Mr. Speaker, I think you would find consent in the House that the vote on second reading and referral to committee of the whole be applied as well to concurrence in report stage and third reading.

Interim SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to proceed in this way?

Interim SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

Some hon members

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Interim SupplyGovernment Orders

6:05 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

Interim SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Lucienne Robillard Liberal Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC

moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

Interim SupplyGovernment Orders

6:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

(Bill read the third time and passed)

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:10 p.m.

Liberal

Bob Speller Liberal Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant, ON

moved that Bill C-330, an act to amend the Criminal Code (desecration of the Canadian Flag), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, today I have the honour to present to the House my private member's bill, Bill C-330, desecration of the Canadian flag.Like many people in the country, when I see people desecrating the Canadian flag on television, I feel a profound sadness for those people and what they are doing to the memory of many Canadians who fought for that flag.

I put the bill forward to speak on behalf of many people in the Royal Canadian Legion, not only in my area but across the country who wrote members of parliament to ask them to bring forward this very important issue for debate in the House.

The proposed section 56.1 outlined in my bill would read:

(1) Every one who, without lawful excuse, wilfully burns, defaces, defiles, mutilates, tramples upon or otherwise desecrates the national flag of Canada is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction

(a) for a first offence, to a fine of $500; and

(b) for a second or subsequent offence, to a fine of a minimum of $500 and a maximum of $15,000.

(2) No person is guilty of an offence under subsection (1) if the person disposes of the national flag of Canada because the flag has become worn, soiled or damaged.

The purpose of the bill is to make it illegal for anyone to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag, which I believe is cherished by everybody in the country. Although I and many others believe that the act of desecrating the Canadian flag runs contrary to the values of this nation, warranting a criminal code provision, I believe most people think it is not serious enough to be punishable by jail time.

It is in this regard that my bill differs from other bills in the House that have come before in that they proposed as a penalty jail time for this offence.

I want to make it clear that there are many instances where the Canadian flag will need to be destroyed because it has become worn, or soiled or inadvertently damaged. In these instances it would be irresponsible for parliamentarians, with this bill, to place people who were properly disposing of their flags in violation of the criminal code. That is why in proposed subsection 56.1(2) of the bill I made it perfectly clear that no one is guilty of an offence when they are properly disposing of a flag for the purposes of the stated reasons in the bill.

I believe this issue is a very important one. It is not only important to me and my constituents, but it is important to members of the Royal Canadian Legion who from across the country wrote members of parliament and ask them to take action.

I want to read from a letter I received from the Royal Canadian Legion in my area. It states:

In support of The Royal Canadian Legion Dominion Executive Council, we wish to raise the issue of safeguarding our national flag.

Since 1994, Dominion Command has been presenting resolutions to the Federal Government urging legislation against willful and indiscriminate acts of desecration to the flag. They are not satisfied by the bureaucratic response, and are now asking for individual and Branch support.

It is our desire to make you aware that Royal Canadian Legion Branch...support 100% the position of our Dominion Command. This position is stated quite clearly. I quote: “We want the government to enact legislation which would make it a crime to willfully desecrate the flag. We do not want the punishment to be so onerous that offenders are put in prison, but we do want the offence to carry a suitable penalty such as...$500 - $15,000--

That is exactly what I have in this proposed legislation. The letter continues:

The Legion is sensitive to the right guaranteed in Section 2 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, to 'freedom of expression'. Our veterans offered the supreme sacrifice to protect this and other freedoms for all Canadians. We also believe the Charter was never meant to protect those who would violate the freedoms and rights of others. In this regard, we maintain that those who would trample, burn and desecrate the national flag of Canada have committed a criminal act in destroying property which belongs to all Canadians. It is our view that to desecrate the Canadian flag is to dishonour the memory and sacrifice of those who died protecting it.

...we ask your support of our views, and urge you to help implement the legislation required to ensure our flag will be honoured with the respect and dignity it deserves.

