Peter Goldring

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member opposite is forgetting what I just said in my speech. I will repeat it.

The simple fact is that this sad affair was started by the Liberals bringing flags into this House. They were exasperated by the Bloc and wanted them removed. Now the Reform Party is affecting closure on it by bringing forth this motion.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member is missing the whole point of this issue. The point of this issue is that we are in the television era. We are in an era where I can speak here and I can speak directly to the constituents in Edmonton East.

As I view the TV camera and if I am speaking in my critic area of veterans' affairs or some other important issues, there is nothing visible here to say where I am from. If I wish to have a Canadian flag on my desk which would help indicate my loyalty to the flag and to the country when I speak on veterans' affairs issues, I think it is important.

I specifically wish to have this flag on my desk.

[Supply, March 17th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to contribute to this most important and emotional debate. I take pride in being a Canadian in a country where any so-called commoner can aspire to a legislative role. Two short years ago I held my breath with millions of others as Canada barely survived Quebec's referendum vote.

Today I take part in a debate about our flag, the symbol of our land. As with all that occurs in this honourable House, our contributions are made both with a view to the current benefit of Canadians and as a testament to our time and our history.

Be it 10, 20 or 50 years from now, students and scholars of Canadian history will read our words and interpret what has gone on here. We should always be mindful that every time we speak as members of this honourable House we contribute to the history of our nation.

I trust that the words of myself and my colleagues will be viewed in this light. I trust that my colleagues' expression of support will serve as a catalyst to do more to help break the bonds of apathetic Canadianism, to usher in a new found spirit of love for our country and its symbol, our flag.

Permission to display a small, aesthetically appropriate desk flag as we speak to the world and as we speak to history is all that is being requested. For those who wish, as I do, to have the choice to be identified with a flag in this way as we debate, why not?

For those who know why I strove to arrive in this House, they understand. For those who fought, spilled blood, lost friends on foreign lands for our great country in three wars, they understand. For millions who held their breath two years ago when the no side came through, they understand. For the 150,000 people who gathered in Montreal two days before the referendum, they too, understand. For the 2,000 people from all parts of Canada who gathered in Quebec City one year later, they also understand.

I wish Hansard to show how I see this debate. I want history to record my sentiments toward our flag and how our flag has been viewed in this debate, and the events leading up to it.

I speak to my hon. colleagues and to history as follows. How a nation views itself is a measure of its pride and self esteem. How a nation is viewed by the world is a reflection of its collective deeds. How a nation projects this image is through its national symbols.

Our nation is known throughout the world for its deeds in war and peace. Canada's symbol is its flag which floats over this very House. Our flag is the embodiment of our nation's heart and soul. Our flag is inseparable from our national will. This House must carefully ponder why my voice should be put to rest when the flag stands by my desk.

We wish to reflect our support. We choose to have a small flag on our desk for the country we represent, to identify our role.

I was privileged to have been elected to this House by the constituents of Edmonton East. I am privileged every day I am permitted to sit in this honourable House at this desk, a desk that shall never belong to me or any politician of the day but instead remains the property of my constituents.

It is with this sense of privilege that I express myself today. I am one of the parliamentarians who declined to remove the Canadian flag from his desk when requested to do so by the Deputy Speaker. In doing so, my privileges as a member were adversely affected. I was not recognized for the purpose of speaking.

Out of respect for the office of the Speaker and out of respect for the need of orderly regulation in this House, I did not protest further. I was saddened but I did not protest.

The Speaker now has ruled. It is out of respect for the office of the Speaker that I have removed my Canadian flag today. I am pleased to be able to participate in the debate to support a motion to allow my flag to return to my desk.

I wish to speak about respect for our Canadian flag and respect for our Canadian institutions, of this institution, this honourable House and the Supreme Court of Canada or any other through which our democracy is preserved and enhanced.

