Ms. Pierrette Venne:
Can the Privy Council itemize for the fiscal year 1994-95 (a)
who it has mandated to carry out research studies, (b) what
subjects have been covered by these studies, and (c) what the
cost was of carrying out each of the research contracts awarded?
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Please see the answer to question Q-3 tabled
this day.
* * *
[English]
QUESTIONS PASSED AS ORDERS FOR RETURN
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, if
Question No. 3 could be made an order for return, the return
would be tabled immediately.
The Deputy Speaker: Is it agreed that Question No. 3 be
made an order for return?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
.[Text]
Ms. Pierrette Venne:
Can the Privy Council itemize for the fiscal year
1995-96, (a) whom it has mandated to carry out research studies,
(b) what subjects have been covered by these studies, and (c)
what the cost was of carrying out each of the research contracts
awarded?
Return tabled.
[English]
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, on December 3, 1997, I placed Question No. 57 on the
Order Paper asking if the Deputy Prime Minister's public
statement supporting a global movement to spur the development of
an instrument to ban firearms worldwide was the policy of the
government. In accordance with Standing Order 39, I asked for an
oral answer to be given in the House within 45 days.
My constituents have been waiting over 100 days. When can I
expect an answer to this question of whether the Deputy Prime
Minister supports a worldwide firearms ban and is this government
policy or not?
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I took note of the member's
points and I will do the best I can to provide the answers in the
House.
I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
The Deputy Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FLAG
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.)
moved:
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.
[Translation]
The Deputy Speaker: Since today is the final allotted day for the
supply period ending March 26, 1998, the House will proceed as usual to
the consideration and disposal of supply bills.
[English]
In view of recent practices, do hon. members agree that the
bills be distributed now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, I just want to let you
know that Reform Party members today will be dividing their time
during the allotted speeches.
Mr. Preston Manning: Mr. Speaker, a week ago in the House I
traced the series of events which led to this controversy over
displaying the flag in the Chamber. It is not my intent to
rehearse those events again today.
I argued, however, that the fundamental issue at stake was one
of freedom of expression, including the right to display the
flag, the right to sing the anthem and the right to freedom of
speech by members of this Parliament. The challenge to the Chair
and to the House was to find the right balance between all three.
The Speaker's ruling yesterday focused on what was required to
maintain decorum in the House, which is fine. The Speaker
implied that the rules of the House did not give him the
authority to recognize the displaying of the Canadian flag on the
desks of members.
The motion before the House is designed to change the rules and
simply give that authority.
Like you, Mr. Speaker, we have taken into account rules,
practices and precedents affecting this House, but our position
on this issue also takes into account what we believe to be the
wishes of the Canadian people to whom this House ultimately
belongs.
Since the government spin doctors have been hard at work putting
their interpretation on this matter, let me first say what this
motion is not. It is not a motion of censure of the Speaker or
the way in which the Speaker handled this issue.
1010
This caucus is composed of blunt plain speaking westerners who
tend to say what we mean and mean what we say. We prefer to
argue and to agree and disagree out in the open and not behind
closed doors. But this penchant for plain speaking should not be
interpreted as any disrespect for the House or for the Chair.
Second, this motion is not intended as a putdown of any members
of this House, including members of the Bloc Quebecois. It is a
simple positive affirmation of Canadian nationalism.
The members of the Bloc never tire of exhibiting their feelings
of nationalism in words, symbols and actions and their efforts to
separate Quebec from Canada.
We, however, simply want to remind the Bloc that there is also
such a thing as Canadian nationalism. Some people wear their
nationalism on their sleeves and its slogans are always on their
lips. Other people are less vocal and carry their feelings for
their country deep in their hearts. It would be a huge
miscalculation on the part of the Bloc to believe that those
feelings do not exist in the hearts of Canadians or that they can
be ignored or insulted with impunity.
I am reminded of Burke's famous quotation that just because a
few grasshoppers under a leaf make the field ring with their
importunate chirping whilst thousands of great cattle repose
beneath the trees, chew the cud, and are silent, pray do not
believe that those who make the noise are the only inhabitants of
the field.
My third point is that one member of this House chose to see in
our simple request to put a Canadian flag on our desks an example
of extreme nationalism like that which led to World War II. How
anyone could characterize our simple request in that fashion is
beyond comprehension. I choose to believe the member misspoke
himself or was perhaps misquoted.
I address the remainder of my remarks to government members. One
of the disturbing characteristics of this government is that it
seems unable or unwilling to finish what it starts, a sign of a
government and a party in decline. For example, the government
started to get the federal fiscal house in order but after
eliminating the deficit, which is only the first step, it appears
to be giving up on the other steps of reducing the debt, reducing
the taxes and controlling the spending. It cannot finish the job
it started.
Now we see the same thing on this flag issue. On February 26 it
was a Liberal member, the member for Oshawa, who provided the
Canadian flags for MPs' desks with a little note requesting us to
wave them when a certain Bloc MP rose in question period. It was
Liberal members, not Reformers, who brought the large flag into
that part of the House and draped it over their desks, the same
one they displayed during the budget speech without rebuke from
the Speaker.
It was the government House leader responding to the Bloc's
point of order who said: “For someone like myself who believes
strongly in the unity of this country, flag waving is not a
provocation but an act of pride”. The unbiased observer sitting
in the gallery on that day would have been convinced it was the
Liberal MPs who were foremost in promoting the displaying of the
flag and the singing of the anthem subject only to certain limits
perhaps yet to be determined.
Since that date what have we seen? We have seen a weak-kneed
government beating an unseemly retreat. By this last weekend the
government House leader, so bold on February 26, had resorted to
proposing the whole issue be sent for burial in a committee. Only
in a Liberal government of Canada would it be suggested that the
simple issue of whether a Canadian flag could be flown on the
desks of Canadian members of Parliament should be shunted off to
endless review and discussion by experts in committee.
The government has been backpedalling on its affirmation of the
right to display the flag and sing the anthem since the day this
issue was raised. If government members now fail to back this
simple motion, their retreat will be complete. It reminds me of
the New Testament parable about the foolish builder of a tower
who neglected to count the cost before he began and became the
laughing stock of his community because he began to build and was
unable to finish.
1015
Likewise the public, observing this unseemly retreat of
government members, is left shaking its head and saying “these
Liberals began something on February 26 but were not able to
finish”.
The government's behaviour on this issue raises a more
fundamental question. That is how can the government be trusted
to stand up for Canada on the big things if it will not stand up
for Canada on the little things? How can the government be
trusted to stand up for Canada in its larger dealings with the
separatists if it will not even stand up for the Canadian flag in
the Canadian House of Commons?
The government is supposed to be the watchdog of the Canadian
national interest, particularly in its dealings with those who
would lower the Canadian flag from every flagpole in Quebec. This
flag incident, small in one sense but ominous and large in what
it portends, is revealing that watchdog for what many fear it has
become: a tired and toothless old watchdog which would prefer to
lie in the sun scratching itself rather than defending the
interests of its masters, the people of Canada.
I therefore challenge the government members opposite and the
members of the NDP and Progressive Conservatives. If such
members really stand on guard for Canada, support the motion. If
such members join with the separatists in opposing the motion,
they should explain to the House and to their constituents how
they can possibly be trusted to stand on guard for the Canadian
national interest in larger and more substantive matters.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I listened attentively to the
hon. member's remarks. The hon. member for Calgary Southwest
labelled the Liberal Party of Canada a party in decline.
I ask the hon. member to have a look at the most recent polls
carried out in his end of the country, in Ontario, in Quebec, on
the east coast, in northern Canada. Pick any poll he wants to
and he will soon see that the only party in decline is the party
of Reform.
“Buried in a committee,” said the member for Calgary
Southwest. Only a member of the Reform Party would draw a
parallel between taking any kind of an issue brought forward by
any member of this place to put it into a committee, a place
where Canadians are represented by their member of Parliament at
committee, a committee that is the master of its own destiny—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stan Keyes: 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.
Mr. Art Hanger: Which way are you going to vote on this,
Stan?
Mr. Stan Keyes: The member for Calgary Southwest said
that the government opposite does not stand up for Canada on the
little things.
Mr. Peter Adams: Who did not come to Montreal?
Mr. Stan Keyes: 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.
1020
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.
Mr. Preston Manning: 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—
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
Mr. Preston Manning: 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.
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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): 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.
1025
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.
1030
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 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.
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.
1035
Mr. Lee Morrison: 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.
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.
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): 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.
Miss Deborah Grey: Does the flag mean anything to you in
your gut?
Mr. Stan Keyes: 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.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: 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.
1040
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.
Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of
Commons, Lib.): 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.
1045
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.
[Translation]
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.
[English]
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.
An hon. member: It is a game for them.
Hon. Don Boudria: 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.
Miss Deborah Grey: Get this in Hansard. I had to
ask to get him to come as a witness.
Hon. Don Boudria: 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.
1050
Some hon. members: Which one?
Hon. Don Boudria: 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.
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): 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?
Hon. Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to respond to
the hon. member. He has just challenged me and I will offer him
a challenge in a minute in response.
Let me first quote a distinguished member of the House who said
on February 15, 1996 about the Canadian flag celebrations:
I just wish there were some substance to go along with the
symbolism. Setting aside a day for waving the flag, jumping up
and down and singing stirring songs is a nice gesture. It's also
a good way to keep warm in mid-February, but Canadians would
rather see some substance from this government, a national unity
plan, real job creation, a balanced budget and much needed tax
relief.
1055
The member for Edmonton North put that in writing in a news
release on February 15, 1996. Now the true colours are coming
out across the way.
I have a challenge for hon. members across the way. I will
propose a motion and I will seek unanimous consent from all
members of the House, and in particular members of the Reform
Party members. If it is change they want there will be no games.
I will ask for unanimous consent, for us all to agree, and I
will make it very clear. If they really want change and if they
want the issue to be studied, I move:
That the motion be amended by inserting immediately before the
words “this House” the words “the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs” to prepare a report by June 15.
I tell hon. members across the way that the test is on them. We
will see right now whether sincerity rules or whether phoniness
rules. Let us see.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. government House leader
have unanimous consent of the House to propose the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Deputy Speaker: I am afraid there is no consent. The
time for questions and comments has expired.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, instead of
talking about employment insurance, instead of talking about the
problems being experienced by the unemployed who are going to miss
out on benefits, instead of talking about economic development,
instead of talking about the battle against AIDS, instead of
talking about the major social problems confronting this country,
what are we talking about? The flag.
We are questioning whether the Chair's ruling about whether or
not we can stick little flags on our desks ought not to be
overturned. Most edifying, this 1998 Reform version of the Canadian
vision of development.
Who was it who broke the rules of the House? Who was it who
stood up at an inopportune moment to sing the national anthem and
wave flags around? Not the Bloc Quebecois members, but the
Liberals and the Reform members. Who was it who created a totally
artificial crisis about the flag? Not the Bloc Quebecois, not the
NDP, not the Conservatives, not the Liberals, but the Reform Party.
Who was it who refused to respect the House of Commons and its
procedures? Not the Bloc, not the NDP, not the Conservatives, not
the Liberals, but the Reform Party. Since the beginning of this
story, Reformers not only caused the initial problem, but they
exacerbated it. They let the rest of Canada think the Canadian
flag was being challenged here in this House, which was never the
case.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: No, never. They are liars.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: No fear, this is reassuring for the
sovereignists.
When there is no crisis in this country, Reformers cook one up.
But what is going on here? Do the people Reform represents
have such a serious identity problem? Is there such a serious
identity problem over there that it is necessary to wrap oneself
in the flag daily, to stick them all over the place, wave them
about, put them in our pockets, or paint cars to match the Canadian
flag?
But what is going on with this political party? Is there no
grasp whatsoever of what the rules of Parliament are?
1100
Do they not understand that, in a Parliament, regardless of one's
political opinion, one must respect the foundation, that is the Chair,
its rulings and the rules under which debates must take place?
Why should we suddenly change the rules of this House following a
show of enthusiasm by Reformers and Liberals? Why should we start waving
flags at every opportunity? What is going on in this country? Do
Reformers have a problem of perception, a problem of identity?
They are spoiling for a fight with the separatists. They are intent
on scoring political points. They want to pass themselves off as the
only patriots in this country. Just what is the problem with Reformers?
What is the problem with the official opposition?
What sense of responsibility do these members have? They were so happy
to become the official opposition and replace the bad separatists in the
House of Commons, so they could make things move forward in Canada, they
could make things work in this country. What are they proposing to make
things work? They are talking about flags. This is outrageous.
We heard all kinds of falsehoods. First, some tried to tell the
rest of Canada that sovereignists wanted to deny the existence of the
Canadian flag. This is false. Nothing could be further from the truth.
We never said any such thing in this House. It was also said that
separatists had objected to the singing of the national anthem in this
House. In fact, we were among those who agreed that, on Wednesdays, at
the beginning of our proceedings, the national anthem be sung. It is
false to say, as Reformers claim, that we object to the singing of the
national anthem in this place.
I challenge them, including the Leader of the Official Opposition,
to find a single objection to this effect raised by a Bloc Quebecois
member.
The Reform Party leader did not tell the truth. We did not create a flag
crisis. We did not oppose the national anthem. We have always respected
the flag, the anthem and the rules. We have complied with the rules.
The motion before us today challenges the Speaker's ruling, which
is based on parliamentary law, on tradition and on what is being done in
every Parliament. But why do Reformers want the Parliament of Canada to
be different from all other parliaments? What is going on in their
heads? Do they have such an identity problem that they have to wrap
themselves in the Canadian flag to remember they are Canadians? Is this
their problem?
Earlier, the Reform member said that, by the end of this day, those
who are watching us would be able to judge who was more serious, who
presented the best arguments, who is right. People made up their minds
a long time ago.
So did journalists. All parliamentarians on both sides of the
House, in all parties except the Reform Party, understood long ago
that there was no flag war, that we were being made to waste our
time. Instead of addressing real problems, Reformers are having
fun adding fuel to a possible debate between sovereigntists and the
rest of Canada.
The reality is this. Reform members can rest assured that
sovereigntists do not have to invent an artificial flag war to make
Quebeckers understand that there is a problem in this Parliament.
We do not need to invent quarrels with Reformers. They invent them
all by themselves.
We do not have to come up with things to explain to Quebeckers that
there is an identity problem. They provide us with evidence on a
daily basis. That is what is wrong with the Reform Party.
They do not respect the Chair, the Speaker and other political
parties. They were unable to sign an agreement with other parties
that was reasonable and that would have made it possible to resolve
this supposed flag crisis.
1105
They behaved liked Don Quixote. They invented a war. They
embarked on a war against something that did not exist because
their popularity is slipping, their party is not taking hold.
Increasingly, people throughout Canada, real Canadians, want
nothing to do with the Reform Party. These people invent wars,
they invent causes. They set out like Don Quixote with his horse
and his lance and are going to tilt at windmills.
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Must be panzomania.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: In closing, I would point out that, for Bloc
Quebecois members, it is much more important to talk about
employment insurance, use of the budget surplus, the problems faced
by our constituents who no longer qualify for EI. These issues are
much more important than painting jalopies in the national colours
and parading around Parliament Hill.
[English]
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we have certainly heard a lot of sound and fire, signifying
nothing. I do not think this member or his party has anything to
teach us about tolerance when we have his government in Quebec
which says that even in Chinatown the use of English is incorrect
on signs.
We have the Government of Quebec that has invoked the
notwithstanding clause. We have the Government of Quebec that
has a committee that says they cannot have an organization named
the Montreal English Academy in spite of the fact that they are
the language police.
I remind the member that it was his member who went to Nagano at
Canadian taxpayers' expense, costing probably in the
neighbourhood of $15,000, to attend the olympics.
She not only brought this whole issue to a boil as a result of
her very intemperate comments with respect to the show of
patriotism of our Canadian athletes in Nagano, but she also said
that one of the reasons why she was there was so that she could
make contact with and learn about international affairs.
If and when she and the colleagues in that party are ever to get
their wish of being able to smash Canada, she would be able to
represent the country of Quebec to the international community.
She was doing this at Canadian taxpayers' expense.
I point out that if we had followed the Liberal motion proposed
by the House leader rather than as an issue being terminated
tonight, this issue at the Liberal request would be dragged out
until the middle of June. I cannot imagine anything more
destructive. It will be terminated tonight as a result of a
vote.
Further, I quote Mr. Speaker yesterday from Hansard.
He said:
—I have been challenged to show my colours as a patriotic
Canadian by allowing the unfettered display of flags in the
Chamber. This would constitute an unprecedented unilateral
change to the practice of the House of Commons, a change, my
colleagues, that no Speaker has the authority to make. So,
whatever pressure that I have to do so, I cannot and I will not
abrogate such authority to myself. Unless and until the House
decides otherwise, no displays will be allowed and the current
practice will be upheld.
His words, were “unless and until the House decided otherwise,
no displays will be allowed”. The whole purpose of this motion
is to get on to the floor exactly that question so that we will
be able to see which members of this Chamber choose to support
the separatists and not permit the display of flags in this
Chamber.
1110
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to have heard
the member's comments, because I can now clarify certain things.
First, he has just talked about what is going on in Quebec.
I would like to say in this House and tell the hon. member and
anyone else interested that no minority in Canada receives better
treatment, has more institutions and enjoys more rights than the
anglophones in Quebec.
Do francophones in Canada, wherever they live in Canada, have
their own universities, colleges, CLSCs and hospitals?
The anglophones can manage their own school boards. They can
do all that.
They have their own press, television and radio, which are very
much at home in Quebec. What francophone minorities in certain
western provinces have anywhere near the privileges enjoyed by the
anglophone minority in Quebec?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Not a one.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Let the rest of Canada begin by giving
francophones the same room and opportunities for development that
Quebec offers anglophones, and we will take notes.
The hon. member has just said “It was the Bloc member who went
to Nagano at taxpayers' expense”. Are you aware that Quebeckers
pay more income tax than Manitobans, than Albertans, than British
Columbians? Do you realize they pay 23 per cent of Canadian income
tax?
Mr. Yvan Loubier: Thirty-one billion dollars.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: When are people going to realize that 25%
of every dollar spent here comes from Quebec. They are not shy
about spending our money. However, we would prefer to manage it
ourselves.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I very
much welcome the opportunity to enter the debate on the official
opposition motion which is before us.
I want to say a few words about what the debate may appear to be
about, what the Reform Party would like to pretend this debate is
about, and then I want to say something about what this flag flap
issue is really about.
The Reform Party would try to create the impression that this is
a simple, straightforward issue, that it is a simple question of
whether members of the House want to display on the corner of
their desks a Canadian flag. That is all it is about. That is
all there is to it. Let us just vote for it and get on with it.
I want to say that I do not think that is what this issue is
really about. I do not think that is why the official opposition
has put before the House today a motion which it wants Canadians
to interpret as meaning that we either vote for its motion on its
terms and show we are for Canada, we are for the flag, or if we
vote against the motion on its terms and then we are not for the
flag and we are not for Canada.
This debate is about Reformers whose approach to politics is so
simplistic that they would have Canadians believe that flags on
the corner of the desks of members of Parliament will unite the
country.
There is no committed federalist in this House who is not proud
of the Canadian flag. There is no committed federalist in Canada
who is not proud of the Canadian flag. Let us be clear. What
this is about is the Reform Party trying to create division among
those who were elected to this House of Commons to stand up for
Canada and to fight for a united Canada. We will not be divided
by those crass, cheap political tactics.
Let me briefly review the tactics used by the Reform Party in
this flag flap.
First, in what our Speaker has properly ruled as inappropriate,
Reformers used a proud symbol of Canadian freedom, our flag, to
stifle the freedom of speech of one of our colleagues. Then, not
having got their way with the Speaker, out of respect for the
Canadian flag, a Reform member threw it on the floor of the House
of Commons and marched out of this chamber.
1115
Then Reform members, again not in a very proud moment in the
history of this Chamber, tried to intimidate the Speaker by
suggesting that if he dared to rule that Reform members had used
the flag improperly he should fear for his job. Those kinds of
intimidation tactics of the Speaker have no place in this Chamber
and have no place in parliamentary democracy.
To make matters worse, the leader of the Reform Party suggested
that this kind of hooliganism by his members was perfectly
acceptable; it was, after all, just a question of freedom of
speech. When I last checked the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,
it did not guarantee the right of people to threaten and to
intimidate, particularly in this parliamentary institution. It
was a shameful display by the official opposition and its leader.
It did no credit to any of us.
[Translation]
This is not a debate about the flag. The Reform merely wants
to take advantage of any opportunity to create division and
confusion. Major issues for Canadians, such as jobs, education and
health care, are too important for us to waste the precious time we
have here in the House of Commons on other matters. But the Reform
members do not seem to find them important.
[English]
It is ironic in the extreme that this is the week Reform members
wrap themselves in the flag and say they are the true loyalists,
the true patriots of Canada. This is the very same week that
Canadians across the country are calling on their government and
their members of Parliament to stand up for Canada's future, to
say no loudly, clearly and without equivocation to the
multilateral agreement on investment.
If the adolescent pranksters of the Reform zealots had their
way, all that would be left of our country would be the flags in
the corner of our desks. They want to see the MAI, an investors
bill of rights, approved, an MAI without protection for Canada's
culture, without protection for our health care, our environment
or our employment standards.
The job of running the country would move from Parliament Hill
to corporate board rooms in New York, Tokyo and Seoul. We might
be able to have flags in the corner of our desks, but in Reform's
Canada after the MAI, MPs would not be able to effect most of the
issues that directly affect the lives of Canadians.
That is Reform's vision for Canada. That is Reform's vision for
the flag, a small flag on the corner of our desks in a toothless,
powerless parliament.
[Translation]
The Reform members showed no respect to the Canadian flag when
they threw it on the floor of the House of Commons. I want
Canadians to know what the Reform is up to. They are playing a
dangerous game, a divisive game, a childish game, and we must join
forces to put an end to it.
[English]
The official opposition is behaving like a school yard bully. We
all know the way to deal with bullies and that is to stand up to
them. Mr. Speaker, in your ruling yesterday you did that. In our
dealing with their antics today we also must do that.
The motivations are suspect and transparent. They say they want
to reduce the question of whether we are for or against Canada to
a simplistic question of whether we are for or against flags in
the corner of our desks.
Last week it was Reform members who thought so little of our
Canadian flag and who were so disrespectful of the Canadian flag
that they flung it on the floor in this Chamber and retreated
from the debate. That kind of cheap, crass approach to politics
has no place in this parliament.
That partisan petty form of politics will not strengthen and
unify the country.
1120
New Democrats are proud Canadians. We can match the pride and
the patriotism of any federalist party. English Canadians,
French Canadians, allophones, immigrant Canadians, aboriginal
Canadians, our caucus is made up of people who choose Canada and
are proud each and every day to stand up for our Canadian flag.
What is to be done about the motion? What is our responsibility
as members of Parliament? Our caucus has carefully reviewed this
matter. We have debated this matter. We are absolutely
unanimous in our view that Reformers have been irresponsible in
their handling of the issue.
They are playing silly games to avoid the reality that they have
nothing to say. They do not want to deal with the substantive
issues that are at the real heart of the future of a united
Canada. That is why we will not play their silly games. We will
not dignify those silly and dangerous games by reducing the
future of our great country to whether we can accept on their
terms that the future of Canada depends on the display of a flag
in the corner of our desks.
That is why the New Democratic Party caucus will vote against
this official opposition motion and for a united Canada.
[Translation]
Mr. Odina Desrochers (Lotbinière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I think
what the Reform members are suffering from is a lack of
discernment.
They have trouble differentiating between a desk in the House
of Commons and a podium in a public meeting. They are far from the
same. In a public meeting, a partisan meeting, a person can do as
he pleases, spout whatever propaganda he pleases. But what is
involved here is a desk in the House of Commons. There are rules,
this is an existing institution. The Reform Party is therefore
suffering from an inability to differentiate.
As I see it, we in the Bloc Quebecois, and the other
opposition parties, are in a position to see what the real problems
are: employment insurance, the budget surplus.
I would ask the hon. member for Halifax if she sees the
problems which are facing us, at this time, and which are doing
enormous harm to the Canadian and Quebec economy.
[English]
Ms. Alexa McDonough: Mr. Speaker, the member raises the
issue of whether this is simply a matter of poor judgment on the
part of Reform members, whether it is a matter of discernment.
The member suggests, as others have already suggested including
myself, that it is really about two very serious issues.
It is about Reform members playing games that on the surface may
just look silly. They may annoy Canadians, and heavens knows by
all the indications we are getting in our offices that people are
becoming very impatient. Reform members are wasting the time of
the House and trying the patience of Canadians to reduce the
issue of Canada's future to one of whether we will display flags
on the corner of our desks as the key to Canadian unity.
It goes much deeper than that. It is more serious than that. It
is an insult to Canadians. Reformers think they can wrap
themselves in the flag and present themselves as the only true
patriots because they have chosen this tactic. At the same time
they are escaping the real issues. Each and every one of us were
elected to the House to represent our constituents, not in a
simplistic or petty partisan way but to the best of our ability
and to try to grapple with finding a consensus on how to
strengthen and improve this great country.
1125
On their official opposition day Reformers could have dealt with
some of the issues of substance. They could have put forward
recommendations for good substantive debate that might actually
help to improve the unemployment problem in Canada. They could
have come to the House and said that they understood it weakens
and divides Canada to continue down the path of Americanizing our
health care system so that it is two tier. They could have come
to the House and said that they have reconsidered their position
on universal access to education and would no longer advocate two
tier education so those with personal wealth could gain the
education they need to get into the new economy and enjoy
prosperity in the future. They could have said they realize that
if we do not deal with the issue of access, only those who could
afford to gain education would get it and the others would fall
further behind. The very kind of growing gap between the super
rich and everyone else which the Reform Party has been fuelling
with its policies would grow even wider.
We were really hoping these were the kinds of issues that would
be debated on an official opposition day from a variety of
perspectives. We have five different parties in the House with
different views on how to deal with substantive issues. However
Reform Party's contribution to official opposition day and to
solving these problems is to push them aside, push them under the
rug, and to wave the flag on their terms and the heck with
whether or not the concerns of Canadians get dealt with.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, this is probably the saddest day I have spent in the
Chamber since being elected. As a young member I hope there will
not be many more like it.
This evening in the House of Commons we will be asked to approve
billions of dollars in public expenditures. Today is the last
day in this supply period on which we would have been able to
debate issues that affect the lives of Canadians who are
unemployed and looking for work, Canadians who are waiting in
medical line-ups and in waiting rooms in hospitals across the
country. It was an opportunity to debate the real issues
Canadians want to hear about most.
There are substantial issues that are life altering, yet here we
are at the bequest of the Reform Party debating whether we can
have a little flag on the corner of our desks in the Chamber. I
suggest we have entered the theatre of the absurd, not the
chamber of the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, as I look at you sitting in the chair, you are a
symbol of Canadian patriotism. The flags that adorn the chair
next to you equally symbolize that. There are flags outside the
door of the Chamber, flags that fly from the Peace Tower. Many
of the members in the Chamber are sporting lapel pins to express
their patriotism.
I ask a rhetorical question. By putting another little flag on
your desk are you somehow elevating your level of patriotism?
Are you somehow improving yourself, your country and all the
constituents you represent when you sit at this desk in the House
of Commons? I would have to say no. The level of debate we are
reaching today is again a new low brought about by the Reform
Party.
There are lessons to be learned in all this. Let us look
carefully at how the Reform Party members have behaved over the
last number of days. In all candour I feel that our priorities
have been derailed, soiled by the mendacity of the motion.
Perhaps it is a good example of what drives the member for
Calgary Southwest, the policies of division. Perhaps that is
what is driving the Reform Party.
Members of the Reform Party have used the flag in the Chamber as
a weapon to assault another member of the House. Members of the
Reform Party have used it as a weapon in an attempt to intimidate
the Speaker of the House. Members of the Reform Party stood in
the Chamber and threw the flag on the floor of the House of
Commons, which has been referred to a number of times.
I refer to a letter sent to the Speaker by a gentleman named
Thomas Sigurdson from Surrey, British Columbia.
He was here in the gallery the day the Reform Party erupted. I
quote from his letter sent on March 14, 1998: “I must comment
on the shameful behaviour of the official opposition the day that
followed your ruling. I have never, ever witnessed this kind of
tantrum that exploded from the benches of the Reform Party. From
the public gallery I had the sad misfortune to watch some members
yell not only verbal abuse at you but also hurl paper, books and
flags off their desks in an act of infantile defiance”.
1130
He goes on to say that this was the most shameful thing he had
ever seen. Most shameful of all was the throwing of the small
Canadian flag on to the floor of the House of Commons. His
letter ends up with the final comment that flags that surround
the dais indicate to all members and visitors of our nation that
the identity as well as the national pride is here in the House
of Commons signified by those flags.
This is not about pride. I borrow the words of my colleague,
the hon. member for Chicoutimi. It is not about pride, it is
about provocation, it is about intolerance, it is about
partisanship. Pointing to the flag and grunting and making these
comments is a way to avoid meaningful debate.
Members of the Reform Party have returned to the in your face
style of politics that we have seen in this country. By
surrounding or wrapping themselves in the flag they get
themselves off the hook.