That came from members of the Port Rowan Legion in my constituency. Essentially they are saying to the House that they believe the flags they have fought under should be protected by laws. Also many have represented Canada around the world with that flag since 1965. I totally agree with the letter. I stand before the House to try to protect the institutions and what this flag symbolizes. I believe many other speakers will speak in favour of this also.

This raises an interesting point. While many people will argue that the public desecration of the flag is protected under section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, meaning that it is protected as a freedom of expression, it is not my intention to limit the freedoms that people have and that this great nation enjoys. However I will argue that the Canadian flag is not an acceptable means of expression. Desecrating the flag is not in any way against the expressions that are found in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

This flag is not a piece of cloth with a neat design on it. What it expresses are the ideals of our nation. It does not represent a particular government policy, or an institution or a party; it represents the nation itself. It supercedes any other actions taken by government in that it is a representation of what this nation stands for and has stood for since 1867. It is this country that the flag symbolizes. It is not the government. The desecration of the flag is not a political means of expression. What they are desecrating is what this country has stood for since Confederation.

The ideals of this nation are what over 100,000 Canadians unselfishly gave their lives to protect during World War I, World War II and the Korean War. For the people who were alive during these wars, their lives were profoundly touched. People of all ages and of all races and of all social classes did whatever they could to help protect the cause. Many of them served in various roles in the military where others helped out on the home front. It was a collective effort by the entire nation where many people were forced to give the ultimate sacrifice and indeed sacrifice their lives. They fought for freedom, for justice and for Canada. They also fought for freedom of other countries around this world. Even though it is not the present day flag that these people fought under during the war, these flags are symbolic and they are of one flag. I know members of the Royal Canadian Legion today see it that way.

They fought for the ideals of this nation. They fought for this parliament and they fought for what we as parliamentarians represent in this country. Because of the sacrifice of so many, to most of us war is something that we see on television or a journalist's recount of events. Where our closest emotional contact with war is usually of our knowing someone else who was there or from old diaries or letters and memorabilia, it is because of their sacrifice that we now sometimes take for granted the freedom that we have.

It is because of these people, members of the Royal Canadian Legion and other veterans organizations, that I stand here today with this bill. Not only is it for them though, we also have Canadians in Afghanistan.

Canadians around the world wear the Canadian flag on their shoulders. It is also for them that we stand in the House today to bring forward this legislation.

It is important that we take a look at how this flag came about. As we know, on July 1, 1867, Canada was proclaimed a nation. It was still a colony of Great Britain with strong colonial ties to that country. As a result Canada did not have its own national flag. It had Great Britain's Union Jack. However, Canada often used the Red Ensign as a flag. It was a flag that showed its individuality from Great Britain. It actually took the House many years of debate to come forward with an agreement from all sides on the Canadian flag that we have today.

Lester B. Pearson proclaimed during the election campaign of 1963 that Canada would have its own flag. It was a promise that Mr. Pearson did not forget. It was really in the spirit of non-partisanship that people from all sides of the House came together and voted in favour of a Canadian flag on December 15, 1964. The vote was 163 to 78 in favour of the flag.

The Senate approved the flag two days later and the Queen gave her approval on Christmas Eve. She signed the official proclamation on January 28, 1965. On February 15 of the same year the maple leaf flag became the official flag of Canada with an extensive flag raising ceremony not only on Parliament Hill but cross the country and indeed around the world at Canadian embassies, consulates and high commissions.

The intention of the Canadian flag was to honour all of the founding nations of this country which denoted allegiance and was devoid of its colonial independence. This is the flag that represents the diversity of this nation, its independence and freedom. This is not something that we should be taking for granted. It is something that we should cherish and which I believe Canadians do cherish.

For the few that would use it for their own political means to express to the House, to government and to Canadians that they somehow dislike what is going on in this country, I and many Canadians cannot take it.

We believe that sort of action should have consequences. That is why I bring forward legislation in the House to make sure that all Canadians understand that if they want to attack the memories of the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have stood by that flag and its previous flags in representing this country overseas there are consequences for their actions.