To my great sadness, I notice that the display of the Canadian flag has been regarded by the separatists in the House as a form of provocation. I notice, too, that the request to remove the flags from our desks came from a separatist. Provocation is a word used many time in the House, both today and last week, provocation by the Liberals and provocation by Reform. The simple fact is that this sad affair was started by the Liberals bringing flags into the House, exasperated by Bloc members wanting them to be removed.

Now closure has been effected by the Reform motion.

I have received many e-mails on this issue in the past three weeks. Almost every one of them has been supportive. Over and over again Canadians asked: How can it be provocation to fly the flag of our nation? Many of these grassroots Canadians suggested that if a member has a problem with the sight of the Canadian flag, perhaps he or she should look in the mirror for the source of the problem.

As I have indicated in my motion which is on the Notice Paper, the flag should not be considered to be offensive and should always be welcome in the House. I agree that it should not be used to suppress the rights of a fellow member, but the mere sight of the flag does not do that. It is a symbol of our commitment to our country.

For most of the history of this House there was not a Canadian flag present, until the efforts in 1973 of Alexandre Cyr, then the hon. member for Gaspé. Today that riding is represented by the Bloc. Representing his constituents, Mr. Cyr brought a flag to this House 25 years ago. Now there are two, twice as many as the 1973 motion allowed.

I am concerned that this flag debate is considered by some to be provocation and by others to be frivolous. Provocation is in the eye of the beholder. No provocation is intended in my contribution to today's debate, nor in my earlier actions. However, I must say that I certainly do not approach this debate with a sense of the frivolous.

Canada's problem is a deep-seated inferiority complex. Canadians have been uncomfortable with flag waving, celebrating our country and singing our national anthem. There is little hesitancy in other countries. The national pride, as exemplified by the waving of flags, is seen everywhere in England, France and the United States.

Let me provide the House with an example of how the display of flags, both in this House and elsewhere, is important to our future as a nation.

I recall a well published event which took place outside Montreal's city hall. Visitors from France spoke to Jacques Parizeau and a group of his separatist cohorts on the steps of the city hall. Many Quebec flags were visible. Where did the flags come from? From inside Montreal's city hall. What was the problem? There were several veterans present who wished to see the Canadian flag displayed before the delegation from France.

I was in Montreal that day on one of my frequent visits to the city. The veterans who I met that day were beside themselves with angst. To describe matters in a most charitable fashion, it appeared that the display of the Canadian flag had been very much discouraged at the time of the appearance of the visitors from France. France is free today, due in no small part to the efforts of our proud veterans.

Today I ask the House to allow the display of this symbol of our country when we speak in this honourable place. I want to show to all that our national symbol may sit with us in this honourable place as a symbol of how close it is to our hearts. When I speak to Canada, there is no flag visible to those who see and hear my words. I wish only to do as I did at the chamber of commerce meeting in Edmonton two weeks ago. I placed the flag of Canada on my table in that chamber. I would like to do likewise in this Chamber.

[Senate Of Canada, March 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker:

The people of Alberta have expressed their will The House must now heed their call That elections for Senate be their wish That fairness in governing be for all Through election is our method To be effective is our purpose Equality for all be our goal We ask this House to listen now We ask Premier Klein to echo this call We ask that this reasonable wish Be respected and confirmed by all Why not an elected Senate For Provinces that wish to vote Alberta's call will not abate From this you may well quote The solution be simple and has support Stan Waters was first and led the way Albertans wish to elect their choice This House must listen to what they say.

[Observance Of Two Minutes Of Silence On Remembrance Day Act, March 12th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C-279, an act to promote two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day. I will make a 10 minute speech in support of two minutes of silence: two very important minutes observed by many in November of each year, two very important minutes of silence that are frequently overlooked by many others, including those whose employers grant them a day off to observe Remembrance Day.