Up until this week there has never been a suggestion that we
should have these flags on our desks. They are prepared to stop
free speech by anyone who disagrees with them and then wrap
themselves in the package of the flag.
If I were to search for words to somehow describe what is going
on and to describe the conduct that we have seen in the Chamber,
they would be found in Beauchesne's but I could not use them
because they are all unparliamentary.
Canadians have seen that those new defenders of patriotism,
those who threw the flag on the floor of the House of Commons,
are the same patriots who ran advertisements during the federal
election campaign that called a leader from Quebec a person not
fit to be the prime minister. I share my leader's description of
those ads and I also share his description of those who designed
and perpetrated those ads.
This past weekend I was in the province of Nova Scotia in my
constituency and I spoke with many people about this issue. When
it came down to the final analysis as to what was going on I was
asked why we are discussing this when there are so many important
issues. With the expiration of the TAGS program, with the sorry
state of national health care, the high unemployment and the many
substantial issues that we do discuss in the House of Commons,
why are we wasting our time discussing a tiny flag on the corner
of our desks?
My hope is that Canadians will see this attempt by the Reform
Party to divide the House for what it is. It is a shameful
attempt to derail the national agenda. What people do not want
is this debate to go on and on. What they want is trust and
respect for members in the House of Commons, but it has to be
earned. What they want is a sense of honour and respect for
national institutions, which the House surely is. Let us work to
bring some decorum back to the House.
The flag is above all to be treated with dignity and respect. It
is not a desk decoration or to be hung as a drapery in a window
as proof of one's patriotism. We will oppose this motion and we
will do so not because we do not love the flag, for we do. The
Progressive Conservative Party has been around this country since
its inception. We have been around this country carrying the
flag for all Canadians since that time.
A ruling was made from by Chair and that ruling has now been
brought into question by the Reform motion. Again we are talking
about decorum, we are talking about respect, we are talking about
order in the House of Commons. It would be improper for anyone
to stand up between the second and third period of a hockey game
and sing the national anthem. It would be improper to break out
into enthusiastic flag waving in the middle of a church sermon or
in the middle of a child's recital at school.
I would suggest those are apt examples of what the Reform Party
is trying to do here and it is doing so for all the wrong
reasons.
1135
I want to emphasize that this is not simply about a flag. It
may be the simple common denominator that the Reform Party would
have us believe, but this is about decorum, dignity and order. I
would say that from the Reform perspective, this is about trying
to get its way against the will of everyone else.
What I find most ironic of all is the Bloc, the big bad
separatists, as perhaps one of the most respectful parties in
this House when it comes to the dignity and decorum that we are
supposed to surround ourselves in. There is a great irony in
that when my colleagues to the left in the Reform Party engage in
this infantile behaviour.
As much as I value the flag, as much as I hold it dear,
democracy must hold a higher place. Indeed the flag stands for
that principle among many others. When a member of the House, a
member who has been democratically elected here, is shouted down
and drowned out in the name of patriotism I say that is wrong.
Democracy has to be given a higher priority.
As much as I take no great offence to a flag being on a desk,
what I take offence to is the manner in which this has been
presented and the manner in which this has been brought about by
the Reform Party for, again, all the wrong reasons.
Let us put our shoulders to the wheel and do what Canadians
expect us to do. Let us come to this House and discuss
substantial issues. Let us get on with the nation's business.
Let us put this matter to rest and do the right thing. Let us
dismiss this motion and get down to the job that our constituents
sent us here to do.
Mr. Jim Abbott: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
know that it is your intention and always has been your intention
to be very fair in questions and comments. I note, however, that
this is Reform bash day and I was just wondering if you would
give precedence to Reform people to ask questions of people who
have been bashing the Reform Party and this motion.
The Deputy Speaker: The Chair is aware of the nature of
the discussion. However, what your Speaker has tried to do is
ensure a relatively fair distribution of questions. The New
Democratic Party has not had an opportunity yet to ask a question
or make a comment at the end of any member's speech and that is
why I recognized the hon. member for Qu'Appelle in this instance.
He has been rising consistently in an effort to get the floor.
In respect of each of the government speakers, I gave precedence
to the Reform members since they were members of the official
opposition and since it was their motion.
I feel it is incumbent on the Chair to ensure that all parties
get an opportunity to participate in questions and comments. The
Bloc Quebecois has had one person rise on questions and comments
to be recognized and this is the first time the NDP has had that
opportunity.
Hon. Lorne Nystrom (Qu'Appelle, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I want to
make a comment and preface that with a short question for
the House leader of the Conservative Party.
What I resent about this debate is the Reform Party playing
politics with a very important national symbol of this country.
I think that can be very dangerous in terms of the flag waving
and the political games it is playing. Let us really call it
what it is. It is the Reform Party wanting to go around the
country after this is over and say “We stood up to those
terrible separatists. We stood up for the flag and for Canada
but those other parties did not”. That is exactly what it wants
to do.
The Reform members are smirking here this morning because they
are going to have the four other parties voting against this
motion. This is the most pathetic partisan politics I have ever
seen. It is an abuse of the flag and of our national symbols. I
really resent that. I have never seen that happen in all my
years in this House.
What about games? Who was it in this House who threw the flag
on the floor of the House of Commons? Was it a separatist? No.
It was the member for Medicine Hat, the Reform Party finance
critic, who threw the flag on the floor of the House of Commons.
If that is not playing politics with the flag then what the devil
is it?
1140
Who was it that took an old convertible and painted it the
colours of the Canadian Flag? Was it a member of the
Conservative Party, the NDP or the Liberal Party? Who was it?
The Reform Party. It is the Reform Party that is using the flag
as a gimmick, as a narrow partisan instrument for its narrow
partisan political beliefs.
Reformers are trying to divide Canadians, be divisive, pit
Canadian against Canadian. I resent that as someone who has been
in this House for a number of years. I have never seen this kind
of gamemanship in the history of the House of Commons. That comes
from a political party that said it wanted to do politics
differently, bring decorum to the House of Commons. We are seeing
the true Reform Party in this House of Commons here today. When
I am out in my riding, as I was last weekend, people are saying
to me why do we not talk about the real issues, the real issues
confronting all Canadian people.
This Parliament costs over $1 million a day in terms of sitting
days to run. The budget of the House of Commons is over $200
million a year. We sit for approximately 140 or 150 days per
year, over $1 million a day. The Reform Party is wasting that
kind of money trying to divide Canadians by being partisan with
the flag of Canada. I resent that and I want to have a comment
from the House leader of the Conservative Party whether he agrees
with me that it is narrow partisan politics on the flag and a
waste of money. We should be dealing with real issues of this
country.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the question and
I welcome the remarks by my colleague in the NDP who has been in
this Chamber a lot longer than I and has a very eloquent way of
making his point. I agree very much so with what he has said.
The same comment was made this morning by my colleague from
Fundy—Royal that this is indeed a strictly financial argument,
removing all the rhetoric and removing all the emotion that has
surrounded this debate. I do not know if it is $1 million or
$500,000 but to think that we are spending that kind of money to
discuss this issue certainly raises the hackles on the back of my
neck. I am sure it offends Canadians greatly.
As for his comment about the disgraceful display of throwing the
flag on the floor of the House of Commons and his comment with of
whether it was the separatists who did it, let me raise this
point. Maybe it was. Maybe there is something more insidious
here that we are not quite aware of.
Reformers have brought a different agenda to this House of
Commons, a different agenda from that which they held themselves
out to be when they were elected in western Canada. I am hoping
and praying that those who supported them in western Canada will
look at the display and look at the way they have behaved and
performed in the House of Commons when they make their decision
the next time.
The Deputy Speaker: I might suggest to the House that if
there is considerable interest in questions and comments at the
conclusion of members' speeches, we could revert to that good
practice of one minute comments and one minute responses, which I
am happy to do if the House is agreeable for the rest of the day.
That will try to ensure wider distribution of the questions and
comments in the limited time we have.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it
was mentioned earlier that this was not about the flag. It is
mostly about the flag but I would say it certainly goes deeper
than it. It is about everything the flag represents. It is
about the symbolism, the pride and patriotism of being a Canadian
and I want to talk about that for a few minutes in the 10 minutes
I have allotted to me.
It was mentioned earlier by the government House leader that I
was the one who brought forward the motion to sing O Canada. It
was I at the beginning of the 35th Parliament in 1994. I was
proud to do that. It had never been done. The members said they
were not sure we could do that. They denied unanimous consent and
of course it went to committee.
The whip across knows that it went to committee and then they
said today that we were playing political games because we knew
it was in committee.
Mr. Speaker, you were on that committee and I think you will
remember the dates and the times. Let me just remind you and get
it into Hansard. It was almost two years later, at least a
year and a half, when I said what happened to this thing. I
asked the committee, of which you were the chairman, if I could
be a witness in front of that committee and you granted me that
opportunity.
It went through committee not by any grand gesture of any
government member but because I phoned and asked where is that
thing, let us get it going. You granted me that opportunity to
come as a witness. It was by no magnanimous gesture of any
government member who said we want to get this thing through as
fast as we can.
I appreciated being allowed to attend the committee as a witness
but it was at my request as a result of referendum day 1995.
1145
We are not talking about who is more or less patriotic. That is
not the issue. I am not trying to say I am any more patriotic
than other members. I am not trying to say I am a better
Canadian. That is not the issue. It is about freedom of
expression and being able to express patriotism on the particular
days when it hits us, when we feel like it. If I want to
celebrate Canada, there ain't nobody who can tell me that is not
my privilege and experience as a Canadian citizen.
I want to give a few personal thoughts in this debate. Heaven
help me if I would ever use a prop as I know that is not
appropriate in the House of Commons, but I have my birth
certificate here and I want to read something from it. I promise
not to throw it. It reads: Name, Deborah Cleland Grey. Birthday,
July 1, 1952. Place of Birth, Vancouver, British Columbia. It
can be seen that this flag means a little more to me than just
something I want to put on my desk, or something I will wear
proudly and passionately, the red and white and you bet I will.
I am the fourth child in my family. I was born three and a half
weeks late, which is practically unheard of. My mother said to
me, and it still rings it true today “You knew exactly the day
you were waiting for, Deb”. I had no idea I would ever be a
member of Parliament yet the symbolism of that—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Miss Deborah Grey: They can snort and say whatever they
like but no one in the House can challenge or dare me and say,
“Isn't she cute, doesn't she play stunts, doesn't she play
gimmicks”. These people who are sneering say they deserve
freedom of speech. I would ask for the same respect.
It is so deep, the symbolism of the flag. It is not just the
flag. It is the symbolism of my flag. I am speaking here for
myself and that is all. When I say it is important to me, you
bet it is. Maybe it is a first, that someone else would sneer
and snort, but I am here to say to him and to everybody else,
ain't nobody who can tell me that my Canadian flag is not
important to me.
It is not just the flag on my desk but deep within myself. I was
13 years old in 1965 when the first flag debate took place. I
was proud to see the end of that flag flap. I was a teenager and
I loved the maple leaf. I have travelled in Europe. That maple
leaf was sewn on my knapsack. I was proud to be a Canadian, not
just for the flag but for everything it represented.
One of the highlights of my elected life was on October 1, 1996,
right after the Atlanta games when the Speaker of the House
invited all the Olympian athletes here on the floor of the
Chamber. Mr. Speaker, you were here and I know you shared my
excitement.
I want to look for a few moments at Hansard from that day
because we have heard today that the rules in this place cannot
be changed. The Speaker made his ruling yesterday and it cannot
be changed, do not mess with it.
Here is what he said in Hansard on October 1, 1996: “We
are going to do a few things differently in the next few
minutes”. Then he went on to say: “For the first time in the
history of our country, we are going to bring on to the floor our
Olympic athletes”.
What a day that was. I sat farther down toward the door. Silken
Laumann, Donovan Bailey and Curt Harnet, and all the others with
the special Olympics, when they wheeled in and walked in, that
was a rush. People on all sides of the House had goose bumps
because for the first time ever they stood on the floor of the
House of Commons. Let me say I was proud. The Speaker said: “We
do not usually have guests here on the floor of the House of
Commons but this is an extraordinary day and we wanted to bend
the rules just a little because we here in this Chamber and we 30
million Canadians want to pay tribute to you and to congratulate
you”.
1150
That was a wonderful day. We celebrated those Olympian
athletes. What a job they did in Atlanta. I was so proud of
them. The Speaker unilaterally made new rules to celebrate,
allowing those Olympic athletes to come to the floor of the
House.
The editor's note reads: “After the singing of the national
anthem, Canada's 1996 Paralympic and Olympic athletes left the
Chamber”. It was a spontaneous, exciting and passionate
rendition of O Canada. And today we are saying that maybe
that will not happen again.
What about the Olympic athletes in Nagano? What about the
athletes who did such a superb job for Canada? They love our
flag, as do I. They serve it, as do I. They celebrate it, as do
I.
What about Sandra Schmirler? With the time zone change I would
love to ask who got up at 3.30 in the morning to watch a live
curling draw.
What about those of us who watched Pierre Lueders from Edmonton
sailing down the run in the bobsled with the Canadian flag on the
front? He won the gold.
What about Catriona Lemay-Doan? I hope she is in this Chamber
with that grin from ear to ear celebrating what it is to be a
Canadian.
What about Annie Perreault with her speed skating? What a day
that was.
Are they going to be coming to the floor of the House of
Commons? Knowing the Speaker as I do, I would bet a dollar that
he would want them to come. He has opened up this place. I
appreciate that. They are going to be here on the floor of the
House of Commons. And I bet a dollar they will be in their red
and white Roots Canada jackets. I bet they will. But we will
not be allowed to, judging from what has happened here today.
They can go into any building, any parking lot, any mall, any
radio station anywhere in this country and they are allowed to
show the flag. However if they come here to the floor of the
House of Commons and if this motion is not supported today, there
will be no little Canadian flags to celebrate them. Will we be
allowed to have a spontaneous rendition of O Canada? I am
not sure. Apparently not. It does not sound like it.
This will be the only building in Canada where the Olympic
athletes will not be able to be spontaneous. Why in the name of
common sense, why in the name of freedom of expression are we not
allowed to jump out of our seats, wave the flag and sing O
Canada at the top of our lungs to celebrate the Olympic
athletes? They have come home from Nagano. They love the flag.
They serve it and they celebrate it. I want to be there to
celebrate with them. I want to show my patriotism in any way I
can when they are here in the House of Commons.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the words of the hon. Reform member.
She delivered a very passionate message to Canadians. However, I
would suggest that it is not an accurate picture of what this
debate is about.
I ask her honestly and straightforwardly, how she can make that
monumental mental leap to suggest that having a little flag on
the desks is somehow going to bar our Canadian athletes from
walking in here as they have in the past and having a spontaneous
rendition of our national anthem.
That is not the issue at all. That is a blatantly misleading
statement.
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, if I want to do something
which is spontaneous because my flag means so much to me, I think
I should be given the privilege, the right and perhaps even the
obligation to stand. If I want to wave my flag as a symbol of
what is inside, I figure I ought to be able to do that.
If I want to sing O Canada in this Chamber, I tell you, Mr.
Speaker, I will do it. If they are here I will do it.
1155
The issue is that we be allowed when we choose, not all the time
but when we choose, to have that flag which is so much deeper and
which represents so much about what it means to me to be a
Canadian. It is the symbol and that is why I should be able to
use it at my desk, because I love it and because I serve it.
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the member talks about spontaneity. I certainly do recall the
spontaneity when she tore down the back aisle after a member of
Parliament, Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais, and threatened her in
this Chamber.
I was also reminded of something because of the way she was
hurling her papers around that she made a statement in her speech
that far be it for her to use props. I wonder if the member
recalls an incident whereby she took a platform document of the
Liberal Party during question period and hurled it onto the floor
of the House. I wonder if the member would think that was a
prop.
Given what the member has done compared to what she has said,
how is anybody to believe anything the member has said?
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, the member will remember
that the case he is talking about, about a defeated member from
New Brunswick, had absolutely no merit to it. The Speaker ruled
on that once and for all. It is unbelievable that he would bring
up some silly thing like that again.
The member talked about the red book. Yes, I must admit on that
day I thought that was just where the red book deserved to be,
right smack on the floor. I have never thrown a flag. I never
will. Is it not ironic that the red book would be allowed in the
Chamber of the House Commons, but the red flag would not. What a
caution, what a pathetic statement.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the Reform Party member. Thank goodness she was not born on
December 25, because she would think she is God Almighty.
I was here when the incidents occurred and what concerns me about
the attitude of Reformers is that they behaved like a bunch of fanatics.
People who, individually, are usually sociable, tolerant and
understanding behaved like a pack hunting some prey, and this scared me.
History tells us—and there is no need to refer specifically to
Germany during the second world war—that people wrapped in their flag
like that often commit the worst possible crimes.
Could the hon. member tell us whether she is proud of the attitude
displayed and the means used here by her colleagues in the Reform Party,
including the threats made to the Speaker of the House, such as airing
his private life in public? I wonder if she is proud of her fellow party
members and if she is proud of herself, considering she was born on July
1.
[English]
Miss Deborah Grey: Mr. Speaker, I did not get the point
about December 25. I am not sure what the hon. member was
referring to. I must admit I did not have a whole lot to do with
the family planning. I was born when I was born.
He will remember that the incident which happened last week had
nothing to do with the flag flap. It had everything to do with
some comments the Speaker had made elsewhere which he
straightened out. He did not recognize the Leader of Her
Majesty's Official Opposition. That is why many members were
angry.
Something happened that day which was regrettable. My seatmate,
the member for Medicine Hat, tossed a flag up in disgust. He was
exasperated, he was frustrated and he said that he is very, very
sorry and very ashamed that he did that. I appreciated the
honesty in that. I think all of us need to say thanks for being
honest.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a
great honour to stand today in this House of Commons to debate
this motion. The motion is a very simple one. In the positive
as it is stated it says that members will be permitted to display
small flags at their desks if they so choose. That is the
essence of it.
For me it was really defined at a time when I was denied that
permission.
Because I have been quite involved with this story, I appreciate
the opportunity to rise today.
1200
I will give a little background. I am a first generation
Canadian. I had no choice as the previous member had about when
and where I was born. However, I am very glad that I was born in
Swift Current, Saskatchewan, in a province of Canada. I grew up
in a family which had chosen to make Canada their home.
Along with other people in their immediate group, my
grandparents while living in southern Russia during the first
world war, suffered from a lot of persecution. The revolution
came after the war. Members of our family in that country were
killed in that revolution simply because of their beliefs and not
because they committed any crime or anything else. They were not
on the right political side.
My grandparents having escaped from the same disasters made the
decision to move their family out of that country. They
literally fled that country and came to Canada. They came here
because this was the country of freedom, opportunity and safety
for their family. Though they did not know each other, this
happened in parallel to my grandparents on both my mom's and
dad's sides.
As a youngster growing up in a farm home, we had central heating
which was defined as being a stove in one of the main floor
rooms. There was a hole in the ceiling that allowed the heat by
convection to go upstairs. There was a grate at the hole and we
could hear what the adults were saying downstairs. I remember
hearing my grandparents, my uncles, aunts and some of their
friends discuss how things were in the old country. Over and
over I remember hearing how wonderful that we could come to
Canada.
This was not part of my speech but it is tremendously important.
I was asked this week a number of times whether I was proud to
be a Canadian. I said yes. The word that describes it better is
that I am grateful to be a Canadian. I am thankful to be a
Canadian. I am so thankful that my grandparents made that
decision to leave that country and come to this country. There
is deep within me feelings and convictions of the importance of
preserving freedom of speech, freedom of expression, freedom of
choosing one's faith, all these freedoms in this country which I
and my family value so highly.
I will go back to February 26 when the member came back from
Nagano. At the suggestion of one of the Liberal members, a
member of this House had placed flags on all our desks. It was
agreed that when the member who had said things about our
Canadian flag came back from Nagano that as loyal Canadians we
would wave these flags and show her that we love our country.
At that stage I did not know who had made this suggestion. No
one in our party had said they had done it so I did not think it
was from our party, and I did not care. I said I agreed with
this. Yes, I confess to engaging in a spontaneous demonstration
in this House of Commons when the member who had spoken
disparagingly of our flag came back from Nagano. I confess I
joined in that demonstration.
The question is should I now apologize for it? The answer is
no, I should not. If we do not have freedom of expression in
this country, in this very House, then really what else matters?
Shortly thereafter we went back to the budget debate. This is
the defining moment for me. This is the moment in my entire life
where my flag meant more to me than at any other time.
That was the same Thursday when, a few minutes later, there was a
Liberal member droning on about how wonderful their budget was. I
had heard most of the things before, therefore I will confess
again that I was not paying a great deal of attention to what he
was saying. I was reading.
1205
After a little demonstration, without thinking instead of
putting my flag back into my desk, I placed it into my little
water holder. As a result, it just sat there, this little, tiny
flag, three inches by six inches, and for those who are metric,
seven and a half centimetres by fifteen. There it was. I was
reading a paper. A Liberal member was droning on.
Suddenly, there was a point of order. A separatist member of
this House got up and said “Madam Speaker”—it was the one of
the Acting Speakers who was in the chair—“I see flags and I
would like to have them removed”. That is a paraphrase, not a
quote.
I basically ignored it. I will admit that. The Acting Speaker
did ask for members to remove their flags. I was busy reading
and really did not pay too much attention to it. It was also in
a language that I do not understand, and I regret that I do not
understand it.
He stood up immediately again and said “Madam Speaker, I still
see flags” and she did not see them. My flag was very small and
very unobtrusive. It certainly was not bothering the Liberal
member from speaking.
He pointed right at me and then she looked at me and said “Will
the member for Elk Island remove his flag?” I have to say at
that moment that flag meant more to me than anything. When I was
asked to remove it, I did not.
Am I sorry? No, I am not. See how torn I am. The rules do not
permit me in that instance to display a simple, little, Canadian
flag and that is wrong. There is not another geographical
location in this whole country where we cannot display our flag.
We have it in our offices. That has already been mentioned. I
do not think there is a business in this entire country where, if
an employee of the company would have a little flag on their
desk, anyone would have the audacity, the nerve to say “Take it
away”.
For me, it is not the permission to have the flag. It is an
assurance that it will not be taken away from me. That is what
happened on that day. That was the defining moment.
We have bombasted here today. We did not plan this. We
honestly did not. I said that on very many talk shows this week.
It was not a planned thing by the Reform Party. I did not know
until two seconds before this happened that this is how it would
develop.
I will say one thing. If I am asked to stand up for my country
and my flag, I will do it and there will not be a member who is
trying to tear this country apart who will stop me, nor any other
Canadian or non-Canadian.
If I do not have that kind of fortitude, I do not have the right
to stand here. It is a formidable task we have. Judging by the
debate so far, everyone is against this motion. They are somehow
trying to judge our motives. Because our motives are wrong, they
are going to vote for what is wrong instead of for what is right.
I am appealing, I am begging, I am doing everything I can to ask
hon. members on all sides of the House to do what is right. What
we are asking is for a small incremental change.
Yes, I believe in rules. I believe in law. I believe in order.
I believe that we have limits to our freedoms of expression. We
are moving. We want to move those limits ever so little in this
House so that when a member gets into a situation like I was in,
the rules of the House cannot be used to defeat and to destroy my
freedom of a very simple expression which I value so highly.
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, let me say, since the previous speaker mentioned that
his parents were refugees from another country, that I was a
refugee from Hungary and came to Canada in 1957.
Let me tell him that there are ways of celebrating flags and
there are ways not to celebrate flags.
1210
If members recall communist countries, every May 1 was May Day.
The factories emptied. All the workplaces were empty. Those
workers were forced to march past the reviewing stand in order to
celebrate May Day. I recall when I was five years old going
along with my mother because we had to bring family members
along. I could not understand why all the adults around me
wanted me to carry their flags. It was because they did not want
to carry the flag.
Let me further say that October 27, 1995 was one of my proudest
moments. I was at the Place du Canada in Montreal with my family
and 600 people from my riding where we proudly carried the flag.
That was an expression of our love for our country and our flag.
The only question I have for that member is where was he?
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, it is not accurate to say that
there were no Reformers there. It just has not been advertised.
There were some, and some pretty high profile ones.
Besides that, the member mentioned the old countries. This is
what distinguishes this country from other countries and why I am
so grateful that my grandparents chose this as their country. In
those other countries people are punished if they do not fly the
flag. Does that make them patriotic or right? No. I could even
ask the question: Does the distribution of free flags around the
country, causing people to wave them who otherwise were not doing
it, make them patriotic? I think not. The difference is that in
this country and in this place we are punished if we do fly the
flag.
My comment would simply be that the sequence is most important.
I believe, for myself and probably for most Canadians, that we
should fly the flag because we are patriotic rather than thinking
that we will become patriotic by flying the flag. There is a
huge difference there.
Mr. Ted McWhinney (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Foreign Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my
time with the hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane.
The debate today cannot be separated from the incident in the
House on February 26 from which it arose. If we go back to that
incident we will find that there was some anger and concern on
both sides of the House with remarks attributed to the hon.
member for Rimouski—Mitis in far away Japan. As reported, the
remarks were deemed offensive by a number of people. I believe
this is what produced the incident.
I have since seen an explanation of it by the hon. member for
Rimouski—Mitis. As many of us know from her work in committee,
she has been a good committee person and has been respectful of
House rules in her conduct. I have seen the explanation since,
but in the origins I think there was an anger in her remarks that
was considered intemperate and offensive to many members.
What happened I think needs to be traced. On February 23 I was
told to look in my desk in the House. When I looked in, I found
a small flag with a note which read “As a loyal Canadian, please
wave this flag the first time Suzanne Tremblay, BQ, stands to
speak in question period”.
The Deputy Speaker: I think the hon. member knows that he
must refer to members by their constituency and not by name. I
urge him to comply with the rules in that regard.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I was referring to the
hon. member in the context of a document in which her name was
mentioned, but I will accept—
The Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. member's
argument but the rules of the House are clear, that one cannot do
indirectly what one cannot do directly, even quoting a document.
Your Speaker has experience with this from having had made the
same mistake.
1215
I have checked the authorities and I am satisfied it is quite
correct that you may not refer to the hon. member by name, even
when quoting from another document, so I would urge the member to
comply with the rule in that regard.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I would defer to you
because of your charm as well as your learning.
I was really saying that what would have been an understandably
spontaneous action lost some of its attraction when there was a
three day interregnum. I think it is correct to say, as an hon.
member on this side who was associated with the incident said on
March 9 in the House, it may have been ill advised but it never
was supposed to go this far. It took intellectual courage and
honesty for the hon. member concerned to make that remark and I
think he is right. This debate should have been closed then and
there.
Since we have a motion on the order paper today, let me simply
say that our reaction and attitude to our country and the symbols
of our nationhood are changing. The two founding nations,
perhaps because they regretted their 19th century history which
was rather bloody and rather inconsiderate of other people,
tended to develop a certain self-restraint. What was very
noticeable in the twenties, thirties, forties, the World War II
period and just before, was an absence of the breast beating
nationalism in many parts of continental Europe.
I remember the greatest of the Conservative leaders in Canada
during the post-war period, Premier John Robarts whom I advised,
defending the choice—and it was much in controversy—of the
maple leaf flag as the Canadian flag against some very angry
Conservatives who said that people fought and died under the
Union Jack in the last war. He replied, as somebody who had
served in the Mediterranean theatre in small boats, that none of
us fought and died under flags in Word War II, that you would
have given away your cover. Let us be realistic. Symbols of
that sort were more relevant in the 19th century. He was
representing an attitude of self-restraint which reflected the
thinking of people in the two founding nations at that period.
The United States Supreme Court in World War II gave two massive
rulings. I remember studying them as a law student. They were
key to the evolution of American constitutional democracy. One
sometimes thinks in Canada that the Americans are given to
excessive breast beating displays of nationalism. In 1942, in
the Gobitis case, the court ruled by an eight to one majority
that school children could be compelled to salute the flag even
though it violated their religious beliefs.
There was such a flood of criticism of that decision, including
from marines serving in the Pacific theatre, “is it the country
we are fighting for”, that the court reversed that decision two
years later. It was a defining moment in Americans' attitude to
themselves and to their symbols.
We recognize the change in this country, the influence of
immigration, the influence of our passage to a multicultural,
plural society in which the views of new cultural communities are
as relevant and determining as those of other people.
In 1994 the Speaker of the House introduced what you have on the
left and the right of his chair, Mr. Speaker, the Canadian flag.
It was not displayed before but he introduced that and it has
been a practice supported by all of us. In 1994 he also
introduced the practice—and I think it was first suggested by
the hon. member for Edmonton North—of singing the national
anthem each Wednesday afternoon. Again it is a practice that all
parties in the House have supported.
Each generation of Canadians has the right to redefine its
attitudes to the nation including its choice of symbols. It may
well be that we have been less demonstrative than we should have
been.
I remember visiting India in the post-war period 15 years after
independence and being struck by the fact that the main traffic
circle in town, which had a huge, monumental plinth, was still
dominated by a statue of King George V of Great Britain.