I understand that people's sense of patriotism cannot be legislated. It is not something that we can force upon people. It is something that people feel within themselves. It is an ideal of their nation. For the most part we do not need to remind people of how sacred our flag is. However, for those few who find that they should offend these values and the ideals of this country I believe that in fact there should be consequences and that they should suffer those consequences.

I wish to say that we have had support from all parties on this issue. I wish to send a message to Canadians that even though this piece of legislation will not come to a vote because of some of the political goings on in the House, we feel it is important enough for us to remind them of what it is they do when they desecrate the flag.

I thank all hon. members who have given me their support for this piece of legislation. I look forward to hearing from my colleagues in the House and their views on how we can assure Canadians that their flag, and the ideals behind their flag, will be protected and cherished for years to come.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:25 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Roy H. Bailey Canadian Alliance Souris—Moose Mountain, SK

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for not only presenting the bill to the House but for his fine delivery and the sentiments he carried in his speech.

The unfortunate part is that when members on both sides of the House bring a private member's bill or motion to the House, if it bears enough weight, as does the hon. member's motion, it is mockery in some sense that the people who sit on both sides of the House do not have an opportunity to stand and vote yes or no on a bill such as this.

That is the problem because the hon. member has just delivered as fine a speech as one would want to hear across Canada. We are assured, and I am as sure as I am standing here, that 90% plus would agree with the bill. Why then do people from both sides of the House not have the opportunity to stand and show Canadians how they feel about this issue?

I myself introduced the first reading of a bill similar to this on January 30. It is a private member's bill, an act requiring the national flag of Canada to be flown at half-mast every November 11. If it is a good enough bill to be drawn, it is a good enough bill to be votable.

What will happen to the hon. member's bill now? Yes, one member from each party will discuss it. Then where will it go? What will happen to it? This is a non-votable bill and it will die, but the sentiment of the bill should not go that way.

The Royal Canadian Legion, which I have supported for years and which represents the majority of veterans in Canada, wrote to the justice minister three times over the period of one year. It never received an answer. This issue that my hon. colleague has brought up is a fulfilment in part of what the Royal Canadian Legion has asked over and over again.

The government has said that to make this a law, to make it illegal to desecrate the flag, would run contrary to the charter of rights and freedoms. If our charter of rights and freedoms deny the right to enshrine within the country the protection of the symbol of our flag then maybe we should take a look at the charter of rights and freedoms.

When I was a young lad going to school the flag went up every morning and there was a statement we all made: Emblem of liberty, justice and truth, flag of our country we salute. That was said regularly every day. That does not happen anymore. I remember a poem:

It's only an old piece of bunting It's only an old coloured rag But there are thousands who died for its honour And fell in defence of our flag.

That is the message we should be getting out but it is a non-votable bill.

I will pose one question to help enforce what my colleague opposite has said. Does the government forget our veterans were the ones who fought to ensure we could have a charter of rights and freedoms in the first place? Everyone knows the answer. The answer is that we can pass all kinds of laws that put reasonable limits on our rights and freedoms. For example, the charter limits our ability to hurt one another, to damage other people's property and so on, but why is it that we cannot pass a law which would make it an illegal, criminal offence to desecrate that symbol of Canada?

There is something wrong on both sides of the House when a bill like this does not become a votable item. Some may not have the same feeling toward the flag, but surely everyone will agree that it is the emblem of Canada. Approximately 114,000 Canadians spilled their blood all over this world in honour of that flag, and yet it is not a votable bill. Members should think about that.

When we were leaving Taiwan I commented to one of the Taiwanese chaps who had been with us that I really appreciated their beautiful tiled fences. Wherever I visited in that country I never saw one word of graffiti on any of them. Another chap asked him about freedom of expression. That Taiwanese gentleman said that people could paint their houses and their fences, but could not paint another individual's house or fence or a fence belonging to the government.

