Val Meredith

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of any place where the Canadian flag is prohibited from being displayed. Any infringement on a person's right to put a Canadian flag up in a public place would be an infringement. It certainly would be in the House of Commons. This is the seat of government for the country called Canada. If we cannot put a small flag on our desks, I think it is an infringement on my right.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

No. They asked me what I thought and I said I have no objection to provincial flags being brought into the House. But the motion is very clear that we are talking about the Canadian flag.

As a member of Parliament, when I want the right to express myself by putting a Canadian flag on my desk, it is wrong but if somebody wants to wear a button or make comments on the expression of their position, that is okay.

I suggest I have as much right as anybody else to express my emotions or whatnot in whatever way I feel is applicable. Maybe a small Canadian flag is the way I wish to express myself, and I am being denied that.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have proven my point. We do not need any flags to disrupt a person's right to speak. We are all capable of disrupting a person's right to speak and of denying them the opportunity. We do not need flags.

Whether the Liberals want to listen to the answers to their questions, the point of this motion is clear that it is Canadian flags.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to bringing provincial flags into the House but the motion is—

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it is really a pleasure to be speaking in the House on this particular motion. This is not what I thought I would be debating. I was preparing for a debate on the budget.

The ruling of the Speaker yesterday put it very clearly that he was not in a position to decide, and that Parliament, this House of Commons, had to make the decision itself. I think it is very appropriate that this motion be on the floor today so that this House of Commons deals with the issue and we put the issue to bed.

This debate about flags in the House of Commons did not start three weeks ago. Half of all Canadians are too young to remember the first great flag debate 34 years ago when the red maple leaf replaced the red ensign. It was one of the most emotional debates both inside this House of Commons and outside by all Canadians.

As a teenager I recall the debate taking place around the dining room table. I can remember vividly the emotions in that debate. My father, like many men of his generation, had a particular attachment to the red ensign. As a naval officer and a medical doctor serving in the North Atlantic during the second world war, my father saw too many men die fighting for Canada and for the red ensign. He was very emotional about the defence of the red ensign.

Many others objected to the adoption of the maple leaf as our flag because the broad leaf maple is native only to the eastern part of the country and not to the western part. Still others thought it was a Liberal plot. In spite of these objections, today most Canadians have a very emotional attachment to the flag. Most Canadians felt a very deep sense of pride when they saw the maple leaf rise up the flagpole at the Olympics.

It was at the recent winter Olympics that the member for Rimouski—Mitis announced to the Canadian public that there were too many Canadian flags on display at the athletes village. In response to this pronouncement when the hon. member returned to this House, members on both sides of the House demonstrated their objections to those comments. I was one of them. I was one of the many members on both sides who were out of order in that demonstration.

The member for Rimouski—Mitis was never denied her opportunity to speak. She was just delayed. Many of us have been delayed in posing questions in this House because other members were out of order and causing distractions.

The flag waving and singing of the national anthem should have been the end of it. However, because of the overreaction of certain members in this House and the joy of continuing this debate in the media, we have found ourselves in the middle of the second great flag debate. What should have been a one day story is now reaching its third week. Efforts to reach a compromise by the various House leaders were unsuccessful because people and parties refused to budge in their positions.

Yesterday the Speaker ruled that he did not have the power to change the rules of the House. Therefore today we are having this debate to see if members of Parliament are willing to change the rules to allow a small Canadian flag to sit on a member's desk in an unobtrusive manner. But make no mistake about it. The debate will not end here with this vote because we still have the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs examining another aspect of this story.

Why are we having all these debates at all? When people have asked me why we have reached this position, the only answer I can give is that this entire debate is due to an excess of testosterone in this House. People have become so intransigent in their positions that reason and logic have left the debate and it is now based on pure emotion.

This brings us to today's motion. I do not believe that anyone who does not have a Canadian flag on their desk is any less a Canadian than someone who does. I spent my first four years in this House without a Canadian flag on my desk and I feel no less a Canadian for it.

The question in today's motion is should the Canadian flag be allowed to sit on a member's desk in the Chamber. The only argument I have heard against having desk flags is that they can be used as props to cause a disruption in this House. We do not need flags to cause a disruption in this House. We are a clever group of people and to get our point across we find many other means of causing distractions and disruptions in this House.

I wonder what would have happened if some members started to disrupt the proceedings by banging their shoes on their desks like Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev did at the United Nations in the early 1960s. Would we then have motions to outlaw shoes from this Chamber? Of course we would not because everyone would realize that it was not the shoe that was the problem but the way it was being used.

It is the same point with the flag. Today's motion makes it clear that the flag is to remain stationary and is not to be used as a distraction to the debate. How can this be objectionable?

If a member decides to use the flag to create a disturbance, he or she would be clearly out of order and subject to the authority of the Speaker. If a member cannot bring a small Canadian flag into this Chamber, then where can we bring a flag?

As I conclude my comments on this subject, I would like to make the following observation. The federalists have no reason to apologize to the separatists in this House. We must counter their separatist arguments with intelligence, logic and positive use of emotion and patriotism. The separatists would like nothing more than to provoke another incident like the desecration of the Quebec flag in Brockville in the early 1990s.

We must be diligent to keep the debate focused. It would be refreshing if all parties and all members would take the high road and get on with the serious debate that Canadians expect us to carry on in this House of Commons.

[The Senate, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister committed his government to a triple E Senate. Talk is cheap. The Prime Minister's commitment seems pretty hollow when he has appointed almost one-third of the current Senate seats. When will he initiate an elected, equal and effective Senate? Or maybe I should ask the person sitting in the Prime Minister's chair when he will initiate an equal, elected and effective Senate.