One said to the Indians “Does he not represent the past?” The
Indians said “yes, but we have no inferiority complex. In time
we will remove the statue,” and they did 10 years later. In
other words it should not be assumed that the new immigrants will
follow the attitudes of colleagues from the other side of the
House just referred to.
1220
One remembers the East German regime of Mr. Honecker, which was
dramatically in evidence for the gymnastic displays, those three
or four hours of sporting exhibitions accompanied by literally
thousands of flags. In 1989 the Berlin wall fell and the
particular flag Mr. Honecker had supported disappeared into the
dustbin of history.
We are looking for a way of reconciling new attitudes, new
expectations of what our national symbols should be with the more
traditional values which I think have been toward self-restraint.
Perhaps with a certain degree of smugness Canadians have set
themselves aside from other people. We do not need to say that
we are Canadians. We know. We have confidence in our future. We
know that we have a great future. We know that we are a tolerant
people. This process is a legitimate one and one that we would
all welcome, but I wonder whether, in the aftermath of the
incident in the House on February 26, this is the right time and
context in which to consider it.
I believe that the House put forward a sensible suggestion that
it go to a very powerful and prestigious committee of the House
which you once chaired, Mr. Speaker, in one of your earlier
periods. You were an erudite, an eloquent and perhaps a
loquacious incumbent of the chairmanship of that committee, but
you did well by us and we did well by you.
My suggestion to the hon. members opposite, to the hon. member
for Edmonton North who was active in the movement to display the
flags on either side of the chair and the singing of the anthem,
why not recall the motion? Why not let it go to the committee so
in a proper context of calmness we can consider what
redefinition, if any, we want to make of what we have already
done?
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I cannot believe, in light of arguments that have
already been presented, that the Liberal member who just spoke
still wants to send such a simple yes or no issue to committee to
languish there, as has been already stated, never to see the
light of day again.
I would just like to bring forth two other points. I have in my
office on my desk in my riding a Canadian flag. I have in my
office in Ottawa near my desk a Canadian flag. I have three
desks. The third desk is this one that I occupy in the House of
Commons on behalf of my constituents and all Canadians, where I
try to make valued judgments on legislation brought forward for
people in my riding and for all Canadians. Why, on this third
desk of mine, should I not be allowed the symbol of what I
represent?
I would ask, if I may, why, when his own former deputy prime
minister and heritage minister spent millions, nay tens of
millions of dollars, promoting the Canadian flag and telling
Canadians to be more—
The Deputy Speaker: The hon. the Parliamentary Secretary
to the Minister of Foreign Affairs.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I think it assumes too
much to imagine the committee over which you presided so
eloquently will take 19 years to reach a decision. It is the
sort of thing that could be decided promptly and we would
recommend it.
I also have the flags in my office. I added them recently. I
have been a serving member of the armed forces. I think one of
the difficulties perhaps with the House is that it has too little
acquaintance or contact directly with the last war or military
service. I always found that military people are more modest in
displaying nationalism than those without it.
Mr. Jim Abbott (Kootenay—Columbia, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this is a question of decorum and practice in the House. When
the original flag flap was happening, Progressive Conservative
members physically stormed the Speaker. Jim Fulton, a member of
the New Democratic Party, intentionally brought a raw fish into
the House that he slapped down on the Prime Minister's desk.
A former member of the New Democratic Party actually ran after
and grabbed the mace, which represents the power of the House.
1225
In the Speaker's ruling yesterday he said “Unless and until the
House changes its rules this will not be permitted”. What we are
doing, very simply, as my colleague has said, is asking for a
simple yes or no. Why can we not have a simple yes or no? Why
can we not simply change the rules so we can display the flag and
get on with business?
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will know
that I made no pejorative remarks about him or any other member
of the other side of the House, but I would suggest that there is
a feeling on this side of the House that his party should have
followed the course the member on this side did in saying that
enough time had been given to this issue. Let us put it off. Let
us consider it in that context.
I believe that on his side a gaffe was made. I also believe
that the art of politics is to retire gracefully from situations
such as that.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wonder
if the member could comment on the observations I have made. The
leader of the Reform Party a couple of years ago could not have
been bothered to attend the flag day celebration because it was
not very important.
Today members of the Reform Party are cloaked in the flag.
Somehow they are the great defenders of the flag. I wonder if he
could comment on what I believe to be a very shabby and shallow
patriotic venture on the part of Reformers.
Mr. Ted McWhinney: Mr. Speaker, I think that patriotism
like religion is a matter of personal choice and personal taste,
at least in its display.
I go to flag ceremonies. I do so proudly. I think we should
leave it to each member to make that judgment.
Mr. Benoît Serré (Timiskaming—Cochrane, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, contrary to most members who have spoken previously, I
am not pleased to participate in the debate today. I do so out
of a sense of duty not to my party but to my country.
Today I will probably give the most difficult speech of my
political career. I understand fully the predicament we have put
the Speaker in with the so-called flag issue. I too feel caught
between a rock and a hard place. My heart is torn apart.
On the one hand I would like to support the motion, as I have
previously been adamant about my right to place a flag on my
desk. On the other hand, because of the manner in which members
of the Reform Party have conducted themselves on this issue, I
cannot and I will not support the motion. I will try to explain
why to the best of my ability.
[Translation]
Before getting to the heart of the matter, let me remind the House
of the events that led to this dilemma. I feel that after doing so I
will have managed to upset both the separatists and the Reformers. In
any case, it is important to set the record straight.
The separatist member for Rimouski—Mitis made some comments at the
Nagano Games that upset Canadian parliamentarians, and in fact all
Canadians. We could not let her get away with this. We had to respond to
the member and to proudly defend the use of the Canadian flag, and we
did.
We did so spontaneously and with pride.
The Chair ruled that the way we did it was against the rules. I
respect the decision. However, I am warning separatists that whenever
they attack our flag, I will be there to defend it.
I have a suggestion for the member for Rimouski—Mitis and all her
separatist colleagues: if they are offended by the Canadian flag, if
they cannot loyally represent Canada at international events, then they
should stay here and leave that opportunity to other members who will
represent our country with pride and dignity.
[English]
Let me now address the motion of the Reform Party. Let me say
from the outset that I favour having a Canadian flag on my desk.
Two weeks ago I would have supported such a motion. I hope that
through the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs or through a
private members' bill we will one day be able to do so. However,
to bring such a motion today in light of the recent events is
divisive, disruptive and plain low politicking.
1230
It would be a lot easier for me to grandstand today and be the
lone Liberal hero by supporting this motion. But when one is
elected to the Canadian Parliament, one must not ask himself what
is best for the party, one must not ask himself what is best to
be re-elected, one must ask himself what is best for Canada. That
is a lot harder to do.
The manner in which the Reform Party conducted itself on this
issue, and other facts which I have learned in the past week, has
led me to reconsider my position. Here we are in the House of
Commons saying that we want to promote the Canadian flag and
teach respect for the flag. What does the Reform Party do? It
throws the flag on the floor. It took a very serious issue and
turned it into a circus. I have too much respect for the
Canadian flag to support and witness such disrespectful acts.
Where was the Reform Party when we had the flag rally in
Montreal on October 27, 1995? We were there. The Reform Party
opposed the fly the flag program brought forward by the Minister
of Canadian Heritage. We supported it. Yet, it comes into the
House pretending to be holier than thou and somehow making the
impression that it is more patriotic than we are.
We on this side of the House have no lessons to learn from the
Reform Party on patriotism. We want the flag to unite Canadians,
not divide them. By forcing this issue now, today, they are
playing right into the separatists' hands. They are pouring
gasoline on the fire.
I have done some research in the past week. In other
legislatures around the world, the use of flags on MPs desks is
not permitted in the British Parliament, Australia, the American
Congress or the American Senate. Maybe we could set a precedent
in this House and become the first parliament to do so, but today
is not the time. We must put this issue to rest for now by
referring the matter to a committee. We have important matters
and bills to debate in this House. It is time for us to move on
with the business of governing this country.
I suspect that most Canadians would agree with MPs having a flag
on their desks. I also suspect that first and foremost they
demand and expect that we conduct ourselves in a civil manner and
that we do the job that we were elected to do, which is to help
create jobs, improve our social programs and pass legislation for
the betterment of all Canadians.
The Reform Party is saying that it wants change. I too want
change. I challenge the Reform Party to show that it is not just
playing politics with this issue. I challenge the Reform Party
to give unanimous consent to the House to an amendment that I am
prepared to put forward. The amendment is:
That the motion be amended by inserting immediately before the
words “this House” the words “the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs to prepare a report by June 15”.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Timiskaming—Cochrane have the unanimous consent of the House to
put the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Deputy Speaker: There is no consent.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans, BQ): Mr.
Speaker, it is unfortunate that the remarks we have just heard were
tinged with so much hypocrisy. Let me explain.
1235
The hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane is one of those whose
conduct, since the very beginning of this flag business, has been—
The Deputy Speaker: Order, please. The hon. member for
Timiskaming—Cochrane on a point of order.
Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Speaker, while members of the Bloc Quebecois
claim to respect the rules of decorum in this House, the hon. member has
just called another member a hypocrite. I think this is unparliamentary.
I would ask that he withdraw his remarks.
The Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. member for
Beauport—Montmorency—Orléans wish to reply?
Mr. Michel Guimond: I will be happy to, Mr. Speaker. I suggest you
check the blues, Mr. Speaker. I know you take your job seriously. I
never called the hon. member a hypocrite, that is totally false.
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Yet he is one.
Mr. Michel Guimond: I must say, however, that he just gave us
another example of his conduct, which I described earlier as tinged with
hypocrisy.
Since the beginning of this flag business, the hon. member for
Timiskaming—Cochrane has been displaying a small Canadian flag on his
desk. I must say on the outset that members of the Bloc Quebecois are
not allergic to flags or to the national anthem.
The national anthem is played in formal ceremonies in the riding of
any one of the 44 Bloc members. Take Remembrance Day, for example. I
personally hold Remembrance Day ceremonies in my riding. In fact, no
fewer than four ceremonies are held in my riding in which we pay tribute
to Quebeckers and Canadians who lost their lives on the battlefield. So,
we are not against the flag.
I just want the hon. member for Timiskaming—Cochrane to confirm
that he kept a flag on his desk for three days after all his colleagues
had taken theirs off. He has never taken his flag off his desk. Has he
not been at the centre of the masquerade behind all this? No way that
was a spontaneous remark.
Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Speaker, at the beginning of my speech
I said that I would be making the Bloc members angry. I think I
have succeeded in doing so. I must have touched a nerve, because
they reacted to the truths I said in my speech.
Yes, I confirm that I had a flag on my desk for a few days.
I had it there with pride, and I wore it with pride. I hope to be
able to do so again some day. But the way to accomplish that is
not to add fuel to the fire, but to refer the ruling to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
I am extremely disappointed that Reform, which claims to be
prepared to co-operate and to desire change, is refusing to use the
same process as for the singing of the national anthem in this
House.
[English]
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I respect
the hon. member and his views. I also respect that he has now
decided, apparently from his speech, to not support this motion
which rather comes as a surprise to me since I thought he was in
favour of this freedom of expression to display a small flag on
our desks.
To my understanding he has tabled a private member's bill to
permit this. Can he now clarify this. Is he going to withdraw
the bill or will he stand by it?
Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Speaker, I am in the process of
preparing a private member's bill with the legal department but
it is not done yet. It will come in the future.
I want to emphasize that this private member's bill will need to
have some kind of provision to prevent the Reform Party from
throwing the flag on the floor. Their motion does not say much
about their party because of what happened with the member for
Medicine Hat. They have to put a provision in their motion that
it will be stationary or glued to the desk because they cannot
trust the conduct of their own members.
I would hope if and when a private member's bill is introduced
it will have provisions to prevent that.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I would
like my colleague to comment on the recent intervenor's behaviour
in the last few days, traipsing around this city with a beat-up
old Oldsmobile, painted with a Canadian flag. Is that respect
for our institutions?
1240
Mr. Benoît Serré: Mr. Speaker, yes, I will gladly comment
on this.
If the Reform Party had conducted this issue with decorum, I
would probably be standing here today in support of that motion.
I agree with the idea per se, but the Reform Party took an issue
that is dear to my heart and made a circus out of it. There is
no way I will attach my name to this type of conduct.
[Translation]
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): 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.
1245
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?
[English]
Mr. Stan Keyes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Transport, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, having listened to the debate
since it began at 10 o'clock this morning and especially in the
last hour and a half, in my almost decade of service for my
constituents in this House of Commons, quite frankly I have never
heard so much bombast and so many half truths.
Earlier today the hon. member for Edmonton North made reference
to the appearance on the floor of the House of Commons in 1996 of
the Canadian Olympic and Paralympic athletes. She seemed to imply
that the Speaker cast a blind eye at the rules to permit what
proved to be a very exciting experience.
With one glance at the official record any member of this place
would see that the rules were not ignored at all. In fact the
Journals of the House of Commons for October 1, 1996 read:
“By unanimous consent of the House, the House resolved itself
into committee of the whole to recognize Canada's 1996 Summer
Olympic Games and Paraplegic Games medalists”.
This clearly shows that the reception of the athletes in 1996
was done with the unanimous consent of the House. There was no
breaking of any rules by Mr. Speaker. The Speaker permitted the
athletes on the floor only with the unanimous consent and
agreement of the House to waive the normal rules.
I have one quick, simple question for the member opposite. My
question for the hon. member of the official opposition is would
he think any less of me and my patriotism toward the country I
love if I do not put a Canadian flag on the corner of my desk?
Mr. Grant Hill: 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?
Mr. Andrew Telegdi (Kitchener—Waterloo, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have two questions for the member. Was the member at
Place du Canada in Montreal on October 27, 1995? Does he feel
that members of the Reform Party who threw the flag on the floor
should be disciplined, and if not why not?
Mr. Grant Hill: 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.
1250
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—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The time for
response has expired.
Ms. Val Meredith (South Surrey—White Rock—Langley,
Ref.): 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.
1255
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.
Mr. Alex Shepherd (Durham, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
member just stated if we cannot bring the Canadian flag into the
House where can we bring it. I and many of my colleagues have
been bringing the flag on our lapel pins into the House ever
since we were elected. I do not know where the member has been.
This debate is not about flags. It is about the institutions of
Parliament. It is about the institution of free speech. It is
about the ability of expression in this House. The Reform Party
does not seem to understand or respect our basic institutions of
Parliament. Is it fair to wipe out somebody's ability to speak
freely in this House just by having demonstrations? What other
kinds of flags can we bring into this House? The Canadian flag
and what about some provincial flags? Would that be acceptable to
the member?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, I have no objection to
bringing provincial flags into the House but the motion is—
1300
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Ms. Val Meredith: 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.
An hon. member: That's not what you just said.
Ms. Val Meredith: 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.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the hon.
member for York South—Weston poses his question, I remind all
hon. members to address each other through the Chair. In
particular when emotions run high, it tends to keep us at arm's
length.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, can the hon. member advise the House whether she is
aware of any other place in Canada, whether it be a public place
or a private place, where the displaying of the Canadian flag is
prohibited? Could she also comment on whether she believes the
prohibition of the displaying of the Canadian flag in a place
other than the House of Commons would be contrary to the charter
of rights and freedoms?
Ms. Val Meredith: 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.
Mr. Sarkis Assadourian (Brampton Centre, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I have one point to make and a short question. It is
not against the law to display the flag. We have two flags here.
We are talking specifically about putting them on our desks.
Last week one of our colleagues, the member for Medicine Hat,
threw the flag on the floor. As far as I know, he did not
apologize for it, nor did he pick up the flag. Did the hon.
member have the chance to speak to her colleague about the
incident? What does she have to say on this subject?
Ms. Val Meredith: Mr. Speaker, no one condones what
happened at that time and the member for Medicine Hat has
apologized for throwing the flag.
Mrs. Sue Barnes (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
National Revenue, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my
time with the member for Brossard—La Prairie.
I have asked to speak today but I am saddened that this debate
is taking place. I think of all the things we could be debating
tonight. We are voting on budgets, among other things. I think
of what has been displaced by this time. But it is a choice.
Canadians have to understand that while the government is elected
and generally puts its legislation forward to be properly debated
in this House, we have these days of opposition motions, and it
was the Reform Party, the party of the member who just spoke,
that chose to have this debate. We must understand that.
This debate is not about who is the most patriotic. I do not
find this debate to be about patriotism. I firmly believe that
patriotism is not only individual. It is collective as a nation.
It is the sharing of values and what we believe.
I do not find it necessary to stand up and parade all the
examples of how I show my patriotism.
I am here as the servant of the people who elected me from the
constituency of London West. They elected me to do the business
of the nation. They elected me to come to this Parliament and to
debate with my words, not with props, with flags or with noise.
They elected me to think, to research, to represent and, I
believe, to lead.
1305
When I was thinking about what I would say today I looked back
to my first speech in 1993 when I talked about what a privilege
it was to serve in this House. I talked about having the courage
and the courtesy to serve not only my constituents but my own
sense of values. That courtesy, I believe, extended to members
sitting across from me.
When I spoke for the first time in the 36th Parliament I said
“I wish to congratulate the Speakers”, and I went on to say
that I would co-operate and respect this office and this
Parliament. I also said that I would continue to treat other
members with the respect and courtesy which any member of
Parliament deserves.
I believe that is fundamental. I think the issue we are really
addressing today is how this Parliament functions for all
Canadians and how we bring the legislature out of the war of
words into action in our communities.
This is a very democratic institution. From across the nation
men and women are drawn together, often sacrificing time from
their careers and their families, to express ideas and to battle
each other through ideas and policies, not individually, not the
political thrust of the cheap shot. How we manage to do that is
through an institution called the Speaker.
The Speaker in Canada is elected by all members of the House. It
is the very first thing we do each time we come together to open
a new Parliament.
The Speaker has been given the obligation to make sure that
order is maintained in the House. The Speaker is there to make
sure that when I rise to speak I do not have to fear someone
coming at me physically. I can get my ideas across to all the
people in the land. I can put forth an argument that can be
heard. The Speaker ensures that I have the ability to make my
argument democratically, logically, without coercion or fear from
anyone in the Chamber.
There are parliaments, such as the one in Kenya, where last
spring the members almost began a fist fight. There have been
other examples throughout the Commonwealth and other democracies.
The purpose of this Chamber is to debate ideas. It is not for
stunts.
I ask how have we come to this position where it is us and them
politics. The symbol of our nation sits beside us. It has not
been outlawed to have the flag in this Chamber. I am looking at
it. Canadians can look at it. Every time the camera is focused
on the Speaker they see it. We are not outlawing the flag. This
is not about flags. This is about our being able to speak
freely. We are able to speak freely because there is a person
sitting in that chair who keeps order in this place.
This is a back door effort to appeal a ruling of the Speaker,
whom we all said we respected when we elected him, which was made
yesterday.
I heard an hon. member opposite say that all they are asking for
is a yes or a no today. They want to talk about it again. If
they had ears or eyes in the House yesterday they would have seen
every party except one stand to applaud the Speaker. The
Speaker's decision was right. It was based on precedent and
precedent in this Chamber has ruled out props. Why? Because
they are not necessary.
It is not necessary to have push button politics and stunts on
the Hill. It is not necessary to hire mariachi bands to know
that absenteeism is wrong.
I have two teenage sons. I do not want to see grown men sitting
around in an unsafe manner, abusing the flag as was done on the
Hill.
The taxpayers do not want to see any member of Parliament behave
as these people have behaved in the last little while.
1310
I remember a time in 1993 when somebody said “we came to Ottawa
to do politics differently”. How different has it been? It has
been very different. It seems that research, logic and courtesy
have gone the way for cheap headline hunting. I see this motion
as political manipulation of a very base kind. I do not have to
defend myself that I do not love my country or I am not patriotic
enough because there is a symbol sitting in front of me. I
wonder how many people sitting at their desks today have a symbol
sitting in front of them. However, I would never question their
loyalty to this country.
The absence of symbols in this House in this manner is not the
be all and end all. I appreciate the fact that members opposite
have even acknowledged that today. I think it is reasonable.
This is about reasonable debate, following the rules, courtesy
and respect for the institutions of our democracies as shown by
the Speaker's rulings. To my knowledge there are no appeals to
Speaker's rulings. We do not do things in democracies by the
back door. There are rule books such as Beauchesne's which
states very strictly how to go against the Speaker. One may
bring forward a motion and debate it. Do the members opposite
have the courage to debate that? I do not think so.
I think this is a way out. However, things are very rarely
answered properly by a yes or a no.
What we have here is something which I regard as one of the
lower days of debate and it is not because I do not value my
flag. The flag deserves to be known for what it really is. In
Canada it is a symbol of a country that knows peace, shows
tolerance and knows understanding. It is a symbol of those that
are greater than the individuals who stand in this country,
whether they are here by choice or by birth, and it is worthy of
respect. It is not worthy of disrespect to make cheap political
points and play political games that are not entertaining, funny
or worthy of the democratic institutions as fine as Canada has.
We have one of the best democracies in the world. We have one
of the best parliaments in the world. In my maiden speech in
1993 I said to a member of the Bloc, who talked to me about the
right to speak, that I would defend their right to speak but did
not have to agree with their ideas.
I will be voting against this motion tonight because I do not
believe that I need to have a prop to show my love for my country
or the value of this institution. I know what I am doing and I
know my constituents will understand.
Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Ref.): 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?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before the hon.
parliamentary secretary responds, because we had other members
from the opposition wanting to ask questions, we will go to the
opposition for the second question.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt in my
mind that the member of the Reform Party had the right to choose
the subject matter of debate. There is also no doubt in my mind
that Reform members knew last night, as we applauded the Speaker,
what the outcome of that vote would be. All they had to do was
look around to see that the only persons not applauding the
Speaker's decision were the Reformers.
Yes, they have the right to bring this to debate. However, it
is not a debate that was needed to take the time of this
Parliament when we have situations of unemployment, the budget
and other important situations. However, that was not my choice.
It was theirs and they have made. I also think there are other
manipulations going on here which I think Canadians are beginning
to understand.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, if the hon. member is so opposed to the debate, why is
she participating in the debate?
1315
I have been listening to the debate all morning. Perhaps the
hon. member can explain why, instead of dealing with the merits
of the motion before the House, she and her colleagues have
chosen to attack another political party. They accuse the Reform
Party of being partisan in bringing forward this motion. Rather
than dealing with the merits of the motion itself, she has chosen
to attack the Reform Party, presumably to make political points.
My question to the member is does she feel somewhat
inconsistent? On one hand the Government of Canada is saying to
Canadians to fly the Canadian flag and it sent out hundreds of
thousands of flags to Canadians this past year at a cost of
millions of dollars. On the other hand, she would support a
restriction of the use of the flag in the Canadian House of
Commons.
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that the
member has shown up for this debate. I am glad he is here.
I am here because I am on House duty today. Members of
Parliament come to this place to work. This is part of my work,
being in this House at a time when I am responsible to be here,
to partake in the debate of the day and I will do that.
I wonder if the member opposite knows that is a part of the work
of this House.
Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the member talk about how reprehensible the stunts
that have revolved around this issue are and how offensive they
are to her. I would ask her if that is the case, speaking for
herself or her party, why all the flags were waving on that side
of the House on the day the incident took place. It was a
Liberal member, I believe, who distributed the flags. It was a
Liberal member who started to sing O Canada during the
debate. What has her party done to discipline those individuals
for this reprehensible display that they started?
Mrs. Sue Barnes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the
member opposite, but of course I am constrained from doing so,
what his party has done to discipline those members who threw the
flags in this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I find it very interesting that the opposition, given a day of
debate, uses the whole day to talk about flags, when there are so
many national issues and concerns. I consider this opposition
party is paying us a remarkable compliment on the work we have
done.
Perhaps I could point out that I consider respect for
patriotism is also expressed through respect for the language of
those who make up our country and I can only deplore the fact that
the text of the motion, which arrived by electronic mail, contained
so many mistakes in the French as to insult me personally.
Patriotism is a fine thing, but it starts with respect for
those who make up this country and respect for my language.
On the subject of patriotism, I would like to mention two or
three very brief experiences demonstrating that patriotism does not
always find expression in a flag. It is something we feel very
deeply.
Last July 1, my first Canada Day as a member of Parliament, I
was given the honour of an invitation to attend a citizenship
ceremony. I spoke with the new Canadians saying “Look, I arrived
here twenty years ago and like you I ended up here on these chairs;
today I represent the Government of Canada”. That was a symbol of
pride for me. That is my patriotism.
At the great demonstration in Montreal before the 1995
referendum, my daughter Jessica had the honour of singing the
national anthem. I was behind the podium when she did. I saw the
crowd. I saw the emotion. That is what patriotism means to me.
In 1991, I was elected to chair the Quebec wing of the Liberal
Party of Canada, when it was very difficult being a federalist in
Quebec. And for my daughter to have sung the national anthem and
for everyone to have risen with tears in their eyes, that for me is
patriotism.
1320
My patriotism is not the show off type. It is deep and genuine. It
is not made up of symbolic values artificially displayed for purely
political reasons.
I realize that symbols are very important. I noticed, in Quebec in
particular, that the Quebec flag was appropriated by the separatists, as
if it belonged only to separatist sympathizers. I have deplored that.
The word “Quebecois”, as in Parti Quebecois and Bloc Quebecois, was
also appropriated by the separatists, as if the other parties in Quebec
were not “Quebecois”. I know how powerful symbols can be, but beyond the
symbols, there is something greater, there is what we feel deep down.
To fight about flags in this House is to use a highly respectable symbol
for partisan reasons of opposition and appropriation, which I vehemently
condemn.
This seems to me to be a pointless motion. It seems to be
counterproductive, unnecessary. What saddens me above all is that we are
wasting so much time debating it. It is as if we were giving Canadians
the signal, or symbol, that we parliamentarians are prepared to waste
precious time that would be better spent serving the people of this
country.
I find it most unfortunate that this flag debate has been turned
into an exercise in demagogy. I want to believe that, when the flag is
used, there is a modicum of sincerity—
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order. I was listening very intently to my
colleague opposite and to his impassioned speech about patriotism
and so forth.
It seems to me that when we impugn motives in this House that we
should be censured. The member opposite has just accused us of
practising demagoguery. I submit that that is impugning motives
behind our motion today. The motion today is not about that.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I apologize. I was
not paying attention to the hon. speaker. I did not hear the
words being used. However, the hon. member for Wetaskiwin is
quite right. If the word or the inference was there, I would ask
the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie not to impute motive.
[Translation]
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, when one moves a motion, one should
logically have a reason to do so. And if so, it is my duty, as a
parliamentarian, to make a value judgment on that reason. I am not
imputing motives. So, I stand by my comment to the effect that this is
a red herring. It is not a debate on patriotism, but a debate that has
absolutely no substance. Again, I deplore this.
I was going to conclude by saying I sincerely hope that everyone in
this House will agree on the eminently respectable character of the
Canadian flag.
However, I will conclude by asking this question: If the motion is
passed, if those who want to display a flag on their desk are allowed to
do so, and if I do not want a flag on my desk, would this mean I am less
patriotic than other members? This is totally absurd. I condemn it and
I deplore it.
[English]
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
listened to the speaker and certainly I think he should read our
motion. Our motion is not about asking or forcing people to put
flags on their desks.
It is entirely about the ability to put a flag on one's desk if
they so choose. I think if this debate were to be held anywhere
else in the free world, it would be surprising.
Our flag is welcome absolutely anywhere on foreign soil and it is
just amazing to me that we are debating whether or not the
Canadian flag can sit on members' desks if they so choose.
1325
As has been pointed out over and over again today, we are
certainly at liberty to wear a maple leaf lapel pin, one of which
I am wearing today. I do not see any difference in that.
When the hon. member tries to infer that we are trying to make
out that anyone who does not display a Canadian flag on his or
her desk is less of a Canadian, I think he is completely off the
mark.
I notice this period is known as questions and comments. Those
are my comments.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, it is the kind of comment
that reminds me of the position of someone who is so preoccupied
by preparing a question he has forgotten to listen to the one who
is speaking.
I said very specifically in French, and I will now do so in
English, if this motion were to be adopted and if I decided not
to have a flag on my desk, the question was clear, should that
mean, would that mean or could that mean that I am less patriotic
than someone else who has it? I say putting the question is
totally absurd.
Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise
on a point of order.
At page 145 of Beauchesne's, on June 16, 1963, “demagogue” was
deemed to be an unparliamentary term. I would ask that the
member withdraw that statement.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I will have the
blues checked. If the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie used
the term demagogue, I will ask the hon. member to withdraw.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel (Chambly, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with
interest to the hon. member for Brossard—La Prairie, who became a
Canadian about 20 years ago.
I simply want to remind him that, originally, there were two
founding peoples in Canada, and the first one was a francophone people
called the Canadiens. At the time, the term “Canadiens” referred
strictly to francophones. Then came a period known as English Rule.
Being the nice people that we are, we agreed that there would be two
founding peoples, and Canadians who, until then had always been
Canadiens, redefined themselves as French Canadians.
[English]
Mr. Peter Stoffer: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wish to point out to my hon. colleague from Chambly that there
are three founding peoples of this nation: Aboriginal, French
and English.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order.