Since Remembrance Day is not a day accorded the same importance as New Year's Day among other statutory holidays, Remembrance Day is most frequently associated with the phrase “banks and government offices are closed”. For many who must work on Remembrance Day, any pause to remember our war dead is either overlooked or difficult. For those and far too many others the sacrifices of war are in a fog of memory at best.

I thank my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary Southeast, for his thoughtfulness in sponsoring this initiative. As the official opposition critic for veterans affairs, I assure the hon. member and the House that this initiative is greatly appreciated by Canadian veterans everywhere.

In life we value those who remember our sacrifices and our triumphs long after their occurrences. In death, those who take the time to remember the accomplishments of one who has passed on show respect for that person as well as acknowledging that person's contribution to the welfare of others.

With respect to our war dead, so many of whom died in their early twenties without marriage or children to pass on their legacy, remembrance of their sacrifices becomes all the more important.

The purpose of the bill, to be called the observance of two minutes of silence on Remembrance Day act, is invitational. There is no mandated requirement that two minutes of silence be observed throughout Canada on Remembrance Day. Perhaps there should be. Rather, it is stated in the bill that the people of Canada are invited to pause and observe two minutes of silence at 11 o'clock on each Remembrance Day to honour the men and women who died serving their country in wars and peacekeeping efforts.

I note this legislative initiative parallels a bill passed in the Ontario legislation in October 1997. That initiative was commenced by Mr. Morley Kells, by way of a private member's bill. It is of interest that the current initiative and that in Ontario are the result of the concerns of individual members rather than being an initiative of the government of the day. It is also regrettable that the bill in the House is not votable, given that comparable legislation was deemed to be of sufficient importance to have been voted on in the Ontario legislature.

I also wish the Hansard record to show that the current bill has been introduced by a member of the House who is not yet 30 years of age. Many of his peers do not have a precise appreciation of the sacrifices of war. It is refreshing to encounter an individual with such concern and appreciation at such a comparatively young age.

As witness to the recent Senate hearings on the Canadian war museum, I must say that the role of the museum in preserving the respect and memories of our soldiers is essential.

Many argue, as do I, that the museum should be under the control of veterans affairs to allow for better representation by those whose memories are preserved in the museum. It is the Canadian War Museum that allows our young a chance to touch the history that won them the freedom they enjoy today. It is the Canadian War Museum that remembers the veterans every minute of every day and so too it must too receive the same thanks that our veterans receive.

In the current bill suggestions are made as to ways in which the people of Canada could promote the pause and the observance of two minutes of silence. Some of the suggestions are traditional and some are novel. It is suggested that Canadians could participate in a traditional Remembrance Day service at a war memorial.

Consistent with practices at most primary and secondary schools, it is suggested that Remembrance Day assemblies be held. It is also suggested that similar assemblies be held at post-secondary institutions, colleges and universities, where to the best of my knowledge Remembrance Day practices are less common.

Consistent with practices in Europe but not common in Canada, it is suggested that driving Canadians could stop their vehicles along the side of the road and sit or, as I suggest, stand quietly for two minutes. It is also suggested that factory assembly lines may shut down and that at all workplaces persons observe two minutes of silence. The final suggestion is that Remembrance Day services be held in places of worship.

Silence is an important component to healthy reflection. Many scorn those who wish to reflect on the past. Somehow this perspective sees a lesson from the past as a hindrance to healthy living in the present. This same approach to life also denies that one's actions can have a positive or negative effect on others. Respect is often contagious.

When soldiers go to war they do not do so on the basis of “I am the only one who matters”. Instead, there is a collective sense of purpose, a sense of placing one's life at risk for the greater good of others, a willingness to sacrifice in the support of a higher purpose and an appreciation that personal sacrifice can and does have a profound effect on the direction of history.

There is also in the military a very keen sense of history and an appreciation that one must learn from the lessons of history in order to ensure that past mistakes are not repeated. To say to a military person that all that matters is to be here now is to invite a response combining amazement and pity.