Canadians become obsessed with freedom of expression. Recently at the summit here in Ottawa we watched as people not only desecrated the flag but trampled all over the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier. We sat idly by with our hands folded and said it was freedom of expression.

I will never forget one thing I learned from an old Welsh professor. He said that whenever we take anything to the extreme we are not sometimes wrong but always wrong. I suggest tonight that those who would not allow the bill to be votable are wrong. We are not sometimes wrong, but always wrong when these kind of bills come before the House and are not votable.

My private member's bill requests that the flag be flown at half-mast. Can we imagine that bill coming to the House for a vote? Can we imagine a member facing his or her constituents at home who would not dare to stand and support it? If my hon. colleague's bill had a free vote in the House, it would pass unanimously, but unfortunately it will go in the dust bin.

In closing I want to quote part of an old patriotic song:

At Queenston Heights and Lundy's Lane, Our brave fathers, side by side, For freedom, homes, and loved ones dear, Firmly stood, and nobly died; And those dear rights which they maintained, We swear to yield them never! Our watchword evermore shall be, The Maple Leaf forever!

I hope that some day we will be able to bring items like this to the House and they will indeed be votable items.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Christiane Gagnon Bloc Québec, QC

Mr. Speaker, the bill tabled by the hon. member for Haldimand—Norfolk—Brant arouses strong feelings.

This is a private member's bill that is not a votable item, but would make it an offence under the criminal code to wilfully desecrate the Canadian flag. This bill seems to be patterned on the 1989 U.S. legislation called the Flag Protection Act.

There is, however, a difference in terms of penalties. The bill now before the House is more moderate than the U.S. legislation, which provides, in addition to fines, jail sentences of up to one year. By contrast, Bill C-330 would fortunately only impose monetary penalties.

It is strange that, at a time when Canada is increasingly trying to preserve its cultural and economic sovereignty, the government is often lagging behind the Americans when it comes to developing new legislation, particularly in the penal field. However, today I would rather use my time making a brief historical comparison of the Canadian and Quebec flags.

As the Bloc Quebecois critic on Canadian heritage issues, I want to say first off that, like the flag of every province, the Canadian flag is an important symbol which deserves respect, as it represents the aspirations of a country.

We are particularly aware of that in Quebec, because we chose to have a national flag. Our emblem, the fleur de lys, has had a special place in our hearts for over 50 years now. We know that the fleurs de lys pointing towards the sky symbolize the strength of the Quebec traditions.

On January 21, 1948, Premier Maurice Duplessis had our distinctive flag raised for the first time over the central tower of the Quebec parliament. The premier thus fulfilled the wish of Quebecers, who longed to be officially represented by the fleur de lys since the beginning of the 20th century. That initiative had been proposed for years by an independent MNA, René Chaloult, seconded by André Laurendeau.

Today, I want to pay tribute to them for having fought that battle. Historian Robert Rumilly explained that the Liberals of the day wanted to wait until the federal government adopted a Canadian flag, because they feared that adopting a Quebec flag might adversely affect the adoption of a Canadian flag. Quebec would then have had to wait a long time. I am pleased that public pressure convinced the premier of the day, Maurice Duplessis, to change his mind.

Laurendeau, Chaloult and a few others have fought doggedly for a flag with a connection to our history, one that assembles us and resembles us, to be able to fly freely and celebrate our identity.

There is a long history behind the choice of the symbols on our flag. I would like to give hon. members a brief historical review. Way back in 1534, when Canada was discovered, Jacques Cartier raised the fleur de lis standard of the King of France, François I.

With the founding of Quebec City in 1608, Samuel de Champlain extended the limits of New France to a vast territory encompassing Acadie and the Great Lakes region.

The vessels involved in this colonization flew a blue flag with a white cross. From that time onward, until the Conquest in 1759, this French representation of the flag was to fly over almost half of North America, from the Rockies to the Gulf of Mexico.

In 1758, at the end of the French regime, a banner flew high above the Carillon encampment. It was sky blue, and bore the shield of France, with a silver fleur de lis in each corner. This banner, dubbed the Carillon, is recognized as the direct ancestor of the Quebec flag.