[Translation]
Mr. Ghislain Lebel: Mr. Speaker, if this can make my NDP friend
happy, I will say that francophones were one of the first two founding
peoples. It was only later, when the English came, that we called
ourselves French Canadians. Then, when we realized that this definition
put us in opposition with English Canadians, we decided to call
ourselves Quebeckers, and today—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Brossard—La Prairie has one minute to reply.
Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the hon.
member opposite has decided I needed a lesson on Quebec history.
However, I feel I do know a fair bit about it.
I am very pleased that he raised the issue of the founding peoples.
These days, we hear a lot about the people of Quebec, and I am glad to
see that the member opposite knows that the founding people did not only
settle in Quebec, but includes all French speaking people in Canada.
Together they do form what I recognize as a founding people.
[English]
Mr. Gurmant Grewal (Surrey Central, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to state our view
with respect to the Canadian flag flap caused by the antics of
certain members in the House.
Today my constituents and I will be proud to vote yes to
displaying the Canadian flag on the desks of the members.
1330
We have other more important issues that we could be dealing
with, but unfortunately we are being forced to debate this issue
in the House today.
I would have thought it was understood that it is the right of
every Canadian to have, to hold and to wear the Canadian flag in
Canada. Of all the places on earth it is inconceivable and hard
to imagine that Canadians could be prohibited from displaying
even a small Canadian flag in the House of Commons.
Where else can we display our flag? Tomorrow someone could
stand and ask me not to wear a Canadian flag pin. Is there a
more sacred place to display our flag than in our own national
legislature? In the highest law making body of our country we
cannot have a flag on our desks. This is unbelievable.
When I embraced Canadian citizenship I assumed that I was given
a bundle of rights. The first thing I did after my swearing in
as a Canadian citizen was to sing our national anthem. I then
carried home a Canadian flag which I respectfully put on my desk
in my home office.
I am very proud of our flag like all other Canadians who have
called my office in the last few days. I have a Canadian flag on
my desk in my offices, yet today I am defending the right to
place a Canadian flag on this desk, my constituents' desk in the
House of Commons. This is unbelievable.
This is the most respected House and the highest court in the
land. I strongly believe and join with my colleagues in their
belief that we should respect decorum in the House. Every
Canadian's voice is roaring without fear or intimidation in the
House. Ridiculous heckling is allowed in the House and sometimes
it is disrespectful.
What some Canadians would say are treasonous comments.
Disrespect for our national symbols is allowed in the House.
However, Canadians have a problem when our national symbol, the
flag of this great country, is considered offensive in the House.
I feel intimidated that my right to display the Canadian flag is
being denied today.
It seems to me and my constituents that this weak government has
been blackmailed by those who are bent upon tearing the country
apart. It seems as if the government has been scared by the
separatists. The Liberals are running like scared cats. They
have spent $25 million of the taxpayers' money to give away
Canadian flags so that our flag would have an increased presence
in our country.
With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, the number of flags around
your chair has doubled since 1992 and now the presence of the
Canadian flag is being decreased in the House. The government
has given me large quantities of Canadian flags and Canadian flag
pins to take to my constituency and present to my constituents.
What answer should I give to someone who may ask me where our
flag can and cannot be displayed? This is not a flag waving
issue today as stated by some members and as reported in the
news. The issue is not that I must put a flag on my desk, but
the issue is why I should be prohibited from putting a flag on my
desk. It is about the infringement of my rights, freedom of
speech and freedom of expression.
Just because someone feels offended by the displaying of the
Canadian flag in the House, I feel more offended when I am
prohibited from honourably displaying my country's flag.
The constituents of Surrey Central and I want the record to be
very clear that this problem was not initiated by the Reform
Party. Let me remind the House and Canadians that the flag we are
debating today was distributed and displayed by Liberal members
to all members in the House. Members from all the parties except
the Bloc participated in singing the national anthem on the day
when the issue arose.
If props are not allowed, why were they distributed in the first
place in the House? Even on the day the budget was tabled some
Liberal MPs displayed a big flag in that corner of the House. Why
were they not ruled out of order?
1335
It is not the Reform Party that originated this issue. The
official opposition is simply fighting a forceful denial of the
right to exhibit the flag on our desks in the House because of a
fear of the separatists.
It is not an issue between the Reform Party and other parties.
It is an issue of calling a spade a spade and having the right to
fight, to defend our country's flag, to defend the integrity of
our great country and to respect our national symbols.
The issue separates those who are afraid from those who do not
like the Canadian flag. Those who are afraid to defend our
Canadian flag are those who are afraid of offending anyone in
defence of our flag. Those are the members of the Liberal Party
and other parties in the House. They wanted to unnecessarily
drag the issue on and bury it in a committee. They have made the
issue a political football. It is shameful.
They fail to recognize the consequences of their cowardliness in
Canadian history. They are not only leaving behind high debt and
high taxes for future generations, but today they are leaving
behind a legacy of a shameful story in our history. What else
can we expect from the government?
Everything the government does raises suspicion. The House and
the government voted against my motion asking the government to
call a Canadian a Canadian and discourage the concept of
hyphenated Canadianism. That motion could have been uniting and
integrating Canadians rather than segregating them further. It
could have helped restore national pride. Instead, the Liberals
do not want Canadians to be encouraged to call ourselves proud
Canadians. They do not foster and develop Canadian culture. Now
they allow our right to sing the national anthem and the right to
display our flag to be attacked.
On the weekend my 13 year old son, Livjot, asked me what country
all members of Parliament represent in the House of Commons. I
said “Canada of course”. He asked if Quebec was a country. I
said “no”. Then he asked why there was a problem about the
Canadian flag in the Canadian parliament. I was ashamed. I
could not answer.
To conclude, a vote against the Canadian flag being displayed by
an elected and sworn Canadian is like a vote against motherhood.
The flag flap has gone on long enough and certainly should not be
decided by backroom negotiations but by Canadians through their
MPs in the House.
On behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central I will vote in
support of today's official opposition motion and I will be proud
to have the Canadian flag displayed on our desks in the House of
Commons. I urge hon. members in the House to put the issue to
rest and focus on more important issues. Let us have a free vote
on the matter in the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments, we have the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre and
then we have the hon. member for Broadview—Greenwood who has
been trying to get up for the last hour.
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, I continue to be quite shocked at the way the Reform
Party attempts to divide the country. What it is doing in this
assembly, in this House of Commons, is what a very famous writer
by the name of Samuel Johnson once said about actions with
respect to so-called patriotism or the flag.
Samuel Johnson, a great political writer of another century,
wrote about this kind of action, this kind of party, and said
that patriotism was the last act of a scoundrel, a desperate act
of a scoundrel.
The Reform Party is exercising hooliganism tactics of former
decades which political parties of other countries have used to
bully people around this issue.
1340
I love my flag as much as I love my country and as much as I
love my family. I wear my flag over my heart, not on my desk.
If the Reform member is so patriotic about the flag, how many
Reform members have a flag on their property, on their homes,
hanging in front of their houses on poles or in their offices in
their ridings? How many have those flags in their houses to show
what great patriots they are?
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, we expect these comments
from the member of a party that is out of touch with Canadians.
The issue is not putting a flag on a desk. The issue is why we
are not allowed to put a flag on our desks when we want to put
one there. For many years there were no flags on the desks of
members of the House. We did not start the problem.
The members who are not listening now are the ones who are using
it as a political football. The issue was decided upon by
members on the other side. They displayed the flag. Why did
they not object the other day when the flag was displayed on the
other side of the House? It is simply because they want to get
political mileage out of it, which they will be unsuccessful in
doing.
We respect the Canadian flag. If we respect the Canadian flag
then why are we forced not to display it in the House?
Mr. Dennis J. Mills (Broadview—Greenwood, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this debate is unbelievable. The Reform Party motion
talks in its last sentence of “purposes of decorum”.
We can look around this Chamber which was designed and built by
some of the greatest craftsmen and women in the history of our
country. We see stained glass windows and woodwork. This
Chamber is very much like a cathedral in Rome or in some other
great European city. This is a room of decorum.
Reformers are missing the whole point of what this Chamber is
all about. They are trying to suggest that none of us really
care about the flag, even though there are two flags on either
side of the most respected chair in the House of Commons. They
could not be in a more prominent place.
In that Reformers are so interested in the decorum of this
place, the look or the design of this place, they should also
present some other ideas that I have heard from that side. What
about flags of different sizes across the banisters here from
left to right or from north to south like we see at gas stations
or at Canadian Tire stores? Is that the kind of decorum the
Reform Party wants in the House of Commons? These guys—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I am sorry to
interrupt. The hon. member for Surrey Central has about 35
seconds.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, I am more than happy to
answer the question. He is one of the members who displayed the
six foot flag on the other side of the House the day the budget
was tabled. Where was he or his colleagues—
Mr. Dennis J. Mills: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I can stand in the House of Commons and say that on the
day that display took place I was at the opposite end of this
Chamber. I did not have a flag—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Broadview—Greenwood has made his point. Now perhaps the hon.
member for Surrey Central could finish up. You have 10 seconds.
Mr. Gurmant Grewal: Mr. Speaker, maybe he is not the
member who displayed the flag but it is in that same corner that
the flag was displayed.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order, please.
Mr. Peter Goldring (Edmonton East, Ref.): 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.
1345
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.
1350
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.
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, it is a
passion filled debate today. I do not think for a second that
members of the House should forget why we are here and what this
is about.
I listened closely to the words of the hon. member and I have
some serious problems and difficulties with where he was coming
from and what exactly he was talking about. There are a number of
people who are watching this debate who may not understand it. It
is simply a question of respect and trust.
There is one group in the House of Commons, along with some
members opposite, who wave the flag and use it as a type of
sledgehammer to beat upon someone else who may not be willing to
wave it. That is why we do not have flags on our desks. That is
why there are flags beside the Speaker.
This is not about the Canadian flag; this is about a waste of
time. We are wasting the Canadian taxpayers' time to debate
whether we should have flags on our desks.
1355
I want to add another point. We are listening to talk about the
flag today. On February 15, 1995, the leader of the member's
party was the guy who stated that the debate over the Canadian
flag on Canada's flag day at that time was frivolous and a waste
of time.
You don't wear the flag—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Excuse me. I would
remind members to address other members through the Chair. It
tends to keep the tempers in control.
Mr. Peter Goldring: 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.
The Speaker: The hon. member for Scarborough Centre has
about a minute.
Mr. John Cannis (Scarborough Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
it is funny that the Reform Party which came here after the 1993
election, four years down the road has just discovered where it
is from. I am surprised why its members did not put on a flag in
1993 when they first got elected.
The point I want to make is this. They talk about the flag and
the pins. I happened to be in Nagano during the olympics. I
want, for a moment, to tell this House what the member from
Rimouski—Mitis did.
She was very proud to give out the Canadian pins, one that I
wear today. She was very proud to wave the Canadian flag
celebrating our athletes. I do not see their Canadian olympic
pin being worn.
My point when they talk about a form of provocation, was the
member for Rimouski—Mitis provoking when she was handing out the
pins, when she was waving the flags celebrating our athletes? I
do not think so.
Many people have said to me what has taken the Reform Party so
long to discover that they want to display the flag? In the
opinion of my constituents, the flag is best suited right on each
side of your honourable chair.
In the many parliaments that we have visited, we have not seen
members displaying flags on their desks. I see no reason why we
have to do that now. They are best presented right where you
are.
Mr. Peter Goldring: 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.
STATEMENTS BY MEMBERS
[English]
GLAMMIS FLYERS BROOMBALL TEAM
Mr. Paul Steckle (Huron—Bruce, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
must admit that there are two reasons for me being on my feet
today. First, I am happy to inform the House of the notable
achievement of a group of individuals from my riding.
Huron—Bruce is home to, among other places, the small hamlet of
Glammis. Although the small population may not place Glammis
into the category of a major metropolitan centre, what the
citizenry lacks in numbers they more than make up for in spirit.
As a result of that determination, next month the Glammis Flyers
Broomball Team is destined for the National Men's Broomball
Championships in Regina.
This brings me to my second reason for rising today. At the
risk of sounding a little boastful, I am pleased to inform the
House that the Glammis Flyers last year won the prestigious
Ontario Broomball Championship, defeating teams from Barrie,
Teviotdale, Arthur and Ottawa. They were all casualties of the
Flyers as they steamed along the road to the national
championships.
If the success of the past 50 years is any indication of what
lies ahead for the Glammis Flyers, I am confident that they will
once again be victorious. I wish the entire team all the best in
their endeavours.
* * *
ABORIGINAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the homeowners in Clydesdale Estates, in my riding of
Saanich—Gulf Islands, face yet another year of uncertainty.
1400
They are caught in the middle of a legal battle between the
Tsarlip Indian Band and the department of Indian affairs. The
department, on behalf of the band, negotiated and signed a lease
to allow a residential development on band lands. This same band
is now suing the department over this lease.
To voice its protest over this development, the band
unilaterally elected to cut off the sewer main between the
development and the municipality.
This has had a devastating impact on the residents of Clydesdale
Estates. They have seen the value of their homes decline and
some have been forced to abandon their homes and declare
bankruptcy. I would remind members that this is no laughing
matter. These people are in a crisis situation. They have put
their entire savings into these homes.
Over a year ago they went to the minister for help and she told
them to be patient. Would she wait this long?
The Speaker: The hon. member for Erie—Lincoln.
* * *
MALNUTRITION
Mr. John Maloney (Erie—Lincoln, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this year the focus of the United Nations Children's Fund,
commonly known as UNICEF, is on child malnutrition.
Malnutrition is a world problem. It is an invisible killer
which affects 800 million children annually. Incredibly and
sadly, more than half of child deaths worldwide can be attributed
to malnutrition. This is unmatched by any other infectious
disease since the black death and, further, those who survive are
usually left vulnerable to infectious disease, illness and
intellectual disability.
The right to nutrition is a matter of international law.
Agreements such as the 1989 convention on the rights of the
child, ratified by 191 countries including Canada, recognized the
right of all children to have the highest attainable standards of
health, including the right to good nutrition.
I urge the Government of Canada to support UNICEF and honour the
provisions of our international declarations by helping overcome
this silent killer of the world's children. Action against
malnutrition is both imperative and possible. No child should be
hungry in this world of plenty. No child should be hungry in
Canada.
* * *
[Translation]
SEMAINE NATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Ms. Aileen Carroll (Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this week is the Semaine de la francophonie. As the
member for Barrie—Simcoe—Bradford, I have had the opportunity
to meet many francophones from outside Quebec who are proud of
their culture.
I encourage all French-speaking Canadians, and Franco-Ontarians in
particular, to be proud of their language and culture.
[English]
Yesterday in Barrie I joined members of the club Richelieu in
raising the Franco-Ontarian flag at city hall to celebrate this
week and their Franco-Ontarian communities.
Being a member of La Francophonie allows Canada to convey to the
rest of the world a spirit of understanding and respect for
diversity.
I encourage all Franco-Ontarians and indeed all Canadians to be
proud of their culture and their language.
* * *
THE IRISH
Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and
Addington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it has sometimes been said
that there are only two kinds of people in the world, those who
are Irish and those who wish they were.
Well, I have good news today. Everyone is invited to be Irish.
Here on the Hill our newly formed all-party Irish Canada
friendship group is a fast growing, popular organization.
Irish immigrants have always left very powerful footprints on
our Canadian soil and have always contributed positively to this
great country. During the years of the great potato famine, my
own ancestors came direct from Ireland to Canada. My
grandmother's people sailed to the new world in four weeks. On
my grandfather's side, the family spent three months-plus on the
high seas. Many survived the trip but many did not.
Landing in Quebec, they were welcomed and received warmly and
cared for by their new neighbours. Friendship again reached
beyond all language barriers.
Today Irish eyes are smiling around the globe. Top of the day
to you, Mr. Speaker, and a tip of my Irish topper to all my
colleagues.
* * *
ARCTIC WINTER GAMES
Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, 1998 is certainly a year of sports highlights. This
week Canadians have yet another exciting opportunity to follow
the challenges and incredible skill of our best athletes.
The 1998 Arctic winter games are now officially under way.
Since the games began in 1970, this is the 15th time that
northern athletes from Canada, the United States, Greenland and
Russia have come together in friendly competition and cultural
celebration.
More than 1,600 athletes, coaches, officials and cultural
performers have converged on Yellowknife for these games. They
will participate in 19 different sporting events, including a
number based on northern living and Inuit and Dene sporting
skills.
These games showcase the skills, sportsmanship and cultural
pride that are so much a part of our northern communities.
I want to convey my best wishes to all the participants,
coaches, volunteers and supporters. As for the Canadian
athletes, the rest of Canada is cheering for you. Continue to
make Canada proud.
* * *
1405
[Translation]
MAGOG-ORFORD OPTIMIST CLUB
Mr. Denis Paradis (Brome—Missisquoi, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, while our
budget is focused on youth, the contribution of the volunteers who work
with young people must be acknowledged.
This year marks the 25th anniversary of the Optimist Club of
Magog-Orford, and I take this opportunity to pay tribute to the
initiative of founding chairman Yves GrandMaison and the
dedication of all the members over the past 25 years.
Our young people need to hear an optimistic message: summer jobs,
money to pay for their education and hope for the future. That is what
our young people want from our governments.
Congratulations to Yves GrandMaison and all Optimists across
Canada, who talk about good health, happiness and prosperity to everyone
they meet.
* * *
[English]
MART KENNEY
Mr. Jason Kenney (Calgary Southeast, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
in March 1928 a young Vancouver musician played his first
professional date on his 18th birthday. That man would become
known as Canada's top big band leader and would bring joy to
millions of Canadians from coast to coast through the difficult
years of the Depression, the war, and ever since.
I am talking about Mart Kenney, my grandfather, who this week
celebrated his 88th birthday and his 70th anniversary as a
professional musician. He is still going strong and still
bringing happy memories as he plays to sold out concerts across
the country.
My grandfather has always had a special love for Canada. At the
height of the big band era he turned down offers from the big
record producers to move his band to the States because he wanted
to raise his family here. Now he has rewritten the lyrics of his
popular wartime patriotic song We're Proud of Canada to herald
“the heritage we each proclaim which makes us different but the
same”. It will be featured this summer by the Toronto Symphony
Orchestra.
On behalf of all members this very proud grandson wishes a happy
anniversary to a great musician, a great Canadian and a true
western gentleman, Mart Kenney.
* * *
[Translation]
EMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mrs. Christiane Gagnon (Québec, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the last
employment insurance reform is almost two years old. Under this Liberal
government, the percentage of unemployed workers eligible for EI
benefits dropped from 60% in 1993 to 42% in 1997.
We are in the so-called spring gap, the time of year when thousands
of unemployed workers see their benefits run out as they wait for
seasonal work to start again. These families have to turn to social
assistance or use up their savings to provide for their needs.
Yet, the federal government continues to reduce its deficit by
dipping into the employment insurance fund.
The employment insurance fund keeps growing by $17 million a day, for a
total of $14 billion to date.
Enough. It is time the money went back to those to whom it belongs.
The government should give back to the unemployed the benefits it took
away from them and to workers the portion of their premiums in excess of
what is needed to maintain a fair and equitable system.
* * *
SEMAINE NATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
yesterday the Government of Quebec reiterated its intention to move
to the forefront in the issue of francophones outside Quebec. I
congratulate it.
Our government has played a consistent leadership role in this
matter, and we encourage all provinces in Canada to pass measures
supporting francophone groups in a spirit of respect and openness
and to promote Canada's linguistic duality.
The Government of Canada is playing its role fully by ensuring
that the people of Canada have access to all government services in
the language of their choice, in accordance with Canada's cultural
and linguistic reality.
We are giving full support to francophone groups outside
Quebec and encouraging all of Canada's provinces to do the same.
The Government of Quebec has an important role to play in
connection with the francophone community, and we hope it will
continue to take action in this regard.
I think that the Semaine nationale de la francophonie provides
a special moment to underscore all the efforts made to unite
francophone groups throughout Canada in a spirit of friendship,
sharing—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Speaker,
today the Council of Canadians is calling on Canadians to oppose
the Multilateral Agreement on Investment for the following 10
reasons.
The MAI would give new rights and powers to foreign investors
and corporations; cripple our ability to create jobs; give
corporations more power to fight environmental regulations; leave
our culture at the mercy of U.S. entertainment mega corporations;
open up our health care and public education to multinational
corporations; threaten our ownership of fisheries, forests,
energy and other natural resources; give corporations the right
to sue our elected governments to protect their profits; be
decided in secret by trade experts with no public input; impose
tough unfair rules on developing countries that are not even part
of negotiations; and lock us into a bad deal for 20 years.
Canada should not be part of any such agreement.
* * *
1410
VANCOUVER KINGSWAY
Ms. Sophia Leung (Vancouver Kingsway, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
over the last few days I have had the honour of announcing over
$45,000 in funding from Heritage Canada to two local
organizations in my riding of Vancouver Kingsway. The federal
government is supporting projects by the Society for Children and
Youth of British Columbia and the Helping Spirit Lodge Society.
These projects will be promoting child advocacy and human rights
and helping aboriginal women overcome family violence.
I thank the minister of heritage for supporting these local
initiatives. I commend both organizations for endeavouring to
make our community a better one.
* * *
THE IRISH
Mr. Charlie Power (St. John's West, PC): Mr. Speaker,
today is St. Patrick's Day. It is the anniversary of the death
of St. Patrick and it is a day in which the Irish and those who
wish they were celebrate being Irish. There are over 75 million
Irish descendants worldwide. It would be difficult to find an
area in which the Irish have not played a key role.
However, the influence on Canadian politics is unmistakable.
Politics was not alive until the Irish invented it, said Don
Pidgeon, a Montreal historian. The list of Irish politicians is
a long one, but one that should be remembered is Thomas D'arcy
McGee, one of the Fathers of Confederation who campaigned for the
country that would encompass both official languages and
cultures. There is no question that the Irish agenda helped to
determine the politics of this country not only in the latter
half of the 19th century but well into the 20th century.
Today I wish all my fellow Irish men and women and all those who
are Irish today a happy St. Patrick's Day. Considering the—
The Speaker: I remind members not to use props in the
House. Please, I have enough.
* * *
[Translation]
FRANCOPHONIE
Ms. Jocelyne Girard-Bujold (Jonquière, BQ): Mr. Speaker, in
the flurry of activities surrounding the sixth Semaine
internationale de la francophonie, I am proud to pay tribute to the
city of Jonquière, the first city in Quebec to be twinned under the
title of «Ville des mots 1998» with Braine-l'Alleud of the
French-speaking community in Belgium.
This honour recognizes the dynamism of the city of Jonquière
in promoting francophone culture with, among other things, its
Fêtes de la francité and its theme park.
I invite all Quebeckers, and more especially the people of the
Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and North Shore regions, to take part in
the activities marking us as members of the francophone community,
where people are bound together in solidarity.
Together, let us celebrate the future of French and the
francophonie.
* * *
[English]
JUSTICE
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the Young Offenders Act is a high priority concern for
the Canadian public and for the Reform Party of Canada. In
response to the demands of Canadians for changes to the act,
Reform has developed a list of amendments and will be presenting
it to the public in a series of town hall meetings throughout
the country.
The first of these town hall meetings will be held in Castlegar
in my riding this Saturday evening. These meetings will explain
how the amendments were arrived at, how they will work and their
impact on young offenders.
The justice minister recently made headlines by stating that she
is thinking of revising the Young Offenders Act. I hope she is
more in touch with Canadians' demands than she and her
predecessor have been in the past. If she really wants to learn
what ordinary Canadians want, she should attend one of our town
hall meetings. I invite her to attend the one in Castlegar this
Saturday evening.
Canadians are always willing to speak. The problem is getting
Liberals to listen.
* * *
[Translation]
CHILD SEX ABUSE
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last week
in Victoria, I attended the International Summit of Sexually
Exploited Youth. This gathering was co-chaired by Senator Landon
Pearson.
[English]
The summit theme, out from the shadows, reflects the importance
of giving a voice to sexually exploited youth and children. We
listened to children talking about their personal experiences. We
listened as 15-year olds and 16-year olds said they were not
given the chance to be a child and to enjoy all the joys and
challenges that come with childhood, as my daughters have.
Thousands of children across the world and here in Canada are
victims of abuse related to child pornography and child
prostitution. Since Canada is a signatory to the United Nations
Convention on the Rights of the Child, the summit was an
excellent opportunity to renew our commitment to the right of all
children and youth to live free from sexual abuse and free from
sexual exploitation.
[Translation]
A statement and action plan expressing the will of these
children was passed at the summit. I would invite all my
colleagues in this House to read this statement.
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
1415
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, today British Columbia's latest unelected unaccountable
senator was sworn in at the Senate.
Fitzpatrick is not like other patronage appointments though. He
actually hired the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister was out
of a job. Last week the Prime Minister told Canadians that he
received no remuneration for that work. Insider trading reports
showed that Fitzpatrick gave the Prime Minister a sweetheart
stock deal worth at least $45,000.
How does the Prime Minister explain this contradiction?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, every document is absolutely public. Everything
occurred during the time when I was not a member of Parliament.
Every transaction is absolutely legal.
The Reform Party likes to attack the personal integrity of
people rather than deal with the issues of Parliament.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, Ross Fitzpatrick made a private stock deal with the
Prime Minister. He sold him shares at a huge discount, which the
Prime Minister flipped a week later. That stock flip gave the
Prime Minister at least $45,000 in a single week.
The Prime Minister said he received no remuneration for his work
at the company so what was the $45,000 for? Was it a downpayment
on a seat in the Senate?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was out of politics and I never told my father that I
would be Prime Minister so I had no commitment with destiny. I
did not know at that time that I would come back to the House of
Commons as Prime Minister.
I know why the leader of the Reform Party is preoccupied with
this issue. It is because Senator Fitzpatrick is an extremely
able citizen of British Columbia. For years he has worked in the
public domain giving advice to a lot of people. He has served
the province very well, as the premier of B.C. said a few days
ago.
Mr. Preston Manning (Leader of the Opposition, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the government feigns outrage at our questions on this
subject but it is the people of British Columbia who ought to be
outraged. A Senate appointment tainted with patronage. A Senate
appointment tainted with backroom deals. An appointee who could
not get elected dog catcher in British Columbia if he had to
submit to a democratic vote.
If the Prime Minister wants to clear the air, why does he not
cancel this outrageous appointment now?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am very proud of Mr. Ross Fitzpatrick the senator, as
I stated. At a very early age he worked in Parliament as an
assistant to a minister. Since he has left that job he has
remained committed to public service helping everybody who wanted
to serve, whether it was a provincial or federal government.
There were years when it was not easy being a Liberal in British
Columbia, but because of his good work it is now very pleasant.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, we
are not accusing the Prime Minister of doing anything illegal
with those things back then. We are just asking questions now
about the fact that just last week in the House of Commons the
Prime Minister said he received no remuneration. In fact he got
$45,000 in one week.
What we want to ask is this: What is the problem with the Prime
Minister saying “Sure, here is a Senate seat for you” a few
years later. Was this $45,000 not a downpayment on a Senate
seat, yes or no?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, a few months ago the hon. member made an accusation
against me about my riding and she had the company completely
wrong. It was a company from Winnipeg and she did not know the
difference between Winnipeg and Shawinigan.
I am still waiting for the hon. member's apology because she
misled both the House and the nation.
The Speaker: Let us be very judicious in our questions
and our answers please.
Miss Deborah Grey (Edmonton North, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are taking our facts from the insider trading reports. The
Prime Minister knows exactly where he got the cash, how much he
bought the shares for and how much he sold them for just one week
later.
Air Canada, Canadian Airlines and the Prime Minister all seem to
offer seat sales, but there is only one of those that flies
straight to the Senate.
1420
Let me ask the Prime Minister this. The swearing in ceremony is
going on right now, at 2 o'clock. Will he cancel his Senate
appointment while there is still time?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, certainly not. I am delighted that he will be a senator
and he will represent British Columbia in Ottawa better than any
member of the Reform Party.
* * *
[Translation]
SEMAINE NATIONALE DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
in a letter dated March 5, the president of the Association
canadienne d'éducation de langue française accuses the heritage
department of trying to use the Semaine de la francophonie to serve
its own ends.
He wrote as follows: “The heritage department feels that it is
legitimate to appropriate the week and to alter it to suit its own
exaggerated need for visibility”.
What does the Minister of Canadian Heritage have to say in
response to the president of the ACELF's accusation that she is
appropriating the Semaine nationale de la francophonie in order to
raise the government's profile?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this year's contracts to the ACELF were in the same amount
as those awarded in previous years.
Mr. Gilles Duceppe (Laurier—Sainte-Marie, BQ): We were not
disputing the amount. We were questioning those who received it.
The ACELF president, Mr. Bordeleau, speaks out against what he
calls, and I will repeat his exact words, “the heritage
department's exaggerated need for visibility”.
Does the minister realize that she is insulting francophones,
offending them, just to satisfy her burning need for visibility?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, if anyone is trying to make political hay at the expense
of francophones, it is the Government of Quebec.