[Senate Of Canada, March 12th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister keeps accusing Reform of not supporting the Charlottetown accord and Senate election. He seems to have forgotten that the Charlottetown accord gave provincial politicians the right to appoint senators. This is not what Canadians want.

Will the Prime Minister commit today at least to sitting down and reading the Charlottetown accord which the majority of Canadians rejected?

[Supply, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like you to check for quorum because I do not see any Liberals in the House and I am not sure there is a quorum.

[International Women's Day, March 9th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday was International Women's Day, an occasion to recognize the many women who have had an impact in Canada and abroad.

Women like Mary Ann Schadd, the first black newspaper women in North America and Charlotte Ross, one of the first female doctors in Canada, achieved success and recognition because of their abilities, their perseverance and their determination. These women were pioneers at a time when women were not even recognized as persons in the British North America Act. Even today many women around the world are denied their rights as individuals and this must be a concern to all.

Today I am pleased to recognize all women who have made valuable contributions to society as mothers, doctors, scientists, businesswomen and politicians.

[Canada Labour Code, February 24th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Bill C-19, the Canada Labour Code part I amendments.

My colleagues have pointed out to the House some of the concerns we have as a party about the direction in which the bill is going. I echo those concerns.

I cannot understand how a government with clear conscience could take away individual rights as guaranteed under the charter. We have heard from my hon. colleague from West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast his concern about the sharing of names, addresses and phone numbers without the permission of individuals. I do not know if people can understand and appreciate how serious a violation that is of the Privacy Act.

We have had many conversations with the privacy commissioner on how difficult it is to protect the rights of individuals. When we see a government deliberately bringing in legislation that challenges one of its laws, in this case the Privacy Act, we have to wonder in what direction it is going.

Canadians should have the opportunity to understand that the government is washing over issues. It is changing the name of the Canada Labour Relations Board. It is becoming the Canada Industrial Relations Board. It is changing the term of the chair and the vice-chairs from 10 years to 5 years.

We have seen what happens when the government appoints people to such positions for one year or ten years and then tries to remove them because they are not doing the job properly or they are not being accountable.

This board will not be accountable to anybody. Somebody will be replacing Ted Weatherill. I do not know whether members have already forgotten about this individual who thought absolutely nothing of spending $700 for a dinner for two in Paris. That is the kind of judgment that will be leading this board. I understand he will be replaced by somebody who is more frugal, who understands that it is not his money but the taxpayer's money. Hopefully he will show greater leadership.

When a government appoints six permanent members and as many part time members as cabinet feels is necessary, it frightens me and it frightens Canadians. We have seen organizations like the parole board and the refugee review board that have expanded on patronage appointments. These boards are quasi-judicial and are not accountable to anybody. We cannot remove the appointed people unless there is criminal activity or something as great as that. They cannot be removed because they are incapable or incompetent to do the job.

It is up to cabinet to determine how many of these people are necessary. This removes from the House of Commons any ability to hold people on these boards accountable to Canadian taxpayers who are paying their salaries. In many cases we are talking about substantial salaries. We are not talking about a $7 per hour minimum wage.

It concerns me how the government continues a practice I have seen over the last four or five years of removing responsibility from the elected body, the House of Commons, and placing it in the hands of the executive body of government. By placing control and policy making in the executive branch of government, it is removing governance from the people of Canada. It is a very dangerous practice which the government continues to carry on.

If Canadians knew the degree to which this was occurring they would be very concerned to see that the governance of the country is being removed from elected individuals in the House of Commons who are accountable to the people, to a group of people who sit on the front bench and are not accountable to anybody.

That is another concern I have with this legislation, along with many others we have seen passed by the Liberal government. It goes in the wrong direction.

Another issue that causes me great concern is that the Canada Industrial Relations Board can certify a union without the support of the majority of employees. It flies in the face of democracy when a board, which is out of reach of anybody, can arbitrarily go into a business and declare there will be a union even though the majority of the employees do not want it. That is arrogance at the very worst.

I do not think Canadians appreciate that direction from the government. It is unconscionable to believe that the democratic principle of the majority of people making decisions that affect their livelihood is not being respected.

The government is throwing the weight of the executive branch over the elected branch, the elected House of Commons. The government is not respecting the privacy rights of every Canadian. The government does not support the democratic principle of the majority making decisions. What else will we see from the government? Those are the basics of a democracy. The government does not show an appreciation for that. Nor does it have any respect for that democratic process and principle.

What do we have in this piece of legislation? We have a situation where an individual can belong to a company. Maybe 30% of the employees decide they want to unionize for whatever reasons, perhaps because they have been pressured by individuals who know their addresses and phone numbers. The next thing we find is that the company has closed and moved out of town like we saw in Montreal not long ago. That takes jobs out of this country.

Maybe I got the message wrong, but I thought the government was concerned about jobs for Canadians. When a government starts bringing in legislation that drives the business community out of the country, the people who provide the jobs for young and old Canadians, what is the point?

If the government continually brings in legislation that forces the business community, either through legislative policies that interfere with the ability to operate a business in a profitable manner or through overtaxation, God knows how many business people such as the one I have spoken to over the years prior to the election, will actually leave Canada and go to the United States of America or even to South America.

If the government is intent on creating jobs and creating an environment to encourage business, to encourage investment and to encourage the creation of jobs, it is certainly going in the wrong direction. The government had better take another look at the legislation. It had better make some amendments to it or maybe even scrap it. I suggest it should do it tomorrow rather than leave it any longer.