In 1759 came the defeat at the Plains of Abraham. From then on, the Union Jack was to replace the flags of the King of France, which the chevalier de Lévis ordered burned on Île Sainte-Hélène rather than let them be turned over to the enemy.

If Quebec has had its own flag since 1948, Canada continued to search for its own colours. On July 11, 1946, the House of Commons was to adopt a modification of the British Navy Red Ensign, with the Union Jack and the Royal Coat of Arms of Canada.

Since 1925, however, a Privy Council committee had undertaken a search for ideas for a national flag, to no avail. In 1946, a similar mandate was given to a royal commission and, despite a multitude of proposals, no resolution was brought before parliament.

To make a long story short, Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson made known his desire to adopt a national flag in 1964. And on February 15, 1965, the maple leaf was proclaimed Canada's flag by the Queen of Canada. The colours chosen, red and white, are the national colours which were assigned to Canada by King George V in 1921.

The reason for this speedy little history lesson is simply to remind the House how an emblem such as a flag is inextricably bound up in the patriotic fibre of a nation.

The House should also remember how, during the 1965 campaign to promote what is now the Canadian flag, Quebecers rallied to the idea in large numbers. For a reason which is relatively simple but solidly fixed in the head of every francophone, Quebecers or francophones living elsewhere in Canada, the Union Jack, which we were forced to fly as a national flag, was a bitter reminder, even after all these years, of the English victory on the Plains of Abraham, a victory which has marked our psyche and history.

Furthermore, on February 27, 1946, the Legislative Assembly of Quebec unanimously passed a motion calling on the federal parliamentary committee to choose a truly Canadian flag.

It was therefore the francophones of Canada, and particularly those of Quebec, who urged the Canadian parliament to fly a real flag: an odd reversal of history.

Even though Quebec has been trying to affirm itself as a nation and have its flag recognized as the symbol of Quebec since the late 1960s, it must be pointed out that, if the flag of Canada is to be respected, it would be best not to overuse it, not to fall into simplistic patriotism and to make it a cult object.

It would be best not to overdo this symbol, to stop the ostentatious displays which may well put the public off in the long run and which detract from its meaning.

Unfortunately, this is a trend that we see all too often among members of the current Liberal government, particularly at the Department of Canadian Heritage.

Members will recall that in September 1999, the department, either as a clumsy demonstration of patriotism or as propaganda, tried to require Canadian publishers to print the maple leaf in every book that was published. Luckily, the justifiable protests from publishers and commentators of all political stripes stopped the process. We know of her propensity to plaster the flag at cultural and sporting events abroad and at home. This often antagonizes those participating in these events.

So it pays to remember that Quebecers, while differing in their language, culture and institutions, also differ in their sense of belonging to a nation, which causes them to define their ties to Canada quite differently than other Canadians. The Canadian flag does not resonate the same way in Quebec as is does in Alberta, for example. These are not my words, but those of Alain Dubuc, from his editorial in La Presse dated September 22, 1999, who cannot be considered part of the sovereignist camp.

I understand what prompts some members, and the member who introduced this bill, to call for this type of legislation. However, there is no guarantee, and I am not convinced that criminalizing the desecration of the flag will bring people to respect the Canadian flag, or any of the provincial flags for that matter.

First, because of its important symbolism, the flag must be treated seriously, and not overused to the point of becoming a propaganda tool. I could also quote other journalists who have commented on this aspect, this overuse of the flag.

According to journalist Gilles Lesage, the flag is an object of pride and a symbol to be rallied around, not an object to entertain or reject.

He quotes the Minister of Canadian Heritage in her propensity—

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up. The hon. member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:45 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the Bloc Quebecois member. She has offered a unique and very important perspective.

