Grant Hill

[The Senate, March 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, There is a place where members are appointed You'd think that they had been annoited As citizens toil, these members sleep They rake in the benefits while taxpayers weep

It does not have to be that way They should work hard to receive pay We could choose them by election Not by the Prime Minister's selection

Account to the people on promises kept Duties and responsibilities met Vacations more like normal folk Then that place would not be a joke

Is this a dream, could it be real? Ottawa in touch with what citizens feel? The only way that we will know Give the Senate election a go!

Let the people decide for in the end They don't want the Prime Minister's friends Then the senator's guiding path Will not be the public's wrath!

[Division No. 113, March 25th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I inadvertently voted for the motion and I have also voted against it. I want to clarify my position. I am profoundly opposed to this motion.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I did note very carefully the member's comments about respect for the Chair and that is something that I share. I wonder if she could reflect for me on the Chair's statement that the Chair could not unilaterally change the conventions of Parliament but that Parliament itself could. We have a convention which states that flags should not be used in the House. This convention came from a specific display years ago. However, the Speaker said that Parliament could change the conventions.

Would the member stand and explain to me how she finds this process today, which is attempting to do that, offensive?

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, although I was born in Montreal, I was not at that demonstration in Montreal. Having considered that question very carefully however it is interesting that when I made the representation to those who in fact guided me on this issue—and they were not members of my party—I was advised not to go. That may or may not have been good advice, but it was the advice I received.

On the issue of what should happen to an individual who deals with the flag inappropriately, I would turn that question back to the member himself.

The inappropriate restriction of the flag in this House as I said in my speech came about when the debate was on a brand new flag for Canada. It was being used inappropriately. I do not think that should take place in the Chamber any more than the hon. member does, but to be able to demonstrate a small flag, what would the hon. member's constituents say?

I listened to another member say that this could have been done another way. I will grant that there are different ways to bring an issue forward. I will grant that making a circus of an issue is not appropriate. But this is important. We are not talking about the process here. We are talking about a simple declaration, should the flag of Canada be allowed in the national House of Parliament. What would the member's constituents say about him having—

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the member makes a point very eloquently. Of course I would not. The opportunity though to be able to do that is something which I think members would both value and accept with the responsibility we have here. It would be completely voluntary. It would have nothing to do with force. It is patriotism by desire, rather than patriotism by design.

In answer to the member, the choice would be his. My choice would be to display a flag at times when I felt most patriotic. I guess I would go back to the question of what would his constituents say to him when he had the opportunity to simply display the flag here, yes or no?

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, several years ago, there was a vigorous debate in the House of Commons about a new flag for Canada.

What we are seeing here is the result of that debate. A few members displayed their favourite flag. The Speaker of the House then declared such demonstrations out of order.

After the new Canadian flag was approved by the Parliament of Canada, this tradition continued. The flag has a symbolic role for all countries of the world and for Canada. It is an expression of pride, of nationality and of authority. It is an important expression for many Canadians.

The Speaker said clearly that a unilateral change in the rules governing how this House operates. I accept this, but members themselves can reform those rules is unacceptable. That is the reason for today's debate. The motion before us clearly says:

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 flag.

For whom does this statement represent a problem? For journalists? Why? For the Liberals? Why? For the other parties in the House of Commons? Why?

This is a constructive debate for Canada. The vote is simple and clear: a vote for the flag of Canada here in the House of Commons, if a member wishes. A flag on each member's desk, if a member wishes. A stationary flag, if a member wishes.

I have consulted my constituents in Macleod, Alberta, on this issue; 89 of them gave a very clear yes to the flag in the House of Commons. I listened carefully to what other Canadians had to say. They said yes to the flag in the House of Commons. And for those who say this is not an important problem, I say that Canada's emblem is very important.

My father defended the flag during World War II. If the flag is not important in the House of Commons, then where is it important? This evening, we have an opportunity for a free vote on an important issue.

I ask each member: why not Canada's flag here in Canada's House of Commons? Why not?

[Health, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, here is what the Prime Minister had to say about medicare today. He said “I am not going to give any more money to the provinces because I don't like the way they spend the money. They will probably spend it on something that isn't for medicare. In fact, Ontario spent the money for tax cuts”. But at the same time Ontario cut taxes, it also gave more money to medicare. Since Ontario can walk and chew gum at the same time, why cannot our Prime Minister?

[Health, February 26th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, after four years of fairly significant cuts to medicare, how does the finance minister have the nerve, the audacity, the chutzpah to say that forgoing the reduction in funds is somehow new money for medicare? Will he admit here today that this new money for medicare is simply a slowdown in the cuts that he himself ordered?

[The Economy, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the government tried to weasel out of the GST promise by finding fine print. The real reason the government is going in this direction is that the Prime Minister wants to build a monument to himself. He actually physically wants to spend the surplus before he leaves office.

This is not a question from me, this is a question from Zachary, that little tiny guy in my riding. Why is it that the Liberals are trying to break their promise by finding fine print again?

[The Economy, February 20th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is pretty obvious that we would have a surplus in the budget this year if it were not for the free spending ways of some of the Liberals across the way.

Zachary, one of my constituents, paid attention to the promise in the red book that 50% of the surplus would go to debt and tax reduction. I am asking the question for Zachary. Why are the Liberals breaking another one of their red book promises?