The world in which we currently find ourselves is one in which instant gratification and self-interest are celebrated. There is no need to make a commitment to any person or ideal other than oneself. It seems there is no need to remember the sacrifices that others made for our future welfare.

If we are to progress as a nation and as individuals we must remember those who sacrificed their lives for us. In houses of worship we are often asked to sit silently, to contemplate how we can improve ourselves in our daily lives. In silent contemplation for but two minutes on Remembrance Day we are invited to contemplate how others have contributed to our ability to improve ourselves in our daily lives. A single soldier dead 50, 75 or 100 years has made such a contribution to our welfare that we must remember the sacrifice.

I applaud the hon. member for Calgary Southeast for this initiative. My colleague is truly representative of Lieutenant-Colonel McCrae's sentiments as he takes up the torch and holds it high “lest we forget”.

[The Constitution, February 23rd, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, Canada's Constitution is not cast in bronze. It is not chiselled in granite. It is penned on fragile pulp and has the permanency of our national will.

Canada's Constitution was not taken from foreign lands but crafted by the citizens of our great country.

Our constitutional light shone most brightly when Guy Bertrand exercised its provisions.

Guy Bertrand believed his rights were diminished by a referendum to separate and took his concerns successfully to a Quebec court. The Liberals, embarrassed by this action, finally carried the issue to the supreme court.

Canadians must be thankful that we have such an instrument of privilege as the Constitution and the charter of rights. Canadians also must be thankful that we have citizens of integrity and determination such as Guy Bertrand.

[Canada Labour Code, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I would like to comment on a labour relations problem which occurred recently in my riding of Edmonton East. It was the result of the intransigence between labour and management. For months and months I worked with other political and elected people from the community. We talked to the company and union representatives but it was all to no avail.

The real concern at these meetings was the very realization of the threat by the company that the plant would close if the union went on strike. That was understood and crystal clear to the union management to the point where they even admitted they knew the owner would close the plant if there was a strike. Prior to this the union had asked for a mediator's report. The company accepted the mediator's report but the union would not.

My concern is that yes, controls must be in place for this but I believe that the union by calling the strike closed this plant. Now 1,000 people are out of work in Edmonton East, 1,000 people who worked at the plant, possibly affecting up to 10,000 people in the community. This is all caused by the intransigence of the union management.

I have to agree with my colleague that there should be final offer selection in order to prevent this tragedy from ever being repeated and happening again. Had that been in place, as sure as I am standing here that plant would be open today and those workers would be at work.

[Petitions, February 20th, 1998]

Madam Speaker, I rise in this Chamber as a courtesy to my colleague from Edmonton Southwest and 50 of his constituents.

I am pleased to discharge this favour by presenting to this House a petition. This petition asks for a very prudent review of the mandate of the CRTC to discourage the propagation of pornography and rather to encourage the broadcasting of ecclesiastical programming to support morality and wholesome family lifestyles.

The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.

[Petitions, February 19th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this Chamber as the humble servant of the constituents of Edmonton East. I am pleased to discharge my duties today by presenting two petitions to this House. Both petitions ask for the very prudent review of the mandate of the CRTC to discourage the propagation of pornography, and to encourage the broadcasting of ecclesiastical programming that supports morality and wholesome family lifestyles.

The petitioners ask this House to heed their words and I concur.

[The Senate, February 13th, 1998]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to express both concern and appreciation for the Senate. I have witnessed the dedicated efforts of some of our honourable senators. However, I am concerned that a representative of Canadians can be so inaccessible to his constituents that he does not even have an office, staff or a phone, that such a person living outside of Canada returns but one day a year to collect a $70,000 paycheque, that such a person will receive a lifetime pension amounting to nearly $50,000 per year, all paid by taxpayers.

Perhaps members of this House wonder how such a person could remain in this place year after year. This is a safe riding and how does one get the nomination? It is time for an elected Senate. No riding should be that safe. Accountability is so very obviously necessary.