She stated in conclusion the importance of not using flags for the purpose of provocation, which I think was a very good point to make. Yet throughout her remarks, the remarks of the mover of the motion and of others present it is quite clear that the sense of pride and symbolism attached to these inanimate objects, these flags, is quite apparent and very much behind the motivation of the mover in bringing forward the motion.

I commend the hon. member for Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant because he is motivated by patriotism and by the desire to safeguard these very important symbols. The flag in particular for a country such as ours is an incredibly important symbol. It is a rallying point. It is a point to which we can refer when we try to encapsulate the entire country.

Just this week the Prime Minister and members paid tribute to the paraolympian athletes. Whether it be in the fields of war or in the athletic exploits of our athletes, the flag allows us to collectively come together under that banner and feel a sense of collective pride.

There is certainly incredible merit in what the hon. member presented. There is merit in sending the very important message that many symbols, and in particular the flag, are not to be desecrated or not to be besmirched.

The history of this flag has been set out. It was presented first to Canadians in 1964 by the government of Lester B. Pearson. Ken Donovan, the assistant parliamentary director for supply for the Government of Canada of the day, had his daughter actually stitch together the very first flag.

I think that would be the making of a good CBC vignette, the vignettes we often see stirring up a sense of pride and historic belonging in the country. The history of the Canadian flag is a very interesting one.

The idea of having a criminal offence attached to the desecration of a flag in particular is one which certainly has merit. However I would direct hon. members to the fact that there are current criminal code provisions. In particular, section 430 of the criminal code speaks to mischief to property which would allow police forces, whether they be RCMP, constabulary or municipal, to lay an offence or a charge if an individual takes a flag and destroys it and it is the property of someone else.

This is the point where there is a bit of a stepping off for me. The fear I have is that there could be, and albeit a somewhat bizarre circumstance, an individual who purchases a flag and decides to destroy it in an inappropriate way. Theoretically by virtue of the bill there is the possibility that the individual could be charged with a criminal offence.

I appreciate the fact that the hon. member has crafted the bill in such a way that it deals with monetary fines rather than any form of imprisonment as a sentence that could be meted out. However there is also the serious attachment of a criminal record which in and of itself is very much a deterrent and a denunciation of a particular activity.

I know that his intent in having this criminalized is to send that message, to deter any individual or any like minded individual from destroying a flag.

I was reminded of another scenario that illustrates my point about making this a criminal offence by my colleague from British Columbia who suggested the scenario we saw played out during the Olympics. The Canadian Olympic women's hockey team was playing the American hockey team and rumours abounded that the women from the United States had placed the Canadian flag on the floor of their locker room, had stamped on it and had done various inappropriate things. Theoretically under the bill those members of team U.S.A. could have been charged with a criminal offence.

The extent to which this law could be exploited, I am afraid, in some ways undercuts the serious issue that the hon. member has highlighted here and brought forward.

There is much merit in preserving and protecting the sanctity of our symbols. The Canadian flag is the epitome of a symbol that we want to enhance, embrace and protect and yet, rather than having this criminalized, the debate could be furthered by perhaps having an opportunity to bring it to a committee to look at how we might bring about the effect that the hon. member seeks to have addressed.

This is not in any way to denigrate or to disparage the hon. member's bill. However, by criminalizing the activity there is some fear that the law itself might be trivialized in the way in which it might be interpreted.

If it is about sending a message and about reminding individuals, particularly youth, I am also concerned that the type of activity that is reprehensible and offensive to many is what we have seen very often played out on television during protests where Canadian flags, flags of other countries and flags of Quebec and other provinces might be burned or destroyed. I would far rather see an item, albeit a very important symbolic item, destroyed rather than acts of violence perpetrated.

I ask members to follow the logic here. If this allows individuals to express their disdain, or whatever it is that they are trying to send as a message, by destroying a flag, I would far rather have that occur than for it be played out in some violent act or in some destruction of a building or of an item that has more monetary value, I suppose, than the value of the flag.

I realize that is a dangerous road to go down. I know that the Quebec premier, Mr. Landry, made disparaging remarks about the red rag and the flag of Canada.