The Quebec minister of the day never supported francophones in
getting the Jeux de la Francophonie for Canada. He even wrote
saying they ought not to come here, but he had a change of heart
this week because it is the Semaine de la Francophonie.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, we are going
to set the record straight for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In a letter dated March 5, the president of the Association
canadienne d'éducation de langue française, Louis-Gabriel
Bordeleau, said, and I quote “Less than a month before the event,
greatly disappointed and with reluctance, we had to let the private
firm of Leroux Rhéal & Associés use our trademarks until March 31
in exchange for a grant from the Department of Canadian
Heritage”.
What explanation does the minister have for resorting to such
blackmail?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I clearly explained to the leader of the third party—
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien: Soon to be the sixth.
Hon. Sheila Copps: —that the contract amounts were exactly
the same as last year and the year before.
As for recognition of francophones in Canada, I am proud that
my colleague, the member for Moncton, is working with all
francophone and francophile colleagues in the House to ensure that
the visibility of francophones, here in the House and across
Canada, is greater than in the past.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, to say to
someone “I will give it to you only if you do this against your
will” is blackmail and that is what the minister did with respect
to the Association canadienne d'éducation de langue française.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member not to use the piece
of paper as a prop. I give the floor back to the hon. member.
Mr. Michel Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I can say it out loud
because it pains us to see the Minister of Canadian Heritage
resorting to blackmail.
How can she justify “I will give you a grant if you do this
against your will”? It is revolting. What does she have to say?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the remarks of the member opposite are completely false.
If ever anyone did a flip-flop, I would like to recall what the
Hon. Sylvain Simard wrote, and I quote “As for the Jeux de la
Francophonie, the uncertainty that hung over the Madagascar games,
and that, in some respects, still hangs over them, calls into
question the very model of the games”.
He was against the Jeux de la Francophonie, but now he is
indulging in petty politics, and that is scandalous.
* * *
1425
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, to date,
Canadians have heard not a peep, pas un mot, from the Prime
Minister about the MAI. Not a peep.
Last week European parliamentarians representing 15 different
nations voted overwhelmingly, 437 to 8, to reject the current MAI
proposal because of the undemocratic nature of the negotiations.
Will the Prime Minister today show the same respect for
democracy, commit to full public debate and cross-Canada hearings
and allow Canadians to decide the fate of the MAI and the future
of our country?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed
that the council of Barlow cancelled a meeting with ministry
officials and me last week. I am disappointed that the council
of Barlow has chosen not to take advice, not to look for advice
from the chief negotiator of the MAI.
I point out to the leader of the NDP that a full debate was held
in this House on February 23 on this very subject. I would
suggest to her that she advise the council of Barlow that all of
the information and all the—
The Speaker: The hon. leader of the New Democratic Party.
Ms. Alexa McDonough (Halifax, NDP): Mr. Speaker, once
again absolute silence from the Prime Minister. The Prime
Minister sits in his seat, dumb as an oyster.
How can any self-respecting Prime Minister consider signing an
agreement with such massive implications to Canadians without
first consulting them? This deal could rob Canadians of our
ability to make our own decisions about our health care, our
environment, our resources, and our very culture. Our
sovereignty is at stake.
Instead of his stony silence, will the Prime Minister withdraw
Canada from the MAI negotiations, until and unless he has the—
The Speaker: The right hon. Prime Minister.
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I agree entirely with the very able parliamentary
secretary who gave a very good answer.
We are negotiating there and we are consulting here in Canada.
We have debated the issue in the House of Commons and we will be
consulting. The deal is not tomorrow. We will not sign a bad
deal. We will always be sure that Canadians are present in the
world. If we follow the policies of isolation of the NDP, Canada
will go nowhere.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
finance minister had an opportunity during his budget speech to
tell Canadians that he has heard their concerns regarding the
proposed seniors benefit plan, but he blew it, for he was silent.
Why does the finance minister continue to push ahead with his
idea of clawing back Canadians' retirement savings by 70%?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we have made it very clear that over the last two years
we have consulted with Canadians. There will be changes brought
down based on the principles that have been set forth.
The hon. member asks why we want to proceed. We want to proceed
in order to assure Canadians of whatever age that they will have
a secure and safe retirement.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
proposed seniors benefit plan would claw back benefits by 20% on
those with a family income of $26,000. This added together with
the existing tax rates would mean a tax rate for middle income
seniors of 70%. This would kill any incentive to save for
retirement. They would not even be able to buy green for St.
Paddy's Day.
Canadians are worried that their savings will be taken from
them. What is the finance minister prepared to do today?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, and a very attractive green it is.
We have made it very clear. There will be changes to the
seniors benefit following upon the consultation with caucus. One
thing is very clear.
We are going to make sure that Canadians, regardless of their
income level, have a safe and secure retirement. We do not
believe it is fair that people should be in poverty in
retirement. This party and this government have always stood to
make sure that those who have devoted their lives to this
country—
1430
The Speaker: The hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni.
* * *
THE SENATE
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
when the Liberals were in opposition they said they believed in
integrity. They even wrote it in their red book. It has now
been shown that this is absolute red book rubbish.
We can only imagine what the Prime Minister would have said in
opposition if Brian Mulroney had appointed somebody like
Fitzpatrick to the Senate.
My question is quite simple. Why are this government's ethical
standards worse than those of Brian Mulroney's?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is obvious that the opposition is very short of
subjects to attack the government with.
When I became the Prime Minister I put all of my assets in
trust. This transaction happened at a time when I was not a
member of Parliament. There is a rule, which we follow all the
time, that the information be made public. It is all public
information. Everything was done above the table.
Not being able to attack the policies of the government, the
opposition tries to attack the person. Next month I will have
been in Parliament for 35 years.
Mr. Bill Gilmour (Nanaimo—Alberni, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
we are not talking about policies when $45,000 has gone to line
the Prime Minister's pockets. We are talking about integrity.
Ross Fitzpatrick is not just the Prime Minister's friend, he is
the Prime Minister's former employer. As I said, he lined the
Prime Minister's pockets with $45,000 in stock market gifts—
Some hon. members: Order.
The Speaker: I would ask the hon. member to get directly
to his question.
Mr. Bill Gilmour: Mr. Speaker, the question is: Are
Canadian Senate seats for sale?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I will not ask him to apologize for the lines he used. I
have too much contempt for the member to ask for an apology.
It is very clear. I have explained this situation very clearly.
I repeat that Mr. Fitzpatrick is an extremely competent person
who has served his province very well. For many years when he
was a private citizen he spent hours and hours helping people—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
* * *
[Translation]
ASSISTANCE TO BUSINESSES AFFECTED BY ICE STORM
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the minister responsible for regional development
in Quebec.
Last February, the federal government refused to co-operate
with the Government of Quebec and came up with its own program of
assistance to businesses that suffered losses in the ice storm. We
have just learned that, to date, two months after the crisis, only
28 of the 25,000 businesses affected have received federal
assistance.
How can the minister justify the failure of his program of
assistance when, at the time, he used the urgency of the situation
as an excuse for refusing to reach an agreement with the Government
of Quebec?
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the House will recall that the reason my colleague, the President
of the Treasury Board, and I were forced to take unilateral action
was because the Government of Quebec refused to take action and to
co-operate. They wanted to drag things out and use the issue for
political ends, but we would not go along.
I am proud to say today that, with the assistance of chamber
of commerce representatives, we put together a program that meets
their demands, which is to say it covers fixed costs. It is an
innovative program delivered by 3,200 points of service and I will
be giving an update on this program next Friday.
Mr. Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
one might well ask who is playing politics, because the Government
of Quebec's programs are chugging along, while all the minister is
doing is talking.
Will the minister admit that, by worrying more about the
federal government's visibility than the effectiveness of its
program, he and his Treasury Board colleague have associated their
names with an appalling failure that does precious little to serve
the interests of SMBs in areas affected by the storm?
1435
Hon. Martin Cauchon (Secretary of State (Economic Development
Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, it
is interesting to listen to my colleague, because things are going
smoothly with respect to the disaster assistance program to which
the Canadian government contributes up to 90%.
We are, however, asking for a 50% contribution from the
Government of Quebec for our program of assistance to SMBs. It
still refuses to take action and that is where pressure is
required. My colleague should devote his energy to putting
pressure on the Government of Quebec for that 50%.
* * *
[English]
THE SENATE
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
British Columbians are fighting mad about policies of the
government and the latest appointment to the Senate.
B.C. does not have its fair share of seats in the Parliament of
Canada. B.C. does not have a proportionate share of government
contracts. B.C. does not get the same attention for the west
coast fish crisis that the Atlantic fisheries does. B.C.
lighthouses are shutting down and CFB Chilliwack, B.C.'s only
army base, is being closed.
When will the Prime Minister return Mr. Fitzpatrick to B.C. to
run in a Senate election?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I was there not long ago when we had the APEC meeting in
B.C. That was a great success.
I was there for the open skies policy which has given a big
boost to the Vancouver airport and has made it one of the most
important air bases in North America. I have said that the
future of Canada is on the Pacific. We have always helped B.C.
to be the door to Canada on the Pacific coast.
Mr. Jim Hart (Okanagan—Coquihalla, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
the open skies agreement the Prime Minister talks about is a
direct seat in the Senate, by air, by the Prime Minister.
The Prime Minister sold that Senate seat and British Columbia—
The Speaker: The hon. member for
Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques.
* * *
[Translation]
MILLENNIUM SCHOLARSHIPS
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
In recent days, the Minister of Human Resources Development has
been trying to meet separately with various groups from Quebec's
education sector to discuss the millennium scholarship program, without
the Quebec government being present. However, the stakeholders in the
education sector formed a coalition and they just called the minister to
order by demanding that the Quebec government be present at any
discussions on the millennium scholarships.
How can the Prime Minister refuse to meet Premier Bouchard
regarding the millennium scholarships, while his minister is trying to
organize meetings with individual stakeholders?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
will answer the question. I am prepared to meet Mr. Bouchard at any
time. It is perfectly normal that stakeholders should meet the
responsible minister.
The minister met a number of them and they discussed every aspect
of the program. Some people are just trying to get publicity, instead of
working to find a solution through discussions with the minister
responsible.
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, by going over Mr. Bouchard's head, is the
Minister of Human Resources Development not demonstrating that the
federal government wants to bypass the Quebec government and is trying
to buy the education sector with Quebeckers' own money?
Right Hon. Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, like
young people in the rest of the country, young Quebeckers will benefit
from the millennium scholarships. It is very important to ensure that
young Quebeckers, like other young Canadians, have access to an
education that will prepare them to face much stronger competition in
the 21st century. This is why the millennium scholarship program was
greeted with enthusiasm by students from across the country.
* * *
[English]
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, over
the last few weeks the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister
have boasted about their newfangled accounting policies that have
rankled the auditor general.
Now, the government has sent a three page blistering letter to
the auditor general saying “hold your nose, don't rock the boat,
and approve the audit based on our rules, not your rules”.
Will the Minister of Finance withdraw the letter and apologize
to the auditor general for interfering with his independence?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, to the best of my knowledge a letter from the Department
of Finance to the auditor general is not an interference with the
auditor general's role.
What we have done is set out the government's position. The
government's position is very clear and that is that we intend to
be open and transparent. We see no reason why the public sector
should hide things when the private sector reveals them. We will
at least be as open and transparent as any private sector company
and the hon. member should support that as a position.
1440
Mr. John Williams (St. Albert, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
government has tried to intimidate the auditor general by sending
him a letter saying this is the way we want you to approve the
audit.
The auditor general has spoken before, last year, when he
qualified the audit. Now you want to do the same thing on
exactly the same basis and that, I think, is intimidation. That
is why we want you to withdraw the letter. That is why we are
asking, will you withdraw the letter?
The Speaker: All questions should be addressed to the
Chair. I know the hon. member knows that.
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, it is perfectly acceptable parliamentary practice for
the government to respond to the auditor general when the auditor
general raises an issue. It happens all the time.
It is a little difficult to understand that this member who has
been a member for quite some time does not realize what is in
fact the convention of this House.
* * *
[Translation]
OPTION CANADA
Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Speaker, the
Minister of Canadian Heritage wrote Claude Dauphin, the senior
advisor to the Minister of Finance and former president of Option
Canada, who, two and a half years after the fact, still cannot tell
the people of Quebec and Canada how, in the midst of the referendum
period, he spent $4.8 million in 33 days.
Could the minister tell the House whether she has received a
reply from him?
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am still waiting for clarification from the member, who
totally misinformed the House last week. I am still waiting.
* * *
[English]
NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Janko Peric (Cambridge, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Industry. Small and medium sized
companies in Canada's aerospace industry face an uphill battle
when competing against companies from countries with large
defence budgets.
Can the minister tell us what has been done to help these
Canadian companies competing for international defence contracts?
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am delighted to say that through the efforts both of
technology and the partnerships Canada program as well as the
Export Development Corporation, a number of Canadian corporations
have been very successful in winning aerospace and defence
contracts internationally.
This includes recently Spar Aerospace, which won a $91.5 million
contract with NASA; CAL Corporation, which has sold innovative
tracking systems in France; Bristol Aerospace, which has won a
$98 million contract with Boeing Corporation; and Computing
Devices of Canada Limited in Calgary which has successfully sold
into the U.S. market.
This is a very successful sector of the Canadian economy. We
are moving from sixth to fourth in the world.
* * *
AUDITOR GENERAL
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
facts are these. The government has played fast and loose with
billions of taxpayers' dollars. It has cooked the books of the
country and violated its own accounting guidelines. The auditor
general has rightly criticized this in public.
Now the finance department has tried to shut down the auditor
general in a toughly worded letter, calling into question his
professional judgment. The letter says that they also wish to
register their profound astonishment that this issue has now been
reported to the press.
Public scrutiny, what a terrible thing. Why is the finance
minister trying to muzzle the auditor general?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, in fact what we are seeking is public scrutiny. The
reason that we want to put it on the books is so that it will be
open and transparent.
The real issue is why is the Reform Party against having
transparency in the public statements? Why would the Reform
Party support archaic accounting principles that have nothing to
do with the evolution of modern accounting and in fact have
nothing to do with transparency and openness in government?
Mr. Monte Solberg (Medicine Hat, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, the
facts are very clear here. The finance department feels
threatened by the auditor general's criticism and it is doing
what it can to shut him down.
The fact is that the finance minister cooked the books. He has
played fast and loose with billions of taxpayers' dollars.
Instead of threatening the auditor general, my question is why
does the finance minister not be a big boy, take his lumps and
start accepting criticism from the taxpayers' watchdog?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this is not about taxes. There are $7 billion worth of
tax cuts over the course of the next three years. What this is
really all about is that it is the Reform Party's objection to
the millennium foundation and to investing in education.
The real issue before the country is in a modern age, why does
the Reform Party not understand that equality of access, that
modern education is essential to job creation? Where the heck
are they?
* * *
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Ms. Libby Davies (Vancouver East, NDP): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Prime Minister. As he knows, B.C. government
initiatives like the jobs and timber accord and legislation to
protect young people from the exploitation of tobacco companies
are threatened by the MAI.
1445
The B.C. government has acted on the agreement of trade
ministers for public hearings on the MAI, but where is the
federal government's commitment? Why does the federal government
not have the guts to inform Canadians about the threat to the
rights of provinces to create jobs and protect health care under
the MAI?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, quite the contrary.
There is nothing in the negotiations that would threaten the
ability of Canada to function and operate its own house.
We have laid down a complete set of reservations that will go
into the MAI and that is being negotiated right now. We will not
sign a deal that is not good for Canada.
[Translation]
Ms. Angela Vautour (Beauséjour—Petitcodiac, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
On December 16, 1997, the Prince Edward Island legislature
stated that the multilateral agreement on investment would give the
major multinationals nation status. The Prince Edward Island MLAs
also called on the federal government to impose a moratorium on the
ratification of the agreement pending public hearings on the matter
throughout Canada.
Is the government prepared to make a commitment today to
holding public hearings on the MAI throughout Canada before asking
Parliament to ratify the agreement?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the government,
through the subcommittee on foreign affairs, held hearings last
fall and continues to hold hearings as long as they are in
demand.
Because of those hearings the subcommittee produced a report
that I wish the hon. member would read. If she would read it,
she would find out exactly where Canada stands on the issue. I
urge all members to do the same.
* * *
[Translation]
SENIORS BENEFIT
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
government is going ahead with its seniors benefit scheme.
Because of this new plan, some financial experts are advising
middle income Canadians over 50 years of age against buying RRSPs. The
reason is simple: what they will be saving in income tax today will not
make up for the income tax they will have to pay later.
Why does the Minister of Finance stubbornly insist on discouraging
saving for retirement?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the
premise of the hon. member's question is not valid.
[English]
Mr. Jean Dubé (Madawaska—Restigouche, PC): Mr. Speaker,
the government continues to gouge Canadians through excessive EI
and CPP premiums and refuses to cut income taxes. Now it wants
to impose an unbearable tax burden on Canadians through the
so-called seniors benefit.
The Association of Canadian Pension Fund Management says that
the seniors benefit should be structured to prevent an effective
tax raise of over 50%. Is the finance minister listening?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, I am having a little trouble with the definition of a
tax gouge. We eliminated for all Canadians earning $50,000 or
less the 3% surtax imposed by the Conservative government. We
reduced EI premiums from $3.07 imposed by the Conservative
government to $2.70.
The fact is that we have reduced the taxes the Tories increased.
Under those circumstances perhaps the definition of gouge is a
little different for the Tory Party than it is in the
Oxford English dictionary.
* * *
HEALTH
Mr. Bryon Wilfert (Oak Ridges, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Health. Two-thirds of Canadians
risk premature death, heart disease and other health risks all
due to physical inactivity.
If all Canadians were active, the savings for the health care
system for heart disease alone would be $700 million a year. What
is the minister doing to address physical inactivity? Who will
he be partnering with to achieve this goal?
Hon. Allan Rock (Minister of Health, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the hon. member for Oak Ridges has put his finger on an item of
crucial importance in our effort to reduce health costs.
The connection between physical activity and health is both
direct and dramatic. If over the next five years we could reduce
the level of inactivity by 10%, we would save about $5 billion in
health care. It is remarkable.
The government has taken action. We are working with dozens of
partners to make Canadians more aware of the importance of
physical activity. With 50 organizations including the Canadian
Medical Association we have produced a booklet of—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yorkton—Melville.
* * *
1450
FIREARMS
Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, through access to information we found that the RCMP
commissioner tried to get the justice department to correct data
that overstated the number of firearms involved in violent
crimes.
The misleading data was being used to support Bill C-68 and was
used in the Alberta Court of Appeal. Out of over 88,000 violent
crimes investigated by the RCMP in 1993, only 73 involved
firearms. The justice department used a figure nine times
higher.
My question: what possible reason does the—
The Speaker: The hon. Minister of Justice.
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I want to clarify the report
to which the hon. member refers. This was not a report of the
Department of Justice alone. It was work that was done by the
Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the RCMP, the solicitor
general, and provincial representatives from Quebec, B.C. and the
OPP.
The hon. member is probably aware that there was some confusion
as to the methodology that was used in relation to the
compilation of these statistics.
I would be happy to file with you this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, a
letter from the commissioner of the RCMP in which he and my
deputy—
The Speaker: Probably the hon. minister could do that at
the end of question period.
* * *
[Translation]
JEUX DE LA FRANCOPHONIE
Mr. Daniel Turp (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my
question is for the Minister of Canadian Heritage.
In a letter dated March 12, the Quebec international relations
minister and his municipal affairs colleague question the willingness of
the federal government to include Quebec in any serious way in
organizing the Jeux de la Francophonie. They contend that the federal
government is in fact “placing Quebec before a fait accompli”.
How can the minister justify that, more than eight months after
Ottawa-Hull won the games, the minister—
The Speaker: The Minister of Canadian Heritage.
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, this shows the absolute gall of a minister who tried repeatedly
to assure me, in writing, that the games were not coming to Canada, that
they were not coming to Ottawa-Hull.
For him to claim to be highly interested in the games at this time
is deplorable. This is a good example of how Bloc and PQ members play
politics with Canadian francophones.
* * *
[English]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Mr.
Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
The Saskatchewan government has called on the federal government
to subject any future consensus draft on the MAI to a full impact
analysis, including its impact on federalism; to involve the
provinces and the public in its review; and to submit both the
impact analysis and the draft treaty to full parliamentary debate
before Canada moves to ratify any treaty.
Will the Prime Minister agree to the request from the Government
of Saskatchewan for an impact analysis, a full parliamentary
debate and a vote before the government endorses an MAI treaty?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, holding hearings
through the subcommittee is precisely the way an impact analysis
is determined in the parliamentary process.
I would suggest to the hon. member that if he would participate
in the work of the committee he would soon find out that is
exactly what we do when we meet on a regular basis.
* * *
PENSIONS
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the CPP
fund is predicted to grow from $6 billion to $26 billion by 2007.
Raising the foreign content rule will increase investment returns
on this fund and benefit all Canadians. Even the Conference
Board of Canada feels that the foreign property rules will make
Canadians poorer.
Why does the finance minister not trust his own investment board
and give them the freedom to make investments with the greatest
possible return for all Canadians?
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the other day when the hon. member asked his first
question as finance critic I forgot to congratulate him. I would
like to congratulate him now on his appointment and on his
question.
1455
The reason we are not prepared to move at the present time is
that given the high level of Canadian borrowings we think there
is reason to hold back on that decision. On the other hand, we
are very open and it is one we will continue to monitor.
* * *
ORGANIZED CRIME
Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
my question is for the solicitor general.
Police and prosecutors across Canada are receiving threats and
are subjected to intimidation by motorcycle gang members. This
affects not only those directly involved but their families as
well.
What exactly is the federal government doing to protect our
police and prosecutors from this kind of harassment?
Hon. Andy Scott (Solicitor General of Canada, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, the illegal activities of motorcycle gangs and organized
crime generally are a serious concern to the government. By its
definition organized crime transcends municipal, provincial or
national boundaries. That is the reason we need to fight
organized crime in an organized way.
Early in April I will be bringing together law enforcement
agencies from all over Canada. We will recommit all our
resources to dealing with this very serious challenge.
* * *
YOUNG OFFENDERS
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, there is fear among Canadians that
without their knowledge a violent young offender may be living
next door. This cloak of anonymity is not solving crime in
Canada. I have never heard of a case where hiding names helps but
I know of individuals who are dead because of it.
Does the Minister of Justice agree that the names of young
offenders should be public to protect communities? Will she
include this in legislation and not just in her musings to
reporters in the media?
Hon. Anne McLellan (Minister of Justice and Attorney General
of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, as I have told the House
before on numerous occasions, it is the government's intention to
respond to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights
report on youth justice. I will be filling that report in the
coming weeks.
* * *
[Translation]
MULTILATERAL AGREEMENT ON INVESTMENT
Mrs. Maud Debien (Laval East, BQ): Mr. Speaker, my question is
for the Prime Minister.
The MAI is stirring people up everywhere in the world. For
instance, the European Parliament passed a motion last week which
called for parliamentarians to play a role in the negotiations.
When the Liberals were in opposition, they demanded a special
debate in the House when NAFTA was being negotiated. Does the
government commit today to doing the same before the MAI if and
when an agreement is reached?
[English]
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the process is
simply that parliamentarians who are elected to the House have
all the input it is possible to have to the negotiating team. The
negotiating team listens to all the parties that participate on
that committee.
I assure my hon. friend that with her participation on the
committee her points of view and the points of view of her
constituents will be passed—
The Speaker: The hon. member for Yukon.
Ms. Louise Hardy (Yukon, NDP): Mr. Speaker, in November
1997 Yukon legislation called on the federal government to cease
negotiations on the MAI.
Normally international trade agreements bind national
governments alone but the MAI is different. It gives the ability
to sue local governments.
Will the Prime Minister commit to the cross-country hearings
that Saskatchewan, Yukon, P.E.I. and B.C. have asked for and
table an analysis of local hiring and the impact on first
nations, or will he end the negotiations?
Mr. Julian Reed (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for
International Trade, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, through our
committee we have already heard from every part of the country.
We have heard expressions repeated on just about every issue of
concern that there could possibly be over the MAI.
My hon. friend suggests that we should back out of negotiations,
turn tail and run. Canada will stay in negotiations right to the
very end. We will sign a deal only if it is a good deal for
Canadians.
* * *
CANADA PENSION PLAN INVESTMENT BOARD
Mr. Scott Brison (Kings—Hants, PC): Mr. Speaker, the
other chamber is currently holding hearings on Bill C-2 and the
appointment process to the CPP investment board. The appearance
of non-political appointments to this investment board is
paramount to the integrity of the board itself and to Canadians'
trust and confidence that their money will be invested properly.
What steps has the Minister of Finance taken to ensure that the
board will not simply become another pit of patronage for this
government?
1500
Hon. Paul Martin (Minister of Finance, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, we certainly share the view as do the provinces, that
confidence in the board is paramount. That is why we have set in
place a process whereby the provinces and the federal government
will put together a list of nominees from which the directors
will be chosen.
I can assure the hon. member that each and every one of those
nominees will be a person of the highest character, integrity and
competence.
* * *
PRESENCE IN GALLERY
The Speaker: I draw the attention of hon. members to
the presence in the gallery of Dr. Gonchigdorj, chairman of the
State Great Hural of Mongolia, and other members of a
parliamentary delegation from Mongolia.
Some hon. members: Hear, hear.
* * *
[Translation]
POINTS OF ORDER
ORAL QUESTION PERIOD
Hon. Sheila Copps (Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, with respect to the allegations made by the hon. member of
the Bloc Quebecois, I would like to table a letter from ACELF, the
organization to which he has referred today, which reads as
follows: “As for the quote in the newspaper article—we wish to
dissociate ourselves from this false statement, and we apologize
for having attributed certain intentions to the Minister of
Canadian Heritage without justification”.
I would therefore like to table this letter which, in fact,
confirms that the hon. member's statement is incorrect.
Mr. Michel Gauthier (Roberval, BQ): Mr. Speaker, following up
on the minister's action, I request the unanimous consent of the
House to table the letter from the president of the organization in
question, which was the object of—
[English]
The Speaker: Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
WAYS AND MEANS
NOTICES OF MOTIONS
Hon. Jim Peterson (Secretary of State (International
Financial Institutions), Lib.): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to
Standing Order 83(1) I wish to table two notices of ways and
means motions. The first is to implement a Kamloops Indian band
tax on alcohol, tobacco and fuels. The second is to amend the
Budget Implementation Act, 1997. I ask that an order of the day
be designated for consideration of these motions.
GOVERNMENT ORDERS
1505
[English]
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FLAG
The House resumed consideration of the motion and of the
amendment.
Mr. Steve Mahoney (Mississauga West, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
I will be sharing my time with the member for Kitchener Centre.
We usually begin our addresses in this place by saying we are
pleased to rise on the particular issue. I wish I could say that
about this issue.
The first thing I want to do is surrender to the authorities if
that is appropriate, to admit my guilt that I waved a flag in
this place. Members opposite referred to someone over here
waving a full size Canadian flag. Guilty. The member for
Scarborough East and I held it up. We sang the national anthem.
We were proud to do it, no question. We were making a point to
the separatists and to the reactions of the member for
Rimouski—Mitis at the Olympics.
The deputy House leader for the Reform Party seems fit to chirp
as she leaves her seat. She knows and you know, Mr. Speaker,
that members of the Reform Party are absolutely nothing but
opportunists in this issue. They are a disgrace to this place.
They are a disgrace frankly to the Canadian flag for using it for
their own political benefit. Reform Party members should be
ashamed of themselves for what they are doing.
Far be it for me—
Miss Deborah Grey: You never want to wave it again?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: If the member opposite wants to take
her seat and debate this in a normal fashion, I would be
delighted to take her on.
Miss Deborah Grey: I did that already this morning. You
were not here when I was speaking.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Order. Hon. members
may feel free to address other hon. members through the Chair.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I would make the point
that if members of the official opposition really wanted to deal
with this issue in a proper parliamentary form, they would
participate with the House leaders in coming to a resolution.
There is an option.
Government representatives and all other representatives of
every party in this place came to an agreement proposing that the
House Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could be
mandated to study possible uses of the flag on Parliament Hill
and in the House based on the conventions in other parliaments,
particularly in the Commonwealth countries. I could support that
if that was the motion put forward by the opposition. It would
make sense. It would calm the issue down. It would allow for
some proper time to study how we might more appropriately use the
Canadian flag in this place and in the precincts around the
capital and Parliament Hill.
Far be it for me to quote from the media, but I want to read
from an article that Andrew Coyne wrote. It says there is
nothing wrong with “a little flag waving so long as honest love
of country is the motive”. I think the Canadian people will in
time recognize the motive of the Reform Party as being purely
political in this matter. It has nothing to do with freedom of
speech. No one's freedom of speech is restricted in this place
as long as they do so within the rules.
It is an interesting thing that happened. We broke the rules
and I think everybody knows it. Some 200 of us waved little
flags in the air, my colleague and I held up the large flag, and
we broke into a rendition of O Canada. I was proud to do
that and I would do it again.
Even though I know it is against the rules in this place, it was
important for once to make the point to the Bloc Quebecois, to
the member for Rimouski—Mitis that we do not accept her remarks
at the Olympics with regard to the display of the Canadian flag
on behalf of Canadian athletes and Canadians everywhere. In fact
it was a proud thing to see.
