It was a Liberal government that gave us the maple leaf flag in 1965. It was just three years ago that we introduced flag day, our national celebration of the maple leaf.
It was this government that encouraged Canadians to show their patriotism by distributing a million flags from coast to coast to coast. Which party objected to that? Which party told us not to fly the Canadian flag from coast to coast to coast the way the Minister of Canadian Heritage asked us to do? It was the Reform Party.
In 1995 on that day in October many of us went to Montreal when our country was calling. Our country was asking us to show our patriotism, real patriotism, not the kind of phoney stuff I have been hearing over recent days. All federalist MPs except one group went to Montreal. Two thousand of my constituents went with me to Montreal. Canadians from all over the country went to Montreal. We all stood there beside that great big flag of the Jaycees of Windsor to support the Canadian flag and Canadian unity. Who was missing? The Reform Party. The Reform Party boycotted Canada when Canada came calling. That is the reality. Everyone in this House knows it.
Of course the separatists have a different point of view. They want to separate from Canada. I disagree with their point of view but at the very least they did not do as those people across the way and pretend that they were in favour of Canada today while making gestures that were the opposite only yesterday.
We are talking about respect for the rules and respect for the House. What have we seen over recent days? Challenges of this great institution, challenges of the Chair, challenges of everything we stand for. Taking a Canadian flag, wrapping it around oneself and driving around Parliament Hill in an old jalopy in the name of patriotism is the kind of thing we have seen from hon. members opposite. Is that patriotism? No. That is making a mockery of our institution. We all know that is what it is. We know what it stands for.
We are talking about respect for the rules. We had grown up people, so-called adults, wearing Mexican hats and dancing in front of the Chamber of this parliament. In 1993 the then leader of the third party, today the Leader of the Opposition, snubbed the governor general on the opening of parliament. That is what we had in the name of respect, in the name of democracy and in the name of our rules? No, that is not patriotism.
I have often quoted in this House and elsewhere the words of a great Canadian, a person who did not have the word “reform” as part of his title but as part of his ideology, and this great Canadian was none other than Mr. Diefenbaker. He once told us there is no greater honour for a Canadian than that of serving the people of his or her country in the highest court of the land, the Parliament of Canada.
This is the honour that rests on our shoulders. We must show respect for this institution by respecting its rules. We must not let parliamentarians throw flags at other members, as has been done in this House.
A few days ago, I saw with my own eyes a member of this House take a flag off his desk, which, in itself, is against the rules, and throw it in the direction of the Chair.
Was this done out of respect for the flag, for democracy and for Parliament? No, that is not patriotism either.
Hon. members across the way say today that they are sincere in their motion. They produced a motion yesterday, added a word by hand to it and then produced an amendment today to remove the word they had pencilled in by hand to stop the House from amending the motion, if the House so wished.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
It is a game. It is a cheap political trick from members opposite. Canadians will know that is all it is.
The Leader of the Opposition, with a straight face, told us a few minutes ago that the matter could not be referred to committee because nothing would ever come of it, so he said. His seatmate brought a motion to a committee concerning the singing of the national anthem and it is thanks to that motion we are actually doing it.
How could the Leader of the Opposition have so little confidence in his own colleagues sitting on that committee, including the member who got a motion through committee in the last parliament concerning the singing of the national anthem? Or, was it that deep down the Leader of the Opposition knew the truth was a little different? I say this respectfully.
Deborah Grey Reform Edmonton North, AB
Get this in Hansard . I had to ask to get him to come as a witness.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
In the few minutes I have left, let me say that I believe all Canadians should know that on February 15, 1995 we had the official ceremony on Parliament Hill to honour the Canadian flag. It was the first Flag Day. Members from all parties came. The leaders of the federalist parties were there. One leader of a federalist political party was not there.
Don Boudria Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The present Leader of the Opposition did not even care enough to show up to honour the Canadian flag in front of the building. This is duplicity at its best. This is not sincerity but the opposite.
The Leader of the Opposite quoted Sir Winston Churchill a little earlier today. He talked about how Sir Winston Churchill wanted change. To this day in the British House of Commons there is no flag.
I remind hon. members across the way that if Sir Winston Churchill were here today he would look upon the Leader of the Opposition and say to himself what he once said in the British House, that the opposite to the truth had never been stated with greater accuracy. He would no doubt want to say that about the speech of the Leader of the Opposition earlier today.
We cannot support the motion. It is wrong and it will always be wrong. We must uphold the Speaker's ruling. We must continue to express our confidence in the occupant of the chair. We will do so because it is the right thing to do, notwithstanding the cheap tricks across the way.
Jay Hill Reform Prince George—Peace River, BC
Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my brief comments I would like to ask a question of the people of Canada who are watching this debate today. The governing party, the Liberal Party of Canada, would like this issue to go away because it feels it is frivolous and unnecessary. I ask the people who are watching to be the judge and decide who is calmly putting forward the motion, who is trying to speak to it in a calm and collective manner, and who is putting forward some ridiculous arguments.
The hon. member remarked that even the British parliament did not allow members of Parliament in the mother of parliaments to have small flags on their desks. That is the best excuse he can come up with. I remind the hon. member, in case he has missed the point, that to my knowledge the British parliament is not in an ongoing crisis mode about national unity, which we seem to be in this Chamber. People are getting sick of it.
The member said that this was a procedural game. The father of all procedural games is condemning the official opposition for what he views as a procedural game. He then has the audacity to call this a cheap political trick. Is it a cheap political trick to want to display, at our own discretion, a small Canadian flag to show our patriotism when our country is in its hour of need? Is that a cheap political trick to the hon. member across the way?
The hon. member who spoke earlier talked about a radio station in Hamilton. He said there were 36 calls, 50 calls, 60 calls. Surely the hon. House leader of the government knows how many faxes, phone calls, letters and e-mails came in to the government, the ministers, members of Parliament or the Speaker's office over the last couple of weeks. I would ask him to reveal today just how much feedback is necessary from the Canadian people before we decide to change things.
The member says that we have to uphold the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker invited us yesterday to bring forward change if we desired reform. If not us then who when it comes to making changes in here? If not now then when?