Again I want to be very clear in my remarks. I am not suggesting in any way that there is any merit at all in partaking in an activity that is meant to portray antagonism or to somehow enrage the passions of our adversaries by destroying their flag. However, it is a form of expression, albeit reprehensible to most I would suggest, but it has been a form of political expression for many years.

The American example is perhaps the one that is very often pointed to because the Americans cherish their flag as much as any in the world. Americans are perhaps the most fervent in their patriotism symbolized by the stars and stripes and yet they tolerate the desecration of their flag. That is not to say that they in any way like it or that they in any way encourage it, and yet it is there.

I would suggest that the way in which the criminal code is currently drafted there is protection for individual flags. There is protection for the flag of a person who chooses to display it in front of a building or in front of their cottage or their home. If another individual removes that flag, the individual is subject to theft provisions. However, if they do so for the sole purpose of destroying it, current criminal code sections would attach. Mischief to property, under section 430 of the criminal code, particularly, allows for summary offence charges to be laid by the police.

I do commend the hon. member for having brought the bill forward. If in fact there is a willingness on the part of members present to send the bill to committee I would not stand in the way of that. However I would suggest that the bill itself, in its current for, would perhaps not achieve the goals which the hon. member seeks to achieve.

I thank the hon. member for the opportunity to debate this. I think the bill, in and of itself, has achieved much of the merit and much of the goal that he sought to bring forward.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

6:55 p.m.

Liberal

John Cannis Liberal Scarborough Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have this opportunity to add my voice to the debate tonight because we are talking about a symbol and symbols that speak on behalf of not just the country but on behalf of us.

I want to compliment my colleague from Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant for bringing forth Bill C-330. It has given us the opportunity, as other members have and as he has, to express our views on a most important issue. This is not an issue that is just being discussed today. It has been discussed for many years.

The member for Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough gave us a couple of illustrations. He also referred to section 430 of the criminal code with respect to mischief to property, and rightfully so.

Let us be very frank. We have heard over the past several months, certainly post-September 11, how our world has changed and how things have changed. We have seen pre-September 11 and post-September 11 demonstrations and we have seen people react in different ways.

The G-20 meeting was held in Ottawa several months back. We have all grown up and we live in a wonderful country, a free and democratic society that gives us the opportunity to demonstrate and express our views. Many people called my office to tell me of the property damage, of window displays being broken during the G-20 meeting in Ottawa, and of the things that happened during the APEC meeting in British Columbia some years back. They wanted to know why people who wished to demonstrate needed to commit violent acts and destroy property just to express a certain view.

That goes to the heart of Bill C-330. What Bill C-330 states, in my opinion, is that people should demonstrate and they should express their views, but the flag, our symbol, does not deserve to be torn, desecrated, burned, trampled on or whatever. I believe that is what my colleague is saying.

There have been several initiatives. I am glad the member's bill is being debated. I know the Canadian Alliance has a similar bill. I have one as well. The committees which select what is votable and what is not, chose, in their wisdom, and I question that, not to make the bill votable because of section 430 of the criminal code.

We make laws to protect nature, and so we should. We make laws to protect endangered species, and so we should. We also make laws to protect ourselves as individuals. As time goes by these laws are amended, fine tuned and changed.

We are living in a different world. We all agree to that. We are now seeing initiatives like Bill C-330 which my good friend has brought before us. In his wisdom he is saying that things have changed and that we must make changes to the criminal code.

We need to send a message that we will not tolerate the desecration, the destruction, the burning, et cetera, of a symbol that cannot speak. We are the ones who hopefully can put some legislation in place to speak on its behalf.

I am pleased we are having this debate because it gives us a chance to express ourselves. However I am greatly disappointed because no firm initiative has been put forward to make amendments to the criminal code as the proposal is saying.

In flipping my paper, I cannot help but refer to a letter I received not too long ago from a former member of parliament, Alexandre Cyr, the member of parliament for Gaspé from 1963 to 1984. He wrote a letter to thank us for the initiatives he heard about and to encourage us.