It was particularly proud to see the Olympic athletes smuggle in
that huge flag. And it is against the rules in the Olympics.
It was the second time it has happened at the Olympics. It became
the focal point of the televised section of the closing
ceremonies of the Olympics. It was a marvellous thing to see.
If it bends the rules a little bit, so be it. Those athletes,
not all of them kids, had a Canadian heart beating in them and
they wanted to share that with the world. They wanted to tell
the world that they had just competed for their country.
1510
For a member of Parliament to make a comment like the separatist
member has made is enough to make the hairs stand up on the back
of one's neck. We wanted to send a message and did so with our
demonstration. The message is that Canadians right across this
land, including Canadians who live in Quebec and want to stay in
Canada, are fed up with that brand of separatism as that member
would try to sell to her constituents back in Quebec.
My constituents have called and said they were really angry with
this. They know we have called a vote to put the flag on every
desk. They think it is a difficult argument but wonder why we
would not put a flag on our desks. Maybe we should.
I have been in legislatures and Parliament for several years and
I have seen many, many instances where the rules were bent. I
have seen people filibuster by reading names and addresses out of
telephone books. Should we make that legal? Is that a proper
form of debate?
When I was in the Ontario legislature I even presented Mike
Harris with an American flag to make a point. The point was that
we could see the Americanization of the agenda that has since
come out as the common sense revolution.
An hon. member: Point over there.
Mr. Steve Mahoney: The member says I should point there
and he is right, but I have trouble pointing to the left when I
talk about them.
The reality is that I did that for effect. I knew that the
Speaker would admonish me and say it was not proper parliamentary
procedure. I also knew I would not do it again because the point
had been made.
We also made the point to the separatists. Let us not forget
that what the Reform Party is doing by turning this into a debate
over our cherished flag, by saying we have a bigger flag than
they do or that we are prouder to be Canadians than they are, we
are totally allowing the separatists to get off the hook. They
started this. They are the ones who denigrated our flag with the
comments by the member, on federal taxpayers' dollars, at the
Olympic games with Canadian athletes fighting for their country.
And we are letting them off the hook.
I object to the cheap political antics of painting a car.
Imagine. A member has put a private member's bill forward as a
result of one of the Reform members actually throwing the
Canadian flag on the floor of the House of Commons in anger. The
private member's bill states that it will be a criminal offence
to desecrate the national flag of Canada. It should be a criminal
offence. If that bill existed, that member would be hauled out
of here and charged with a criminal offence.
For Reform members to now get on their high horse and try to
tell Canadians across the country that only they care about the
flag, I reject that. It makes me so damned angry. Canadians
right across the country are proud of our flag and proud to be
Canadians and so is the Liberal government.
These people are just playing cheap politics which in fact is a
method of denigrating the Canadian flag. They should be ashamed
of themselves.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member says that we are letting the Bloc
Quebecois off the hook by bringing forward this motion.
1515
I would suggest that the member is letting it off the hook by
opposing this motion. The member is saying that we are to be
patriotic yet he is castigating that party because it said there
are too many flags at the Canadian Olympics. The member is
saying that is wrong. There should be flags at the Canadian
Olympics. But what the hon. member is also saying is that there
should not be in the House of Commons, the federal government of
this country.
I still suggest that if there is a problem in this House it is
not the matter of the Reform Party's bringing this motion forward,
but rather the hon. member rejecting the idea that Canadians
should be able to see their federal members with their federal
flag on their desks. What is wrong with that?
I asked a question earlier but time did not allow it so I was
cut off. I put it to him. The minister of heritage spent over
$20 million of taxpayer money giving away flags and trying to get
Canadians to be more patriotic. Why, after spending all that
taxpayer money, is he opposed to a small display of the Canadian
flag here in this House of Commons?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting that
the Reform Party opposes the distribution of flags by this
government which was an attempt to share the patriotic view of
the House of Commons. It was done on behalf of all members
across the country.
I did not say I am opposed to the flag being displayed. I am not
opposed. It currently is displayed and I can see two of them as
I speak. If the Reform Party were serious it could have adopted
the agreement made by most members in this House over the
weekend. The members said the issue should be referred to the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and the
committee be mandated to study the possible use of the flag on
Parliament Hill.
If we really want it done, we can send it in the proper
procedural way to a committee. Let the committee bring a report
and we can depoliticize this issue. To play games with the
Canadian flag is to do an injustice to that proud flag that I
will stand behind in my constituency.
Mr. Jake E. Hoeppner (Portage—Lisgar, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, I have been in this House for four years plus but I have
never during all the time in this House seen anybody destroy the
integrity of this House and the credibility like the member who
just spoke.
This is what it says on this little label: “As a loyal Canadian,
please wave this flag the first time you see the Bloc member
stand up to speak in question period”. These flags were put out
by the member for Oshawa. The credibility of this government is
such that I am mad, and damn mad. My relatives died for a flag.
This type of credibility in this House is not deserved and I want
to know what this member would do when a gun was pointed at him,
not just a little stick?
Mr. Steve Mahoney: Mr. Speaker, I understand the passion
the member feels because I too feel passionate about this issue.
He is right. It was a Liberal backbench member who put these
flags in everybody's desk and the message was to send a message
to the member from the Bloc who was making the comments in Japan,
and we sent that message with pride. I stood here and waved a
full size flag in this House with pride and sang the anthem with
pride. My relatives fought for this country too.
They do not have a corner on being self-righteous about this
country or about this flag and I resent the comments by that
member attacking my integrity and the integrity of this
government. We should send this to a committee. We should
calmly discuss it and if the committee can come up with a way to
properly and in a larger way display our wonderful flag in this
House, then that is what we should do. It would be supported by
all members.
It is not grandstanding the way the Reform Party is doing it
that will work and solve this issue.
Mrs. Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
this has not been the finest hour in this House. As a matter of
fact, I am disappointed to stand and take the floor today to talk
about some of the rhetoric that surrounds this issue.
1520
There are a couple of points that I would like to make at the
outset.
Members of the official opposition have been speaking to the
effect that only small desk flags would be the result of the
passing of the motion before us. However, the motion clearly
states that the flag would be no larger than that of a standard
recognized flag. This indicates that a flag of any size would be
permitted to be displayed on desks. I would ask why members
opposite are being so selective as to the flags they are
referring to in the debate we are having today.
Another point is that members of the official opposition have
been stressing the importance of flags being permissible in the
House of Commons. I remind these members that it is difficult to
sit here in the House today and not see the two Canadian flags
proudly displayed on either side of the Speaker's chair.
These two points aside, I have thought about this issue a lot
over the past week and a half, as I know many of my colleagues
have. I was in the House the day the flags were spontaneously
waved and our national anthem was sung. I was in the House to
see a member of the official opposition throw a Canadian flag on
the floor of this Chamber.
I understand the emotion of members of this House and of
Canadians upon learning what the hon. member of the Bloc said
about the display of our national flag in the Olympic village.
Her comments were, at least to say, unfortunate.
However, the actions in this House upon her return have also
done damage. They have further politicized our national emblem.
It has been used as a mere prop of nationalism.
This motion does not suggest that flags be mandatory. My
question to members opposite is if I do not have a flag on my
desk and my seatmate has a flag on his desk, does the logical
extension then say that he is more nationalistic, a prouder
federalist than I am? I think not.
Nationalism and patriotism run deep. They are not limited
merely to the display of our national flag. They are
demonstrated in numerous ways, too many to count.
Need I remind our colleagues that just over two months ago
regions of Ontario and Quebec, just across the provincial border,
close to the Hill where we now are, were stricken by an ice
storm? Need I remind members of this House how Canadians of all
political stripes, from all regions, from all backgrounds and
ethical beliefs banded together in a massive demonstration of
nationalism of the strongest kind, nationalism of action?
We are elected representatives to the House of Commons. We are
elected to represent the people of our constituencies. We are
elected to use our best judgment when dealing with sensitive
issues based on our firsthand knowledge. We are elected and sent
to this House to debate government policies and to initiate
action.
I do not deny members of the official opposition the right to
introduce any motion of their choice on their allotted day. I
do, however, regret that they have decided to further debate the
issue which was ruled on yesterday in this House by our Speaker;
an issue which most parties represented in this House recommended
be directed to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs for further study; a study based on precedent and the
conventions of this and other parliaments, particularly those of
the Commonwealth countries.
The fact that members of the Reform Party do not support this
recommendation, which is based on respect for the institution and
the procedures of our democracy, further demonstrates that their
motion is not about patriotism but merely about politics.
Members of the Reform Party are using the flag as a lightening
rod to attract the attention of the media, overshadowing larger
issues, issues which need to be discussed in the House, issues of
job creation, health care, child care and industry development.
Let us not allow politics to be ruled by sound bytes used by the
media, short clips heard on television and printed in newspapers.
Yes, these things do provide information, but it is only a
snapshot, not the whole picture.
The issues we deal with in the House are much larger and much
more substantive than the way this whole issue has been
portrayed.
1525
I ask the House to return to the issues of importance to all
Canadians. I ask Canadians to see this motion as one that will
not move the envelope of Canadian unity toward a lasting
stability for the country. Canada's future lies in a strong
society.
I ask that the orders of precedence be respected and that we
return to work on the important substantive issues facing the
country which will make longlasting differences and help shape
the future for all Canadians.
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the member's
speech, but my recollection of the event that led to this
parliamentary crisis is not quite the same as hers.
She spoke of a spontaneous demonstration. What I remember is
that, when my colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis, rose to
ask a very relevant question, flags began waving everywhere in the
House, and it did not look spontaneous. It looked very well
organized, by both the Liberals and the Reformers.
The result today is that all Quebeckers have understood that
this demonstration that fired up nationalist sentiment in English
Canada apparently did nothing to improve relations between Quebec
and Canada.
I went back to my riding. What I found most distressing was
that people were saying “What is it with that Parliament? You are
wasting your time on this sort of thing. Is Parliament some kind
of farce?”
In that sense, today's Reform Party motion only makes matters
more farcical.
Would it not have been more important today to address the
issues of employment insurance, poverty, and the multilateral
agreement on investment, all daily concerns of Quebeckers and
Canadians?
[English]
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I would concur with the
last comments of the member opposite that there are more
substantive issues and there is a more productive way we could
use this time. However, I would also like to underline that the
comments, although made outside this Chamber by a member of the
Bloc, were indeed unfortunate and were responded to with almost
unanimity from members of other parties in the House. It was
very difficult to deal with.
Mr. Gordon Earle (Halifax West, NDP): Mr. Speaker, it
saddens me somewhat to even address this issue because I feel it
should not even be discussed today. We must look realistically
at how the issue commenced in the House. I emphasize in the
House because members are free to do what they want outside. If
people have concerns, they should be dealt with outside.
When the flags were waved in the House as a prop and the
national anthem was sung to silence a member who had the right to
speak, that was wrong. It is wrong now to be debating this issue
as if it were one about flags. It is not an issue about flags.
It is an issue about people wanting to get their way, to prove
what they did was right and to justify what they did. I hear
people making all kinds of excuses as to why they did it. It was
wrong then and it is wrong now. It is not an issue of flags and
we should not misinterpret it as being an issue of flags.
I feel very sad because the Canadian public is being taken in by
this whole issue. We as parliamentarians who are supposed to be
responsible people elected to serve our constituents are here
wasting our time, spending taxpayer money debating an issue that
ought not to be debated, should never have begun in the first
place. The people who started it should be big enough to stand up
and agree they were wrong and let it drop at that. Not every
member of the House stood and sung O Canada.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I agree. The Chair ruled
on the events of that day. We are more than willing to accept
that ruling and move forward.
1530
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I will
try to address my concerns to the Chair and keep them very brief.
There is a greater question here and I would like to ask the
former speaker what she thinks of this. If we display a Canadian
flag on our desk, what does that tell the people who do not
display the Canadian flag? It does use it as some type of a
weapon or some type of coercion to convince everyone else that
they too should have one.
Mrs. Karen Redman: Mr. Speaker, I fully support this
being referred to a standing committee and being dealt with
through the proper channels and procedures.
Mr. Gary Lunn (Saanich—Gulf Islands, Ref.): Mr. Speaker,
this debate has had an interesting fate in the way it has
progressed over the last two weeks.
There are a number of issues I want to deal with. I think one
of the most important things is that all of the people who are
listening to this understand why we are doing this, putting an
end to this. This issue admittedly arose from members of the
government side standing to wave a flag, as well as members of
this party, and rightfully so. They should have. I stood up
proudly and waved the flag in response to comments made by a
member of the Bloc. We said enough is enough, we have to get on
with the important governing issues.
The members repeatedly have said send it to a committee. Sending
that to a committee would be a colossal waste of time. It is
important but it is not rocket science. We are talking about a
very simple question.
This is the only way we can put this thing to an end once and
for all and make every single member in this Chamber stand up and
be counted. Will you allow a flag on your desk or will you not?
When we debated this supply day motion as to whether or not to
proceed with it, that was the number one issue. Let us get this
thing over with, make people stand up and be counted and move
forward.
The fisheries and oceans committee I am involved with meets two
or three times a week and we do a lot of good work. By sending
something like this to committee to be buried in months and
months of meetings is insane. It is absolutely ridiculous it has
arrived at this point where we have used a supply day motion
because there are lots of important issues. We were forced into
this. We were pushed and we had to respond. This is one way to
put an end to this and that is what this is all about today.
It can be argued that we are sitting here using up valuable time
but we are not going to have this issue go on until May or June
and then into next fall because that is crazy. That is what you
guys keep telling us to do, send it to a committee and let us
talk about it.
Yes, we did get a ruling from the Speaker yesterday and he did
say it was clearly out of order. I accept that. No question.
What happened? There were about 200 members of Parliament
responding to comments made outside the House when a member was
visiting a foreign country representing Canada with taxpayers'
dollars. They were infuriated. They were outraged and they
responded.
There were comments by the Speaker yesterday that this should
not be repeated. With the highest respect for the Speaker
himself and the authority of that chair, I would suggest that if
these kinds of comments are made outside the House again exactly
the same thing would happen.
We saw members of the government proudly wave a three foot by
six foot flag during the budget debate only weeks ago when this
issue came up. I supported them. I stood on my feet and sang
O Canada, and I was proud to do that.
This debate has been elevated and it has progressed but thank
goodness the Reform Party is bringing it to an end.
It will not go to a committee. It will not go off to further
meetings. They will not be talking about this in June. We will
not be hearing grumblings about it. It is over today, once and
for all.
1535
Every member will have to stand in this House and be counted.
There will be no ducking behind some orders of the government.
They have an opportunity to stand and be counted on whether they
will allow members to have a flag on their desks.
We are advocating that we should have this place give each
person their right. They do not have to if they do not want to.
I heard a member opposite just moments before referring to the
flag as a weapon. For goodness sakes, that is the craziest thing
I have heard. It is the elevation that this debate has come to.
They talk about respect for institutions.
I do believe that a majority of these members, with the
exception of one party, believe in this country and are
patriotic. Some members just want to demonstrate that. However,
I do not want to lose sight of why we are here today.
This is a very important question: Can some members put a flag
on their desks? I admit that we did not do this in 1993 and we
did not do it last September. This whole thing evolved out of
the outcome of actions by a member of this House on a taxpayers'
junket to another country and the House responded.
It has elevated to this and it is time that it has to stop. It
has to be over and done. This is the one way that it can be
done. The Reform Party had to use its supply day motion to put
an end to this nonsense, to make sure they stand up and are
counted.
I am in a state of awe that those members are sitting over there
saying “Send it to a committee. Let them talk about it. Let us
come back in June. Let us come back next fall. Let us carry
this thing on”.
This is such an elementary question. It is so painfully simple
that we have to make sure they stand up in this House, that they
are heard and that we move forward.
I have heard people suggest that the Reform Party is using this
as a lightning rod and as an opportunity. I will tell this House
and every single Canadian out there watching in all sincerity
that we do believe in this country. We do believe in the flag.
I proudly stand here on Wednesdays and sing the national anthem.
I do. If I did not, I would not be standing here right now
making this speech. I would have a lot better things to be
doing.
I will continue to fight for this country and fight for my kids
so that they have a good place. I mean that sincerely. I really
do.
To carry on with this nonsense is just absolutely crazy. The
only way that we could force an end to this matter is to use our
supply day. That is exactly what we have done. Every member
over there will have to stand and be counted. They will have to
say what side they are on. Let us talk about what this is all
about.
Those members can say that it is a weapon. I heard one of the
top strategists for the Progressive Conservative Party equating
this to a Reform member having this tattooed on their body and
displaying it in the House and whether that would be acceptable.
There is all this craziness.
That is where all the other parties are taking this debate. It
is simple. Can we take a little desk top flag and put it on our
desk when we want to talk about a very important issue? Maybe we
will want to leave it there all the time.
This is the House of Canada. This is the Parliament of Canada.
There is only one flag for Canada. There is only one national
anthem for Canada. I will stand up in this House and say that
the Quebec flag does not belong in here any more than the
Newfoundland flag or the British Columbia flag or any other flag
from this country.
The only flag that belongs in this House is the maple leaf. I
am sure I would have a lot of people who would agree with me. I
stand in this House as a proud Canadian. Those flags belong
beside the Speaker and no other flag on this desk.
Every member of Parliament sitting in this House should be
standing up and fighting for the good of all Canadians. That is
what we are doing today.
Now we are hearing comments that we are wasting time. The
reality is respect. We are spending three or four hours debating
this in this House.
1540
This started out as an appropriate response to comments made and
it has now elevated to this. This nonsense has to end and end
today. People have to stand up and make sure they are heard,
which is what we are here for.
I am happy to ask anyone to ask me any question on this issue.
I will be glad to give them a response as long as they do not
want to get into some silly debate about a whole bunch of issues
that we are not talking about today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we go to
questions and comments, we have a point of order from the
Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to table the letter that the minister referred to
during question period, if I have unanimous consent.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Do we have unanimous
consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FLAG
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
Mr. John Bryden (Wentworth—Burlington, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, what foolishness this motion is. It has crowded the
talk show lines in my riding and people believe that what this is
all about is that parliamentarians cannot stand and speak in this
House holding the Canadian flag as a symbol.
When I was elected in 1993, I put a Canadian flag pin on my
lapel. In all that time, Mr. Speaker, you have never ruled me
out of order because I have stood in this House with the Canadian
flag pinned on my jacket.
Moreover, from time to time I have risen to speak in this House
wearing a tie that had Canadian flags on it and you have never,
Mr. Speaker, ruled that out of order.
There are plenty of opportunities to stand and speak in this
House wearing a Canadian flag as a symbol.
What is wrong with having a Canadian flag at the desk? Well, we
saw it with the Reform member for Medicine Hat. He got angry and
took the flag, threw it on the floor and desecrated it. On this
side we tried to figure out how to retrieve the flag from the
floor of the House of Commons before it was stepped on.
I submit to the member opposite that a flag in the hands of the
Reform Party or on a desk may be desecrated. It is safer next to
you, Mr. Speaker. Why can he not have on his jacket, as I do, or
even on his tie a Canadian flag? Why is that not sufficient for
him?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, I am going to bring this
back. It is very simple. We even heard members of the Bloc
talking about the flag as being vulgar. Imagine that. People
responded to that, including the people in the member's party.
The government party stood up and responded like the people did
here, appropriately. I stand on those words. I stood proudly
and waved that flag and stood proudly and sang O Canada.
That is what this is about.
This debate has elevated from that. We can all argue about this
but that is the reality. That is what has happened and what has
gone on for two weeks and it has to end. People out there have
to know where we stand. We are going to make people stand up and
be counted, that is what this is all about. We want to bring a
closure to this issue once and for all today so we can address
the other important issues.
Mr. Dick Proctor (Palliser, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I have
listened to a good deal of the debate today and the word that
keeps coming back is the word “flagrant” which consists of two
words “flag” and “rant”, which is what we mostly have today
from the Reform Party.
I hear the member for Blackstrap bellowing away.
What we are seeing here today is a flagrant waste of time. I
will be very proudly voting against this motion in a couple of
hours time, but I will take no back seat to any of the members of
the Reform Party in terms of their patriotic endeavours.
I am probably the only person in this House who had the
privilege of being outside this building on February 15, 1965
when the Canadian flag was raised for the very first time on top
of the Peace Tower. I remember it very well. I was a student at
the university here and came down to a relatively small
gathering. Prime Minister Pearson came out for the event. Had
the Reform Party members been around in 1965 they probably would
have voted against this new flag because of the red ensign. They
would have wrapped themselves in the previous flag because they
are very good at promising Canadians a better yesterday.
I have two questions for the previous speaker.
1545
In the vast research the Reformers have done, could they tell us
what other countries allow flags to be displayed on members'
desks in their parliaments? If they want to bring an end to this
debate today, why are they running ads on radio stations in
Saskatchewan?
Mr. Gary Lunn: Mr. Speaker, the member asked me what goes
on in other parliaments. I have been to many countries and have
been to their parliaments. I have yet to hear people refer to
their flags as vulgar. I have yet to hear their elected
officials go off to other countries and say that there are too
many of their own country's flags.
The people in this House responded and appropriately so by
saying that was not acceptable. The ministers, the government
and the Reform Party stood and said that we were not going to
allow that. This has elevated from that.
How can we put an end to this? How can we stop it? How can we
get on to the governing of the country? We said we would force
them to stand and be counted, and that is what we have done.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer (Edmonton—Strathcona, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, it is interesting to take part in a debate such as this
one.
Many members of the House have turned what I believe to be a
positive initiative on behalf of the official opposition into an
us against them debate that would divide us rather than bring us
together as Canadians.
An hon. member: You should be ashamed of yourself.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: I am ashamed right now to listen to
these heckles. Here we are talking about pride in Canada and the
flag, and here we have people yelling at us from the other side.
As a relatively new Canadian who has adopted this country and
takes pride in its flag and what it stands for, I do not know why
in a democracy I cannot rise in an institution like this one to
address those things and say how proud I am to be a Canadian.
We have heard from the other parties today that Reform does not
respect rules. I beg to differ. We were waiting for the Speaker
to rule on the issue. He took some time to rule. If we look
around today we see that members on the Reform side have
respected his decision. We took the next step, which was to hear
from other Canadians in the House on how they feel about the
flag, if they feel it is a positive initiative to display it on
their desks.
If many members opposite feel it is not a positive initiative
then they can say so. That is what the debate is all about. We
on the Reform side continuously argue that if members of the
House representing people from across they country who are proud
to be Canadians want to display that flag on their desks on
behalf of the people who elected them, why not allow them to do
so. It is a positive initiative. I have yet to hear some
constructive debate from the other side as to why it is negative,
instead of attacking this side for being proud about our symbols.
We have heard from members of different parties that this is a
negative initiative. This is what the House of Commons is all
about. It is a place in which to freely debate ideas that may be
of contention, that may mean something to some and not to others.
Bringing this issue to the floor and letting the members decide
is not negative. Members opposite and members from all parties
have the right to vote yes or no in the end to the motion,
whether they like it or not.
I resent the fact that people have been so negative overall in
the debate when the initiative in the official opposition motion
is very positive. I wish we would hear less rhetoric and more
about why a flag on a desk is so negative.
To some extent I was happy for a little while to hear members
from all sides talking about what Canada means to them and what
the flag means to them. It was somewhat enlightening to hear
some of the stories of various members of Parliament and their
families and what exactly the flag means to them. To have this
kind of debate once in a while is healthy for parliament.
I briefly touched on what that means to me. I am a recent
Canadian. I have been here for 26 years. I came here as a
little child. I adopted the flag and the country. It is mine
and it is my home. For me it means freedom. It means
opportunity. It means democracy. Those are things that did not
exist in the country my family had to flee from as refugees.
1550
To be able to take a moment to reflect on those things in the
House is the perfect place to do it. I am very proud that we
have the opportunity to do so. I resent the fact that we are
hearing such negative comments from all other sides of the House
on this issue.
I heard members of the New Democratic Party yelling out that no
other parliament or legislature in the world may necessarily have
flags on their desks. This is an opportunity for us as
Canadians, as we have been in the past, to be leaders and maybe
start something positive, start something to be proud of. It is
not negative.
It is a chance for us to stand and actually start something new.
If we took the time to reflect on that for a moment and reflect
on how it could bring us together, maybe we would have more
support in the House than what we see today.
Those are some of the issues I would have liked to address. Many
of us have misinterpreted what the motion is supposed to be about
and how positive it is.
[Translation]
I would now like to address the people of Quebec, people who love
Canada and the Canadian flag. Do not be mistaken: while Quebeckers love
their province, they also love their country. If the members opposite
refuse to give them a way of expressing their patriotism in this House,
I will be proud to take on that responsibility.
The flag is an emblem, a deeply important symbol. Displaying the
Canadian flag shows commitment to Canada, but this commitment to Canada
is not one to the geographical boundaries of our country.
To display a flag shows commitment to the values honoured within those
boundaries.
My family and I came to Canada looking for a place to rebuild our
lives. We were not looking for handouts, but opportunities, which we
found. Canada gave us the opportunity to go to school and to build
prosperous businesses. So, when we see Canadian flags, we are reminded
that Canada gave us a second chance.
I am now a part of a country which gave me the opportunity to
represent the electoral district of Edmonton—Strathcona in the House of
Commons. I came from a country where there was no respect for democracy
to a country where, at age 26, I was allowed to speak as an equal in
this House.
The community of Edmonton—Strathcona judged me on the basis of my
abilities and allowed me to come and represent it here because it liked
what I had to say.
So, when I look at the Canadian flag, I also see freedom. When I look at
the Canadian flag, I am reminded that, in Canada, democracy is the
principle of equality which is part of our laws and our government
institutions.
I am sure that the people of Quebec see what I see when they look
at the Canadian flag: freedom, opportunity, democracy and equality. I am
convinced that, given the chance to speak with one voice in this House
today, the people of Quebec would ask their representatives to make the
best decision and support our motion.
[English]
On the last note, I would like to focus specifically on the fact
that we have gone through a really strange week in the House. We
have had funny behaviour on both sides. It is an emotional issue
and it goes without saying that people react the way they do when
issues of symbolism and patriotism are discussed in the House.
I encourage all members to take a moment to see the principle
behind the motion and to support it because they are proud of
their country. If all hon. members take a second to take a step
back, they will see that the motion in its principle is something
positive for all of us. It allows freedom of expression for
individual members in the House who are proud to be here.
1555
[Translation]
Mr. Paul Crête (Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les
Basques, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I listened to the member who spoke before me
say that a spirit of democracy and respect was needed. I invite him to
bring that up with the Reform member who spoke before him. That member
accused a member of the Bloc Quebecois of having called the Canadian
flag vulgar. I challenge him to find a single instance of a Bloc member
having called the Canadian flag vulgar.
What the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis said was that she found
there were too many Canadian flags in Nagano. It was an assessment, and
as far as I know we are entitled to our personal opinions on the
subject.
I want to point something else out. He said we have been elected
here for the good of Canadians.
For those who elected me as their member of Parliament, what would be
good for the whole of Canada would be to create two sovereign countries
that would enter into a partnership.
This is the message I have for the House on behalf of my
constituents. In 1993, more than 50 members of the Bloc Quebecois were
elected. Today, there are 44 of them. This is still a majority of
members from Quebec who, as sovereignists, have been elected to pass on
the message that the solution in Canada, in fact, is to create two
sovereign countries having economic ties with each other.
In conclusion, I agree with him that the Liberals also had a hand
in the initiative that led to this crisis, and that they are now
adopting a position I find unacceptable. I agree with him on that.
I would like the hon. member to answer my question. For Quebeckers
and Canadians to become proud of living in this country, instead of
putting a flag on the desk and waving it about whenever the spirit moves
them, would it not be preferable for the members of this House to have
democratic debates on the issues of real concern to Quebeckers and
Canadians, including the national issue?
[English]
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member refers to
whether or not it is good to debate this type of motion in the
House, given the fact that his mandate is to create two sovereign
nations.
We are talking today about whether a member of Parliament, who
is proud to be a Canadian member of Parliament and wants to
display a flag on his desk in the House, should have the right to
do so. That is the fundamental basis of the motion. That is what
we are debating.
The hon. member said that most electors in his riding elected
him and his party to create a vision of two sovereign nations.
They are free to work to that end. However, as it stands right
now, we are still a united country. While we are in the House we
should have respect for the symbols that represent the country.
It is not negative to have the flag displayed on anyone's desk in
the House.
Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr.
Speaker, like the member opposite, I too come from an immigrant
background. My father came here over 70 years ago. Before I
learned my first nursery rhyme, I learned how lucky I was to be a
Canadian.
I take no back seat to anybody when it comes to pride in this
country. That is precisely why nearly two weeks ago I stood in
the House and did something that I knew was absolutely out of
order. I waved a flag. I sang my national anthem. I was quite
content then to sit down and let the member for Rimouski—Mitis
have her say in the House.