I find it very puzzling that so many people are saying this and the 301 members of parliament elected by over 30 million people cannot come together. This is not a partisan issue. We either stand up and believe in what we say or we do not. I am disappointed that this effort by my colleague and others will only go as far as providing this opportunity. I am sad to say that it will not come to a successful end.

I do not buy the fact that there were provisions in section 430 that referred to mischief to property. That addresses a certain aspect of destroying and defacing property but does not specifically address the national symbols that represent Canada, such as the maple leaf or the various provincial flags that represent the provinces and territories. It is high time that we collectively found room in our hearts to make changes.

I speak on behalf of my colleagues from Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant, Scarborough Centre and I am sure others when I say that we will continue to lobby to make parliament understand that we have to send the signal out that this symbol does not deserve desecration and that we will speak on behalf of this symbol through whatever legislation or amendment.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7 p.m.

Northumberland Ontario

Liberal

Paul MacKlin LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the private member's bill introduced by my hon. colleague from Haldimand--Norfolk--Brant. The purpose of Bill C-330, an act to amend the criminal code concerning the desecration of the Canadian flag, is to make it a criminal offence to desecrate the national flag of Canada.

As my fellow parliamentarians would agree, the issue deeply touches all Canadians. Our Canadian flag symbolizes democracy, freedom, liberty and Canadian unity. The Canadian flag and all it represents must remain the pride of all Canadians as it always has.

To better understand the issue before us it is important to recall the beginning of our national flag, as others have this evening. The idea of a new flag was born as early as 1925 when a committee of the privy council researched possible designs for a new Canadian flag. Unfortunately the project was never completed.

The issue came up again in 1946 when an appointed parliamentary committee requested submissions for a new flag and received a noteworthy 2,600 submissions. Parliament did not formally vote on a design at the time.

It was during the fall of 1964 that the search for a national flag began which led to the present design. It came to be thanks to Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson who wanted a distinctive national flag to promote unity. John Matheson provided the conceptual framework. Dr. George Stanley provided the concept for the flag that is now seen across the country.

Although the significance of our national flag has occupied discussions on various occasions, the words that best describe our flag were spoken by the hon. Maurice Bourget, Speaker of the Senate in 1965, during the inauguration ceremony held on Parliament Hill before parliamentarians and thousands of Canadians. Unknowing of the issue that would one day rise before us, he rightly stated:

The flag is a symbol of the nation's unity, for it, beyond any doubt, represents all citizens of Canada without distinction of race, language, belief or opinion.

It is to the last item that I draw the House's attention. We are all troubled when a symbol of our great country is mistreated. Burning, defacing, defiling, mutilating, trampling or otherwise desecrating a nation's flag will arouse the anger of all Canadians. However the question that arises is whether the acts, offensive as they may be, are sufficient to justify creating an offence under our criminal law.

Canadians are proud to be a tolerant and respectable people. We value our diversity of culture, religion and belief. We have incorporated into our constitution and legal system the fundamental principles of this wonderful country. One of these, derived from the value of tolerance, is freedom of expression.

It is well understood in our country that the actions Bill C-330 would prohibit amount to little more than an expression of political opinion. As troubling as they may be to some and perhaps most Canadians they are not deemed a criminal offence. If the government were to prohibit such actions against our national flag what other symbol of our nation should be so protected? Would the maple leaf be next? Where would we draw the line?

Other jurisdictions have attempted to deal with issues of this nature. Countries such as Ireland, the United Kingdom and the United States have refrained from criminalizing the desecration of their flags. Attempts were made to do so but the legislation was deemed unconstitutional.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Canadian Alliance

Ken Epp Canadian Alliance Elk Island, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to hear what the parliamentary secretary has to say. Could we have unanimous consent to hear him to the end of his speech? That would be a great idea.

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)

Is there unanimous consent for the parliamentary secretary to complete his speech?

Criminal CodePrivate Members' Business

7:05 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.