I had to respond to an insult to something that means more to me
than a symbol of a country. For me it is a symbol of my father's
life which was dedicated to this country. That is precisely why
I will not vote for the motion tonight. I will not have the flag
sitting here to be knocked over, to be fiddled with, to fall on
the floor, to be trampled on, to be treated with the kind of
disrespect I saw from some of the members in the House last week.
I value the flag too much to use it as a symbol to point to
separatists members of the House and say “in your face”. That
is not what it is for. It is to cherish.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, we have heard from members
opposite that people had disrespect for the flag in the House.
I would like to put that issue to rest. The hon. member for
Medicine Hat had lunch with the snack pack prior to that event.
His hands were greasy because he had a greasy meal and I believe
he dropped the flag.
1600
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Rahim Jaffer: Mr. Speaker, if I could just have a
second—
The Speaker: I should point out that on questions and
comments we try to be fair. If members have been in the House
during the course of the debate, for most of the day, we would
normally recognize those members before others who have just come
in. Sometimes it seems a little arbitrary, but it really is not.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan (Parliamentary Secretary to Prime
Minister, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, the Reform Party, by putting
this motion before us, is trying to create the impression that it
is leading the country in patriotism. The motion purports to
start a practice of allowing the displaying of the Canadian flag
on members' desks in the House as an act of patriotism. That is
what it would like the Canadian public to believe.
How can we take the motion of the Reform Party with any modicum
of seriousness and sincerity when barely two weeks ago it
condoned utter disrespect for our national emblem?
This is the same Reform Party which allowed one of its members,
the member for Medicine Hat, to desecrate the Canadian flag on
the floor of this Chamber, duly documented in the media.
Indeed, when Canadians realize all of this, the motion before us
quickly loses its moral edge, particularly when it is realized by
all that the Reform Party did not introduce the motion before the
Speaker's ruling but one day after that ruling.
Recall that the Reform Party has been widely reported in the
media as having threatened the Speaker with a vote of
non-confidence if he ruled against the Reform's pleading. This
motion is a classic example of the Reform Party's sense of
procedural justice.
Frankly, I would like to display the Canadian flag on my desk. I
know I would treat it with the utmost respect and dignity
befitting our national emblem, the embodiment of Canadian dreams,
a sentiment aptly articulated by John Matheson in his book
Canada's Flag: A Search for a Country: “The traditions of
our people, their accomplishments, and their hopes for the future
are summed up in the symbolic meaning of our flag”.
How then can the House show support for this motion when its
authors belong to the same party which has failed to discipline
one of its own members who showed a complete lack of decency in
handling the Canadian flag on his desk?
Let me remind all colleagues and all Canadians that the said
member of the Reform Party, a senior member of that party,
instead of apologizing for his cowardly act, had the arrogance to
tell the media “it was no big deal”.
The Reform Party ought to heed the words of Jennifer Robinson,
that our flag is not a prop for the Reform Party's stunts, which
appear in a column in today's issue of the Montreal
Gazette: “Reformers may love their country, but they do no
honour to the flag by using it as a prop for their political
stunts. There is no honour in singing the national anthem if it
is only to drown out political adversaries, no patriotism in
waving a flag if it is only to show contempt”.
A distinguished member of the House, the hon. member for
Sherbrooke, correctly said on the weekend: “A flag is meant to
be cherished and is to be a symbol that unites people, not
something to be bandied around for the purpose of trying to make
a political point”.
The leader of the Reform Party said: “We think there is a
second principle, equally important, the freedom of expression”,
in hinting his disagreement with the ruling by the Speaker, who
based his decision on the principle of decorum and order in the
House.
Let me remind the leader of the Reform Party that freedom of
expression, like all freedoms, is not absolute. As the old saying
goes, my right to swing my fists ends where your face begins.
I agree with the wisdom of the Speaker's ruling yesterday. He
said: “Without order there is no freedom of speech and,
fundamentally, that is what this place is really about”.
The Winnipeg Free Press in today's issue timely reminded
Canadians about the Reform Party: “Above all, they declared
their determination to restore seriousness and decorum to
Parliament and to put an end to the raucous disorder that
infected question period. So what has happened to turn the
Reformers into the bunch of merry mischief makers that they are
today?”
1605
Truly it is an appropriate question begging for an urgent answer
from the Reform leader.
I agree with today's issue of the Toronto Star: “The two
and a half week controversy that led to yesterday's ruling was
damaging and unnecessary. It cheapened Canadian patriotism, hurt
national unity and put the Speaker in an impossible position”.
It went on to say it is a shame that the Canadian flag was used
to disrupt the proceedings of the House.
The Toronto Star posed a challenge to the Speaker: “The
Speaker should set himself the higher task of ensuring that the
Canadian flag is used to symbolize tolerance and pride in the
House of Commons”.
I remind all members and respectfully inform all Canadians
that we already have in full view two full size Canadian flags on
each side of the Speaker's chair. Moreover, we sing O
Canada every Wednesday before question period.
Perhaps I could even force myself to understand the Reform
Party's frustration or political argument with the Speaker. But
the utmost of my understanding cannot condone any immature
display of temper, to say the least, or any unconscionable
deliberate insult to our flag, an act unbefitting any citizen,
let alone a member of Parliament.
The Reform Party would like Canadians to believe that it is
serious and sincere with this motion to display the Canadian flag
on our desks as a manifestation of patriotism. Anyone can see
through the Reform Party's motion a veneer of hypocrisy. A
disguise is a disguise is a disguise. A disguise of outrage
cannot hide a vacuum of sincerity in the motion.
Yesterday the Speaker of the House issued his ruling, pointing
out that such a display of the Canadian flag on members' desks is
not sanctioned under the present rules of the House. It should be
said that the Speaker's ruling is not without precedent. In 1964
the then Speaker of the House in a precedent setting ruling
prohibited flags at MPs' desks to be used as props.
Part of Reform's motion reads “that the said flag remain
stationary for the purposes of decorum”. Yes, by this motion
the Reform Party pretends to be the defender of decorum in the
House.
The Reform motion purports to do one thing while its behaviour
in the House clearly showed manifest disrespect for the flag and
for decorum.
Mr. Hugh Windsor of the Globe and Mail in yesterday's
issue rightly observed in his column “The Power Game” that the
Reform Party has, to some extent, effectively used a staged photo
opportunity as a tactic to draw media attention but that in the
case of the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis, alluding to the flag
waving fuss which should have been another one day wonder, it
carried the game too far by totally disrupting proceedings,
denying the MP her right to speak and turning the Commons into a
minstrel show by jumping up and singing O Canada.
In today's issue editorialist John Dafoe of the Winnipeg Free
Press writes: “Obviously inspired by the success of that
photo opportunity, they moved on to their newest caper, fun with
flags. They turned the Canadian flag into a prop for yet another
of their sight-gags”.
That is why even before the Speaker's ruling I regretted the
disruption to the proceedings of the House the incident caused. I
imagined before the Speaker's ruling what would happen to the
business of the House were we to allow ourselves to be drawn to
such actions so often. That is why, in all humility, I see the
wisdom behind the ruling of the Speaker who emphasized the need
for civility in the Chamber.
A wise man once said he who says he has learned everything, for
him that is the beginning of educational death. There is a place
for a dose of humility in the House.
The Reform Party did not hide its threats, its displeasure of
the Speaker on the flag issue. Why did the Reform, in the
interest of a greater goal, to allow the business of the House to
proceed, decline to give its hands of peace, setting aside
partisan politics?
1610
Without decorum and order, the House cannot be expected to
conduct its business, government proceeding with its legislation
and the opposition holding the government accountable. What a
pity that we are using this time not to debate the budget,
education and health care but this issue.
Displaying flags on the desks of the members could invite
further indignity to the flag as exhibited by the Reform Party. I
intended to propose an amendment, but I will decline.
In his book The Story of Canada's Flag published in 1965,
George F.G. Stanley, a leading Canadian historian, captured the
historic and emotional significance of the Canadian flag when he
wrote: “A flag speaks for the people of a nation or community.
It inspires self-sacrifice, loyalty and devotion”.
This motion is just that, a motion, an empty statement devoid of
sincerity, good will and respect, a parody of patriotism and a
travesty of civility and decorum in Parliament.
[Translation]
Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Mr. Speaker, when the
incident occurred, two weeks ago, I rose and said I was a proud
Canadian. I said I was a proud Canadian from New Brunswick with a flag
in both his Ottawa and New Brunswick offices, but that I was not proud
of what the Reform Party and the Liberal Party had done, particularly
when a Reform member threw the Canadian flag on the floor. I said all of
that.
I am proud because the flag is close to my heart. It does not have
to be displayed on my desk. I am truly proud of that. And the flag will
not be thrown on the floor because I am proud of it.
But I cannot be proud of the fact that, today, Parliament is spending
over $1 million of Canadians' money to hear about the flag, while some
children in our country go hungry because their parents are on welfare,
and while 730,000 people will be forced to rely on social assistance
because of the changes made to the employment insurance program. This is
what we should be debating here today. We should be debating the budget,
because that was the issue before the House on the day the incident
occurred.
I have a question for the member opposite. Reformers claimed that
the member from Quebec was still able to put her question that day.
However, since oral question period lasts 45 minutes and since each
member only has 35 seconds to put his or her question, is it not true
that, because the proceedings were interrupted that day, some parties
were prevented from asking a fourth question, as is the custom? There
was an interruption which may not have had an impact on the hon. member
from Quebec, but which had one on the New Democratic Party.
We were entitled to a fourth question, but could not put it.
[English]
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree with
the member that we should be spending this time debating the
issues that matter most to Canadians, the issues of the budget,
health care, education, research, job creation and all those many
issues.
I also concur with the member that we ought to discipline
ourselves. We cannot tolerate any behaviour that will insult our
colleagues. However, when the record says so, we must state the
record. For that, we have a duty to perform.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, a number of
people today have said that we should be debating important
things, and I agree.
However, I think this is best summed up in what a writer of a
fax sent to me. He said that we can debate the budget all day
but that the Liberals, with their majority, will do whatever they
want anyway. He said that the debt will not go down any faster
because of our debating this all day.
What he suggested was that if we lose the most fundamental of
freedoms, the freedom of expression, then really it does not
matter anyway. This is really a matter of freedom of expression.
I would like to ask the member a question. I presume he also
stood and waved the flag and joined in the singing of our
national anthem as a way of saying to the Bloc that we love our
country. I agree, it was a demonstration that obviously has been
ruled out of order and which we are not proposing. In fact, we
are proposing the opposite in this motion.
Later on I was asked by the same separatist party to remove my
flag because I had not had the sense to put it away. I left it
sitting here. I stood on principle and said that I do not want
to comply because of a party that wants to tear the country apart
asking me, a loyal Canadian, to put away the flag of this
country.
That is why I refused. That is what this motion is about, to say
that if a member has a small flag he cannot be required by
someone else to take it away, thereby taking away his freedom of
speech.
1615
I would like the parliamentary secretary to respond.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The parliamentary
secretary has 60 seconds, please.
Mr. Rey D. Pagtakhan: Mr. Speaker, as I said in my
debate, no freedom is absolute. There has to be a limitation. I
must admit that I too stood and waved the flag. I too sang O
Canada as a spontaneous show of love for the country.
I ask myself what would happen to House proceedings if we would
do it every 10 minutes during question period. That is why I
deferred to the wisdom of the ruling of the Chair.
On the question of the flag, I discussed it in my debate. It
being so reachable, it can be played with, it can be used as a
prop during the passion of debate. We have the two big flags on
both sides of the Speaker's chair. That more strongly signifies
the commitment to patriotism we have for this country. If I may
say the Bloc's commitment—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Resuming debate, the
hon. member for Simcoe—Grey.
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
before I speak to this motion I might convey my feelings as a
Canadian, as a first time elected member. The day I walked into
this House, the day we started to sing the national anthem, I
cannot put into words the sense of pride I felt as a young
Canadian, as a third generation Canadian, as a representative of
Simcoe—Grey. It hurts me to see the Reform Party twist that
feeling. It has damaged the pride of this House. I have great
concern over the Reform Party's approach to this thing.
Where does it stop? Today, a small flag on the desk? Tomorrow
should the curtains behind us be Canadian flags? The next day
should the windows in front of us be Canadian flags? We should
make no mistake why the Reform Party is doing this. It is simple
grandstanding. Nothing more than that. It should be absolutely
ashamed of itself for what it has done. It is showing absolutely
no respect for this House. It is showing no respect for the
Canadian flag. Most important, it is showing no respect for the
Canadian people. For that I say shame, Reform. You have turned
yourself into a mockery. You are looked at both in Canada and—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): I would ask members
to address each other through the Chair.
Mr. Paul Bonwick: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. As you can
see, I am somewhat passionate on this issue because of the
absolute disgust that I have for the way this thing has gone on
for the last two weeks.
There have been some comments made here today with respect to
the members on the Reform side suggesting that they are being
respectful, that they are following due process, that they are
simply trying to get these Canadian flags on their desks. They
feel that it is a good use of time discussing this for two weeks,
effectively shutting down government for two weeks when we should
be discussing things like health, we should be discussing things
likes education, we should be doing things like true
parliamentarians and not simply grandstanding.
I am going to quote a couple of statements that were made by my
Reform colleagues just to refresh their memories.
On February 15 the member for Edmonton North sent out a press
release. I will quote it. “I just wish there was some substance
to go along with this symbolism. Setting aside a day for waving
the flag, jumping up and down, singing stirring songs, is a nice
gesture. It is also a good way to keep warm in February.”
I do not find that very humorous. Canadians would rather see
some substance from this government, a national unity plan, real
job creation, a balanced budget and much needed tax relief. That
is exactly what this government is trying to do. That is exactly
what this opposition party is trying to stop. It is simple
grandstanding and they should be absolutely ashamed of
themselves. They have been carrying on like spoiled children.
Imagine driving around the Parliament Buildings in a car with the
Canadian flag painted on it, with the roof cut off, hooting and
hollering and waving the flag.
True parliamentary spirit? I think not.
1620
I heard a statement made by the member for Fraser Valley that
this is ridiculous and it should not be happening. This was on
March 9, not that far in the past. He said we should be on to
the business of the budget.
The hon. members can say what they want about newspaper
articles, but what we are going to do is waste our time. It is
absolutely shameful.
I know that my colleagues on this side and that side of the
House are truly proud Canadians. I suggest that my Reform
colleagues reflect on what they are doing to this nation. They
suggest that they are a national party. I say shame on them.
They are not a national party. They are driving a wedge.
We must understand the true reason why the Reform members are
doing this. The true reason is not because there is some great
sense of patriotism that has come over them in the last two
weeks. The true reason is that it is nothing more than headline
grabbing. It is an opportunity to drive a wedge in this country,
ever widening the problems that we are facing right now. I am
absolutely disgusted at what has actually been taking place.
I have sat here and listened to my hon. friend—I should say
my Reform colleague. I will not use that term when dealing with
them from now on. I have listened to my Reform colleague talk
about how proud his members are of the Canadian flag and how this
is such a just issue that we should be debating, costing the
taxpayers hundreds and hundreds of thousands of dollars.
As I sat there and listened, I almost believed him. Then, when
he was talking about one of his Reform colleagues having greasy
fingers from lunch and slipped and dropped the Canadian flag on
the ground, that is not the way it happened and he should not try
to twist it that way. The flag was thrown on the ground in
disrespect.
I am a very proud Canadian. I look around this House and see
all sorts of symbols that represent what Canada is to me. I see
young people. I see a democratic process taking place. I see
two very large Canadian flags. I look around at the lapels of
most of the people in this room and see Canadian pins. I can
demonstrate my sense of pride without having a flag on the corner
of my desk. I too have had constituents call me and they are
absolutely disgusted about the way the Reform Party has carried
on for two weeks. It has compromised the integrity of this House
of Commons which has a proud tradition.
If there is one saving grace, it is that Canadians truly
understand now that there is absolutely no level that the Reform
Party will not sink to in order to grab a headline or to
grandstand. That is shameful. The only good thing about this is
that Canadians now know what the consequences would have been had
they ever made the Reform Party a government. Reform members
should be completely ashamed of themselves.
We have some extremely important issues that we need to be
discussing in this House. The government should be dealing with
issues of tax relief and the direction of this country and not
just today but for years to come. No party should ever tie up
this House for several days for no other reason than
grandstanding.
If the Reform Party truly had this sense of patriotism that it
seems to be showing with its Canadian ties, shirts and flag cars,
it would withdraw this motion. I do not think Reform members
truly understand the harm that they are doing to this country.
Despite the fact that my NDP colleagues, Conservative colleagues
and Bloc colleagues are all trying to come to some sort of an
agreement on this issue, the Reform members simply do not want to
play ball. They see an opportunity to get front page coverage.
They see an opportunity to drive around in a funny little car
with a Canadian flag on it, throw some flags and insult some
people. Well, that is not what a parliamentarian is to me.
Back in my riding of Simcoe—Grey, shortly after being elected I
decided to put in place a program where I have actually toured
around and visited schools. I have handed out Canadian flags to
students and Canadian pins to those who are travelling abroad.
1625
There is lots of room in this country for Canadian flags. I am
sure members will agree with me that this motion is truly
unconscionable and is disrespectful to this House. It is
disrespectful to Canadians and you have absolutely embarrassed
yourselves.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before we get to
questions and comments, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order
38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at
the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for
Frontenac—Megantic, Asbestos Industry.
On questions and comments, the hon. member for West
Kootenay—Okanagan and then a member for the Bloc.
Mr. Jim Gouk (West Kootenay—Okanagan, Ref.): Mr.
Speaker, the hon. member that just spoke talked about disrespect
and what a terrible thing this is. Let us examine what terrible
thing it is we are doing. We are asking for the right to display
a small stationary flag on our desk.
This matter arose out of deliberately instigating an event which
we joined in along with everyone else. Their party instigated
the disruptive part of this matter. The members of his party
were the ones that instigated this and the hon. member should
keep that in mind.
We are not asking for the right to use these as props, but
simply to have them available and have them on our desks. One
member did something that was totally inappropriate and he is
very sorry for it. If someone right now at tax time is doing
their tax returns and in frustration at the taxes they are going
to pay, throw their coffee mug at the wall, they do not do it to
punish the cup. They do not do it to punish the wall. They do
it out of frustration. This does not make it right. Let us get
things in perspective.
I would ask this one question. After all the rhetoric by that
member, would he be ashamed to display a small Canadian flag on
his desk as he probably does on his desk in his office in Ottawa
and perhaps even in his riding?
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Reform member
for the question. I do display a Canadian flag. It is here on
my lapel. I do display Canadian flags in this House. They are
on each side of the Speaker's chair.
I am part of this House and as part of this House those flags
are every bit mine as they are the Speaker's. To sit here and
have the Reform member trivialize our flag, trivialize a flag
being thrown on the ground to that of taking a coffee cup and
throwing it against the wall truly epitomizes what the true
Reform feeling is. It is absolute disregard for the flag.
This is not about the flag. Understand that very clearly. Do
not believe for one minute that this is about some proud little
Reformer having a Canadian flag on the corner of his desk. This
is about grandstanding. It is about headlining and it is about
embarrassment. They have truly done just that.
[Translation]
Mr. Maurice Godin (Châteauguay, BQ): Mr. Speaker, I have
followed the debates since two this afternoon, and I was also
present during the demonstration.
I would like to set things straight. The Liberals are sensing
that the wind is changing direction pretty well everywhere, and
also that the public is not thrilled about what went on, so now
they are trying to dissociate themselves from it and point the
finger at the Reform Party. The Reform Party, however, ought to
have been aware that this is not the first time the Liberal Party
has not lived up to its commitments. We saw it in 1980, when
Trudeau promised to renew federalism. We saw it in 1995, when the
present Prime Minister also broke his word.
Now, in this battle, this situation in the House, the Liberals
are as responsible as the Reform members.
I have heard a lot of use of words like hypocrite and
ridiculous, and a lot of reference to the Bloc Quebecois, which is
going to break the country apart.
My question is this: with a day like today and with all its
buffoonery, is the Bloc really needed to break apart the country,
or will their country break apart just as a result of their own
actions?
1630
[English]
Mr. Paul Bonwick: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member needs to
realize that there are two separate issues. I would be one of
the first to admit it. I too stood and waved my Canadian flag
and sang the national anthem but I did it in response to a Bloc
statement that was made while the MP was travelling on Canadian
tax dollars. I was very upset with that. The young people who
were in Nagano representing this country at the Olympics deserve
more than that as do people from Ontario, Alberta and Quebec. The
Bloc members should be absolutely ashamed of themselves for the
statements they made.
There are two separate issues. The second issue is this motion
that is coming to a head this evening. This motion is about
being able to put a flag here. I say it once again. Where does
it stop? It is obvious grandstanding and nothing more than that.
The good thing about it is the entire country realizes Reformers
for what they are, headline grabbers and grandstanders. I am so
ashamed of that party.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Before resuming
debate, I should inform members that on questions and comments
some members have been standing for quite some time. When we get
to the next round of questions and comments we will get over to
the member for Mississauga South first. That is a commitment.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The debate that is taking
place is extremely important. I would like the assurance of the
Chair and the House that as an independent member I will be given
an opportunity to make submissions before the House with respect
to this motion. If I could seek consent or have your undertaking
to ensure that I would appreciate it.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
York South—Weston has asked for consent of the House to ensure
he will have the opportunity to speak on this motion. Our time
will be fairly close with the people on the list. Does the hon.
member for York South—Weston have the unanimous consent of the
House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The member does not
have unanimous consent.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. The previous speaker referred to a letter sent
to the member for Edmonton North. We request that it be tabled
so we can have a copy of it. We do not know what he is referring
to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Will the hon. member
for Simcoe—Grey undertake to table the letter?
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would certainly be more than happy to table the document. I am
not surprised that one Reform member does not know what another
one is doing. That seems to be typical in this House.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): Mr. Speaker, since this
morning we have been involved in discussing a matter which could
very well have been debated within the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs, except for the Reform Party's
obstinate insistence that it be brought before this House once
again.
We are discussing whether or not it is appropriate to have a
small Canadian flag on members' desks. I will come back to this
concept of the Canadian flag in a few minutes.
For now, however, I would just like to submit to your attention,
and to the attention of all those watching us on television as well
as those who are with us in the House to watch our debates live,
that we have wasted many hours in discussing this unfortunate
matter of flags.
We have wasted the time of this House needlessly in a debate
on this matter, with all that involves in terms of costs, staff,
utilities and so on to run this venerable institution, in order to
discuss such a trivial question.
Trivial, because we have been forced, need I remind the House,
to take many minutes away from the budget debate, just because the
Reform and Liberal members decided in a fit of rehearsed
spontaneity to teach our hon. colleague for Rimouski—Mitis a good
lesson. I shall come back to that point as well.
1635
Since then, we have consistently been wasting time in this
House. We have been wasting the House's time debating this
business rather than the budget, as we should have done, rather
than the real misappropriation of funds the millennium fund program
constitutes.
Rather than debate this matter, we could have discussed child
poverty in Canada. We know that Canada's record on child poverty
is one of the worst in the world.
We could have discussed the employment insurance program, I
would even say the “so-called employment insurance program”, since
it is a euphemism for the unemployment insurance program, and we
are in fact debating the unemployment insurance program.
We could have talked about it and the reform that has created
problems of poverty throughout Canada, especially in those regions
where the economy depends on seasonal work.
We could have debated all these issues. But no. Because of
the opinionated Reformers, we are wasting our precious time as
parliamentarians debating this matter. I consider this a fine
example of the Reformers' double dealing.
I had a discussion behind the curtain. I will not mention the
name of the Reformer I was having discussions with, but we were
discussing the relevance of this debate, and he said, in all
seriousness “This is a goodie for us. It increases our popularity,
it is unbelievable. You, separatists, you too will benefit from
this”.
What could be more appalling than a political party that
promotes its strictly partisan interests over what it claims to be
defending—national unity?
I consider this a fine example of the double dealing—I would go
so far as to say hypocrisy—of that party.
The tendency all too often is to intimate that this debate would
never have occurred were it not for the member for
Rimouski—Mitis' unfortunate statement on the Canadian flag in
Nagano.
This is all a circus, a big sham, a farce.
Reformers and Liberal members could easily have used a forum other
than this venerable House of Commons to express their disagreement with
the remarks made by my colleague, the hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis.
Incidentally, what was so terrible in what the member for
Rimouski—Mitis said in Nagano? She made the same comment many members
of this House would have made in front of that many American flags
displayed all over any Olympic village. They would have commented on the
chauvinism of Americans, implying that they were happy to be Canadians
because Canadians are different from Americans.
And yet, we saw the very same shameful demonstration of narrow
patriotism when too many Canadian flags were displayed.
The hon. member for Rimouski—Mitis never made any comment on the
flag itself or questioned its relevance, symbolism and importance to a
country like Canada. Never did she denigrate the Canadian flag in any
way.
We show the Canadian flag the respect owed to the flag of every
country around the world and I never heard any of my colleagues utter
negative or disparaging remarks about the Canadian flag. Nor is that
what my colleague from Rimouski—Mitis did.
She simply noticed a fact, as any member of this House might have, had
they witnessed a similar spectacle be it in Nagano or at any other
Olympic Games.
I understand that several members of this House openly make this
kind of comment about our neighbours to the South in particular, when
they show off their patriotism for the world to see. Are we Americanized
to the point that we now have to use the same tactics when we
participate in international events, going as far as to display, during
the closing ceremonies at the Nagano games, a huge flag taking up nearly
one third of the olympic stadium in a country like Japan?
1640
What poor taste! What a self-centred attitude, which carries
with it the risk of bad press for Canada on the international
scene. In the past, Canada had always distinguished itself on the
international scene by its avoidance of such manifestations of bad
taste. My colleague for Rimouski—Mitis said nothing against the
Canadian flag or the national anthem. All she did was voice a very
straightforward opinion that there were too many flags.
They seized upon this as a pretext for welcoming her back to
Canada with a little surprise, one that was totally spontaneous,
according to them.
That is why all Liberal and Reform members had carefully set small
Canadian flags on their desks all ready for a spontaneous
demonstration for the benefit of our colleague for Rimouski—Mitis.
This totally spontaneous demonstration took place on two
separate occasions on February 26. The first time was in the early
afternoon, when she was speaking in response to the budget speech,
and some hon. members rose spontaneously to show her their love of
the Canadian flag. At that time, Mr. Speaker, you yourself felt
that such a demonstration was totally inappropriate.
Despite the ruling made a few minutes later by the Chair, our
spontaneous Liberal and Reform members very carefully kept their
little Canadian flags ready on their desks in preparation for
another spontaneous demonstration of their love for their flag the
next time my colleague for Rimouski—Mitis spoke.
This occurred during Oral Question Period, when the Speaker
called upon her to speak and she rose to do so.
She rose to ask her question, but even before she could get a
single word out, our spontaneous Reform and Liberal colleagues
stood up, waving their flags, booed her and, in another surge of
equally great spontaneity, began to sing the national anthem, thus
creating a lengthy interruption in the proceedings of the House
and, understandably, giving their Conservative and NDP colleagues
no choice but to stand up and sing along. And all of this was
perfectly genuine.
What I personally deplore about this incident, is that the
arrogant and exaggerated way in which the anthem was sung obliged
me to remain seated during the national anthem, a thing I never do.
I stand when any national anthem is sung.
But it was done with such contempt that it forced Bloc Quebecois members
to remain seated.
Some tried to take advantage of the situation by saying “You see,
the separatists remained seated; they have no respect for the symbols of
the Canadian identity”. This is not true. We respect the symbols of the
Canadian identity.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Canada is a great country, as are the United
States, Germany, Japan and France. It is simply not the country in which
I would want to raise my children. But this is an altogether different
issue.
Let us quickly go back to the Nagano incident. The member opposite
said earlier “She travelled at the expense of Canadian taxpayers. She
made disgraceful comments about the Canadian flag, at the expense of
Canadian taxpayers”.
Mr. Réginald Bélair: She did too.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Indeed. It should be realized that, as long
as Quebeckers continue paying close to $31 billion in taxes to the
Canadian government, they will continue to benefit from this federation,
even though they get too little out of it.
Those parliamentarians who say that the member for Rimouski—Mitis
should not use taxpayers' money to say there were too many flags in
Nagano are really adding insult to injury.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: As for the unfortunate incident that
occurred in this House, the hon. member for Roberval rightly pointed
out—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh.
1645
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, would you please tell the
hysterical member opposite to keep it down while I am speaking?
My colleague, the member for Roberval, quite rightly pointed
out that the Standing Orders had been infringed in several
respects. First of all, as I pointed out to you earlier, you
yourself had issued a ruling. In this respect, parliamentary
tradition could not be clearer, and I will later quote article 333
of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition.
I will cite Standing Order 10, which is also mentioned in
article 168.1 of Beauchesne. It says, and I quote:
10. The Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and
shall decide questions of order—
No debate shall be permitted on any such decision, and no such
decision shall be subject to an appeal to the House.
You yourself made a ruling. That ruling notwithstanding, our
members, in their spontaneous enthusiasm, returned to the charge a
few minutes later. Standing Order 16.2 states that, when a member
is speaking, no member shall interrupt him or her, except to raise
a point of order.
Obviously, the spontaneous interventions of our Liberal and
Reform colleagues were not for the purpose of raising points of
order. Their sole purpose was to interrupt, intimidate and poke
fun at our colleague, the member for Rimouski—Mitis. In so doing,
they were in contravention of the Standing Orders.
Props were also mentioned. The Speaker ruled on this
yesterday.
Article 333 of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth
edition, to which I referred earlier, stipulates that speakers have
consistently ruled that it is improper to produce exhibits of any
sort in the Chamber, except written documents, of course.
Until further order, this category does not include Canada's
flag. It therefore had to be considered a visual prop that should
not have been used for the purposes to which it was put.
Furthermore, as soon as the House disintegrated into
confusion, the Speaker rose to call members to order.
Despite that, our colleagues carried on their heckling to the point
of singing the national anthem, thereby contravening another
section of Beauchesne, paragraph 168.1, which I also referred to a
little earlier. It provides, and I quote:
Members must accordingly remain silent. That is not what
happened. In all respects, yesterday's ruling by the Chair was
fair.
Getting back to the incident itself, we have been told, in
connection with the remarks made by my colleague from
Rimouski—Mitis and sovereignists in general, that we have no
respect for the Canadian flag, for the national anthem and for
the symbols of Canadian sovereignty.
The Bloc has never questioned in any way the presence of the
flags in this House or the singing of the national anthem. In
fact, it co-operated with the political parties present in the 35th
Parliament to permit the singing of the national anthem here on
Wednesdays.
When the Bloc arrived in the House in 1993, there was a single
Canadian flag behind you, to your right, as flag etiquette
provides. The flag is to be to the right of the Speaker, therefore
on the observer's left.
This is the way it had been for many years in the House.
Oddly enough, the day after the 1995 referendum, a second
Canadian flag appeared, this time to your left, Mr. Speaker.
1650
Although this decision was made obviously for political
reasons, the Bloc Quebecois never questioned the relevance of
Canadian parliamentarians having a second flag behind the Chair.
So it is not a question of lack of respect by the Bloc members
for the symbols of Canadian identity. We are very proud of them.
We are very proud that Canada chose as a symbol of its identity
what were symbols of French Canadian identity. We are proud that
Canada chose the maple leaf in the 1960s, with all the debate it
provoked.
I am pleased to see that Reform members are now very proud of
this flag.
A reading of the debates of the day shows just how opposed members
from the West were to the maple leaf flag, which they claimed was
not representative of their region, their part of the country.
As for “O Canada”, much has been said about it. It was played
for the first time at Quebec City in 1882, on June 24,
Saint-Jean-Baptiste Day, to be exact. The words were by Justice
Basile Routhier, and the music by Calixa Lavallée, a native of my
riding, incidently.
It must be pointed out, moreover, that when the decision was
made to adopt it as the national anthem of Canada, only the first
verse was selected, as the rest did not perhaps represent the
notion of a national anthem to be sung from coast to coast.
When Basile Routhier wrote of the Canadian “living close to
the giant river leading to the sea”, I am certain he was not
thinking of the people of the Yukon or Saskatchewan. He was, of
course, thinking of the French Canadians, those who had been called
“les Canadiens” for centuries, and whose name was taken over as the
centuries passed so that it now applies to everyone here.
Much can be said about the Canadian national anthem, but the
fact is that, returning to the object of today's debate, this
motion by the Reform Party demonstrates that party's duplicity.
There were negotiations among the leaders and they were going well.
The only party that stood aloof was the Reform Party.
The purpose of the negotiations was to enable us to raise the
flag question in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs in order to determine whether or not it was appropriate to
have Canadian flags on our desks.
But no, the grandstanding Reform Party wanted to get TV coverage by
forcing Parliament to commit itself and vote on a motion permitting
the presence of the flag in this House.
Had they really been serious in this desire, had they really
wanted to advance this idea, they would simply have allowed this
matter to be dealt with by the Standing Committee on Procedure and
House Affairs, but they did not.
This totally partisan attitude on the part of the Reform
members must therefore be punished and condemned.
[English]
Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
have a brief comment and a question for the member.
Members certainly will know that this has been a media circus.
The bottom line is that all of us, this place and all members,
look worse. As a end result it has hurt us all.
Five years ago in 1993 when we were elected there was no call
for flags on the desks by Reformers. Neither was there in 1994,
1995, 1996 or 1997. There is no question the only reason this
came up is that there was a political opportunity. Despite their
protestations, this is clearly a political, opportunistic move.
What do we have? We have the Reform member for Medicine Hat who
wants to throw a flag. We have the member for Edmonton North who
wants to throw books. We have the Reform member for
Okanagan—Shuswap who wants to throw punches. All these actions
show that there is clearly a bent toward aggressiveness on behalf
of the Reform Party. Clearly the motion has to be defeated
simply because if we were to put 300 flags around the Chamber it
would be like a giant pin cushion. Surely within a week one of
them would be impaled.
All Canadians will see through the childish games that are being
played by the Reform Party. Canadians will also understand that
most members of Parliament are here not only to defend the flag,
their country and their constituents but to do whatever we can to
make this a better country.
1655
My question for the member concerns the comments by the member
of Rimouski—Mitis. The member should concede that her
observations were with regard to the athletes' village. Did she
go to the athletes and say “dear athletes. you have too many
flags”? No, she did not. She waited until she got her
photograph. She went to the press. She said to the Canadian
people that they had too many flags.
Will the member rise now and concede that his own member is the
sole reason we have this terrible situation in the House of
Commons today?
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I would simply like to say
that I am a long way from thinking that this whole business in the
House began with the statement by my colleague, the member for
Rimouski—Mitis. It was inevitable that there would one day be an
attempt to use the symbols of Canadian unity to rally everyone
against the nasty separatists.
The member for Rimouski—Mitis was certainly not going to go
to the Olympic village to disturb Canadian athletes during their
preparations for the various competitions in order to tell them
there were too many Canadian flags and that they should curb their
excessive display. She simply made an inherently innocuous comment
to the effect that there were too many Canadian flags.
If, through immaturity, hon. members flared up and used the
Canadian flag for purposes other than those for which it was
designed, well, that is their problem.
To those who say that Bloc Quebecois members and
sovereigntists in Quebec generally do not show respect for the
symbols of Canadian sovereignty, I say that we have never treated
the Canadian flag with as little respect, as little regard and as
little dignity as the federalist members in this House. We never
used our flag, the fleur-de-lis, to take part in this disgraceful
demonstration in the House.
Yet, the House apparently expected that, on our election to
office in 1993, we would march in, drums beating and fleur-de-lis
held high, to show our pride.
That is something we never did, because we respect the institution,
we respect the rules of the House, and we respect our colleagues.
[English]
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
There have been consultations among the parties and I believe
you would find consent for the following motion:
That, immediately following the vote to be taken later today on
the second reading of Bill C-19, the Speaker shall put, without
debate or amendment, all questions necessary to dispose of the
second reading stage of Bill C-20, an act to amend the
Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments
to other acts.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. I have not been consulted with respect to this matter. A
few moments ago I was asked for consent of the House to speak on
the flag debate and I believe the member for Verchères denied me
that consent.
I would like to co-operate with the House. I would like to give
my unanimous consent to the votes later this evening, but I would
also like the right to speak on this motion before the House.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): May I suggest that
the hon. member for York South—Weston again seek unanimous
consent when the opportunity arises.
We have then the motion—
Mr. John Nunziata: I would be happy to give my consent to
this motion and all other motions that come later this evening,
if I could have the consent of the House now to be given time to
speak to this motion.
Some hon. members: Agreed.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Negotiations of this
kind should be taken behind the curtains and not take place on
the floor. We will not get into that now. I will simply ask for
unanimous consent.
Does the parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of
the House to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, again there have been
consultations and I seek the authorization of the House for two
committee travel expenditures. I move:
That 10 members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans
be authorized to travel to Iqaluit, Pangnirtung, Broughton
Island, Main, Stanley Bridge, The Pas, Grand Rapids, Winnipeg,
Gimli, Selkirk, Sault Ste. Marie, Southampton, Port Stanley,
Leamington and Stoney Creek for the weeks of April 26 to May 1
and May 3 to May 8, 1998, in order to hold public hearings on the
subject of fisheries management and that the necessary staff do
accompany the committee.
Mr. Speaker, I have a similar order but would you care to deal
with this one first.
1700
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the consent of the House to move the
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
consent.
Mr. Peter Adams: Mr. Speaker, on a
point of order, I seek unanimous consent for the following
motion.
That in relation to its examination of Canada's policy on
nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament, 12
members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, six from the Liberal Party and six from the
opposition parties, be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C.
and New York during the period March 29 to April 1, 1998, and
that the necessary committee staff do accompany the committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon.
parliamentary secretary have the unanimous consent of the House
to move the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I wish to seek the unanimous consent of the House to be given my
full allotment of time to speak on the motion before the House
today.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
York South—Weston has asked for the unanimous consent of the
House to speak for his full allotment of time on the motion
before the House today. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is not
unanimous consent.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I
would like to ask whether this would mean the extension of hours
by 15 minutes or whether it would be the replacement of the last
speaker on the list.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): It would mean an
extension of hours.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I just wish to confirm
where we are at in the debate. It is my understanding that the 10
minutes of questions and comments concerning my intervention are
not up.
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is correct. The
hon. member for Verchères has five minutes and 33 seconds left on
questions and comments. We will get to that just as quickly as we
can, although under the standing orders this debate will conclude
at 5.15 no matter what is going on in the debate.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. I am going to try once more. I am going to ask
whether you would find unanimous consent to extend the hours by
15 minutes in order to give the member for York South—Weston the
opportunity to speak to this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The House has heard
the terms of the proposal. Is it the pleasure of the House to
adopt the proposal of the hon. member for Elk Island?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Unanimous consent is
denied.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I note that it was a Liberal
member who denied unanimous consent. This is the party that
cherishes the charter of rights and freedoms, the ability of
members to speak to matters. I am frankly ashamed of the hon.
member who denied unanimous consent. How hypocritical of him to
talk about freedom in this House when he is denying me as an
elected member of this house the opportunity to speak to this
motion. He knows what the rules are in this House. Later this
day—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): With respect, may I
ask the hon. member for York South—Weston to pose a question or
make a comment relevant to the debate today.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member said that
he “respects the symbols of Canada”. He repeated that on
several occasions. Does the hon. member have any objection to
the Canadian flag flying in the Quebec National Assembly? If he
has an objection to the Canadian flag flying in the Quebec
National Assembly, can he indicate the reasons why? Would he not
agree that as long as Quebec is part of Canada and is a province
in the country of Canada that it would be respectful for the
Quebec National Assembly to fly the Canadian flag?
Also would it be respectful that the city hall in Quebec City
should fly the Canadian flag?
Does he agree for example that the city hall in Quebec City
should fly the Canadian flag? Would he not agree that that would
be the respectful thing to do?
1705
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, I think that our colleague is
trying to shift the focus of the debate slightly. While my respect for
the symbols of Canadian identity suggests to me that they have their
place, as in this case, in this venerable institution, I think this
debate should not extend to provincial legislatures, and that of Quebec
in particular.
It is up to the Quebec legislators to decide which flag shall be
displayed inside the National Assembly. On a number of occasions, the
Canadian flag was displayed in the National Assembly's red room; there
were other occasions when it was not.
On the day the people of Quebec opt for sovereignty, we will no
longer have to answer questions as to whether or not the Canadian flag
should be displayed inside the National Assembly.
While I am on the subject of Canadian flags, are the provincial
flags not Canadian flags? Since the hon. member for York South—Weston
has asked the question, I would like him to answer it. Perhaps he could
give me an answer behind the curtain later on.
Should the procedure and House affairs committee ever determine
that the Canadian flag has a place in this House on members' desks, I
think it will have to determine at the same time that, Canada being a
federation, the flag of every province in this federation also has a
place in this House.
That is what makes me say that this is a false debate, because we
are going to lose any uniformity—
[English]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): We would still like
to get in one more question. A short question of 60 seconds for
the member for Saint John and 60 seconds for the response. This
is going to be a struggle.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, what I
have to say cannot be said in 60 seconds. Is there another
speaker today?
I have to say that I have been in this House of Commons for the
last five years and I have never been so embarrassed as I have
been in the last few weeks. It is a sad situation, it truly is,
that we take the decorum and the protocol out of this House of
Commons as has been done in the last two weeks.
A school teacher in a history class will not allow the children
to interrupt at any time. There has to be control by the
teacher. And there must be control by the Speaker in the
Speaker's chair. I know you are going to stand up and say “I
have got the control”.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The Speaker is about
to demonstrate the control. The hon. member for Verchères.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, and I will do my
best not to waste any words, I totally agree with what my hon. colleague
just said.
However, I find it quite peculiar that this debate take place at
this time in the House, when the Canadian flag has been around since
1965 and we have always been able to work, to function in this House
without feeling this absolute need for a Canadian flag on every desk.
Why has this now become a national unity issue, and one of such
vital importance? First, I think that, as we speak, the federalists are
suffering from chronic insecurity. Second, I think the Reformers are
trying to make the most of a political opportunity.
[English]
Mr. Gerald Keddy (South Shore, PC): Mr. Speaker, I spoke
a couple of times here today. I realize there is five minutes
left and I will try to sum up my feelings and I am sure some of
the feelings of our party on this issue.
For all the Canadians who are watching Parliament today, for the
men, women and children who are watching the parliamentary
station, I think there are some things that have not been said
which need to be said and need to be understood.
This is not about patriotism. This is not about whether or not
we love the flag of this country.
I am going to point out a couple of reasons why it is not about
that.
1710
We have here a motion which on its surface sounds positive.
However if this motion goes forward it will only serve to
perpetuate the problem. The problem will continue. The Bloc
members will get up next week and will want to know why they
cannot have the Quebec flag on their desks alongside the Canadian
flag. Then maybe a member from Nova Scotia will want to know why
the Nova Scotian flag cannot be on his desk.
I will tell members why we do not have those flags on our desks.
It is because they are represented in this House at this time.
I want to address veterans. I have heard our veterans mentioned
time and time again today by the party which proposed this
motion.
My grandfather fought in World War I and in World War II. My
father was a soldier in World War II. I can tell this House, and
I have no shame in saying it, that my father never, ever, for one
day, accepted the new Canadian flag. His flag was the flag which
he served under. It was the red ensign. Does that make him less
of a Canadian? I presume that it does not. I insist that it
does not.
There are a couple of other issues at stake here. We have
talked about cost. I have heard the name of the Minister of
Canadian Heritage mentioned today and the $25 million which she
spent distributing flags. Today it has cost us $700,000 to stand
in this Parliament to debate the flag issue.
There is also a cost to this institution, to the respect of this
institution.
I have heard today that we need to stand to be counted. We will
see if the flags go on the desks who will stand to be counted. If
I put a flag on my desk does that make me a better Canadian than
someone who does not have one on their desk? I do not think so.
I will insist that it does not.
I have heard today an excuse as to why the flag was thrown on
the floor of the House during a heated debate. It is something I
am sure that the member who did it would like to forget. I am
sure he would like it to go away. I can understand that.
The excuse was made that he had been eating greasy food and it
slipped from his hands. Surely we are above making such
ridiculous and petty excuses in the House of Commons of Canada.
The car that was painted to resemble the Canadian flag, did that
red and white paint fall from the sky? Was the car just driving
along and suddenly it got painted? No, it was a deliberate act
meant to incite the Parliament of this country.
There is one thought I would like to leave with the House. It is
not about the flag. It is not about patriotism. It is about
levers. We all have agendas in this building. Should we ever
use the Canadian flag, a flag which I honour and respect, as a
lever to push our agenda in this House? I say that we should
not.
Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): Mr. Speaker, I
appreciate the opportunity to clarify the point which was made
about the car because it has come up so often.
We received a phone call from someone who made a 1967 Oldsmobile
his symbol of the 100th birthday of Canada. He had the car
painted. When the flag issue became so prominent he phoned us
and said “I would love to have some MPs take a ride in my car”.
He is an ordinary citizen. I thought, is it only okay to fly the
flag here if it is on the limousines of the big guys in
government? I thought no, let an ordinary person do it. We
complied with his—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The last word goes
to the hon. member for South Shore.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I note that the clock shows 5.15 p.m. I would like to ask again
for unanimous consent to be given the opportunity to speak on
this motion.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Does the hon. member
for York South—Weston have unanimous consent to speak to this
motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South—Weston, Ind.): Mr.
Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the House.
I have been here for most of the day listening to the debate. I
have had the opportunity on several occasions to ask questions of
speakers. I wish to speak to the motion before the House on
behalf of the residents of York South—Weston.
1715
In my view, it is important that this debate take place. Much
has been said today about whether or not this motion should be
before the House. In my view, it is extremely important that we
discuss this matter and that it be debated in the Parliament of
Canada. I am not sure whether this is the appropriate time to do
it given the events of the last several weeks. However, the
motion was properly put by the Reform Party.
I will read the motion for the benefit of my constituents:
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 one given
time, and that the said flag remain stationary for the purposes
of decorum and be no larger than the standard recognized flag.
Mr. Speaker, if you were to put this question to Canadians right
across Canada, the decision would be overwhelming. If it were
put in a referendum, of course they would endorse this. I find it
regrettable that there are a number of different political
agendas at play this afternoon. I believe the political agendas
at play this afternoon have tainted the debate.
Of course, no one wants to vote against the flag but for
whatever reason four of the political parties in this House have
decided en masse to vote against the motion before the House. In
my view, it should be a free vote. I regret that some of the
political parties in this House have made it a political vote, a
party vote, a whipped vote. In effect, several parties have
given talking points with respect to the motion to their members.
It would be morally wrong for members of this House to prohibit
the waving or the display of the Canadian flag in the Canadian
House of Commons. Why are we as Canadians so proud to wave the
Canadian flag when we travel abroad, so proud to wave the
Canadian flag in an uninhibited fashion when our athletes are
successful at the olympic games or when our hockey teams are
successful at international competitions? Why are we so prepared
to wave the Canadian flag during those moments yet we appear to
be prepared as a House of Commons today to limit the display of
the Canadian flag here in the House of Commons?
We are in the process of denying ourselves in the House of
Commons of Canada the right that every Canadian has in this
country, that is to display a Canadian flag. Could we imagine
for a moment an employer prohibiting an employee from displaying
a small Canadian flag at his or her desk? There is no place in
the country of Canada where the display of the Canadian flag is
prohibited, where the right that is given to us under the charter
of rights and freedoms is restricted or prohibited.
Others Canadian have the right under the charter of rights and
freedoms to display the Canadian flag in their workplaces. If a
person were prohibited from displaying the Canadian flag and a
court case ensued, I submit that a competent court in this land
would declare that to be unconstitutional. Canadians would have
the right to display the Canadian flag, but not an unfettered
right. As members have pointed out, it would be a qualified
right. All rights are qualified.
As an hon. member pointed out, the right to swing your fist ends
where the other guy's nose begins. The right to shout fire in a
crowded theatre is limited.
1720
Why are we limiting the right to display the Canadian flag? I
submit it is for political reasons. I have a flag in my desk but
I am prohibited from sitting it and displaying it on my desk.
In the 14 years I have served in the House of Commons I have
never wanted to or had the opportunity to display a flag at my
desk, but I knew I had the right to do it. That is what is
important, having the right to display a flag at my desk. Some
members may choose not to display a flag at their desk. That is
their right.
Canadians express their patriotism in different ways. Some
prefer to wave or fly flags outside their residences. Others do
not. Some prefer to belt out O Canada at a hockey game.
Others choose to remain silent. They have that right to do that.
As a member of Parliament, it seems to me I ought to have the
right to display the flag. The Speaker yesterday invited members
to make a decision. It is up to the House to make that
determination. It seems to me that if we were truly representing
our constituents as opposed to narrow partisan interests that we
would vote in favour of the motion.
It seems to me that much of the opposition to the motion
presented is not directed at the merits of the motion but at the
authors of the motion, the Reform Party of Canada. I submit we
are doing a disservice to our country and to our constituents by
allowing narrow, partisan interests to interfere in a matter as
important as this, a matter as symbolic as this is for Canadians
right across the country.
I would like to share with the House some editorial opinion.
The Toronto Star says “We believe there is no better place
than the Parliament of Canada for Canadians to see their flag
displayed freely and proudly”. They go on to state “We merely
think an exception should be made for the Canadian flag. It is
our most powerful national symbol. As long as MPs display it
respectfully, we believe the public interest will be well
served”.
This, I believe, would be the sentiment shared by the
overwhelming majority of Canadians. We tolerate much in the
House. We have tolerated much in the House with respect to free
speech and the ability of those who hold different political
persuasions to speak in the House.
It seems patently strange that we say to people they do not have
to swear allegiance to Canada in order to sit in the Parliament
of Canada. I do not deny for a moment the right of separatists
to sit in this House because they have received a mandate. It
does not sit well with me but they received a mandate from their
constituents to sit in the House of Commons of Canada and they
have a right to sit here.
Surely, as members of this House, one has to respect the
traditions of the House and respect the symbols of the House.
Yes, hon. members say that there are two large flags flanking the
Speaker, and rightfully so. They ought to flank the Speaker.
Likewise, every member of the House should have the right to
display a small Canadian flag.
What harm does it do to people? Are we offending somebody? Who
is it that we would be offending if we were to display a small
Canadian flag at our desk? Is that the reason why there are
those in the House who would defeat this motion? Is it because
they are afraid of offending a group of people in the House of
Commons of Canada?
It is morally wrong to deny members of Parliament the right to
display the flag.
It is morally wrong to prohibit or limit the use of the flag of
Canada in the House of Commons of Canada for fear that it might
offend somebody.
1725
I have always been chagrined by the fact that we as Canadians at
times find it difficult to express our patriotism and love for
this country. It is with envy that I at times watch our American
friends when they are given the opportunity to exhibit their
patriotism. Some people find that offensive and un-Canadian, but
I find it touching for American nationals to be so proud of their
flag and what it stands for and the freedom that it symbolizes.
Men and women have gone to war for the freedoms and rights that
we have in this country. Mr. Speaker, the flag that flanks you
as you sit in the House of Commons is symbolic of our democracy
and the freedoms that we have in this country. To limit,
restrict or in any way prohibit the waving or displaying of that
flag I would submit is morally wrong.
I regret that when this motion is put in a few moments it will
be defeated. It seems to me that this motion will be defeated
not because it is not a good motion on its merits, but because of
the various political agendas at play.
Surely we are sending out conflicting messages to Canadians. On
one hand we are spending millions of taxpayers' dollars inviting
Canadians to fly the Canadian flag as the Canadian government did
a few short months ago at a cost of millions of dollars.
Hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of Canadians are now
flying the flag. We were giving away free flags to Canadians a
few short months ago.
What kind of a mixed message is the government sending to
Canadians when it is telling them on one hand to fly the Canadian
flag, do not be inhibited or shy, show their patriotism, but on
the other hand we are about to deny ourselves the very right that
we would give to other Canadians?
I would like to conclude with what I indicated earlier. The net
effect of this motion is to deny ourselves the freedom that every
other Canadian has. At times we are chastised and criticized
because we give to ourselves certain rights such as the freedom
of speech that most other Canadians do not have. We have the
ability to say things in this Chamber that we could not say
outside the Chamber because we could be sued for slander.
In this case the reverse is true. Other Canadians have that
right. Other Canadians want us, as their representatives in the
Parliament of Canada, to have that right. Yet, for some
inexplicable reason I suppose we are about to deny ourselves the
right to fly or display the flag at our desks.
This is not a question of order or disorder. Disorder is always
contrary to the rules. If the Canadian flag is used to restrict
someone from speaking or to prevent someone from speaking, that
of course would be unacceptable as would any other display or
prop that is used in this House.
However, to prohibit the display of a flag at my desk is
excessive when dealing with the problem of disorder in this
House. In the 14 years that I have served in this House only on
a handful of occasions have we spontaneously sang O Canada.
I recall when the government of the day was passing the free
trade bill, members of the opposition and members in the gallery
spontaneously broke out in a rendition of O Canada.
I do not believe that members are that irresponsible that if
they are given the right to display a flag they would abuse that
right. If they were to abuse the right it would be incumbent
upon you, Mr. Speaker, to prevent disorder in this House.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for giving me the opportunity to speak.
* * *
1730
BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
BILL C-19
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
following consultations between the parties, I believe you will
find consent for the following motion. I move:
That, immediately following the vote to be taken later today on
the second reading of stage of Bill C-19, an act to amend the
Canada Labour Code (Part I) and the Corporations and Labour Union
Returns Act and to make consequential amendments to other acts,
the Speaker shall put, without debate or amendment, all questions
necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-20, an
act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and
related amendments to other acts.
(Motion agreed to)
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FISHERIES AND OCEANS
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That ten members of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and
Oceans be authorized to travel to Iqaluit, Pangnirtung, Broughton
Island, Nain, Stanley Bridge, The Pas, Grand Rapids, Winnipeg,
Gimli, Selkirk, Sault Ste. Marie, Southhampton, Port Stanley,
Leamington and Stoney Creek for the weeks of April 26 to May 1
and May 3 to May 8, 1998, in order to hold public hearings on the
subject of fisheries management; and that the necessary staff do
accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
STANDING COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS AND INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Peter Adams (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the
Government in the House of Commons, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
think you will find unanimous consent for the following motion.
I move:
That in relation to its examination of Canada's policy on
nuclear non-proliferation, arms control and disarmament, twelve
members of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and
International Trade, six from the Liberal Party and six from
opposition parties, be authorized to travel to Washington, D.C.,
and New York during the period March 29 to April 1, 1998; and
that the necessary committee staff do accompany the committee.
(Motion agreed to)
* * *
SUPPLY
ALLOTTED DAY—CANADIAN FLAG
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): On questions and
comments for the hon. member for York South—Weston, we will
start with the hon. member for Frontenac—Megantic. We will then
go to Perth—Middlesex and then to the Parliamentary Secretary to
the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs. If there is time we
will start all over again.
[Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
when I was first elected to this House on October 25, 1993, I
brought my little flag with me, all quite innocently, into this
House and put it on my desk. An officer of the House came to see
me, very discreetly of course, and said “In this place, sir, there
are rules you must follow”. I told him I loved my Quebec flag.
“No props are allowed here”, he said.
He also told me I could not have any grape juice or apple
juice here, only water or ice water.
Props in the House of Commons, even La Presse, were not permitted.
I voluntarily complied with the rule.
As far as the flag is concerned, I clearly remember that, in
Sault Ste. Marie, the riding of Ron Irwin, the former Minister of
Indian Affairs, they stomped on the fleur-de-lys, the Quebec flag.
What did the member for York South—Weston do to defend the Quebec
flag? Nothing. What has this independent member done to punish or
call to order the members of the Reform Party, who threw the
Canadian flag to the ground, because the Speaker ruled against
their wishes?
1735
Could these whited sepulchres abuse the Canadian flag, when
the Speaker or an opposition party—
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the
hon. member who threw the flag has since apologized to the House.
The point I would like to make to the hon. member is if he wants
the right to display his provincial flag at his desk, I have
absolutely no objection. If it is his desire to display a
fleur-de-lis at his desk, that is his right. But please do not
deny me my right to fly my flag at my desk.
Mrs. Elsie Wayne (Saint John, PC): Mr. Speaker, I have
not been here as long as the hon. member and I have a great deal
of respect for him. But we have to start building bridges in
Canada. In the past two weeks we have put a whole lot of cracks
in the foundation.
The hon. member referred to the Olympics. This is not the
Olympics. We are not in here with a soccer ball. We are not in
here for basketball. We have two Canadian flags here for which
all of us have respect. We have really hurt Canada in the past
two weeks.
When I looked up to the gallery that day I saw the shock on all
the faces. People in the gallery could not believe this was
happening.
I represent Canada's first incorporated city by royal charter
which dates back to 1783. A flag cannot be placed in the council
chambers other than the flag placed beside the Speaker. The flag
is placed beside her worship. No other flags are allowed on the
desks. Nothing else is allowed in the council chambers, the same
as the House. We follow the rules laid down by the British
Parliament. My colleagues ran on a platform to bring decorum to
the House of Commons and they have ruined it.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I know the hon. member
was not directing her comments at me.
The hon. member speaks of decorum. Since when is it not proper
to wave the Canadian flag? When does that show a lack of
decorum?
The motion before the House is not to allow members of
Parliament to display large Canadian flags. The motion before
the House is to give the right to members of Parliament to
display a desk flag.
I have considerable respect for the hon. member and I know she
has been an excellent member of Parliament, but she also takes
pride in representing her constituents.
I cite a poll that was commissioned. The question was should
MPs be allowed to have flags on their Commons desks, and 75% said
yes to that question.
Mr. Paul DeVillers (Parliamentary Secretary to President of
the Queen's Privy Council for Canada and Minister of
Intergovernmental Affairs, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I have a
couple of brief questions to the member. He made reference to it
being morally wrong for members to vote to prohibit the placing
of flags on desks in the Chamber. My understanding is that in
the G-7 there is not another legislature that permits individual
flags at individual desks of members.
1740
Why is it morally wrong for this legislature to follow what is
generally the accepted practice in the legislatures around the
world?
There are already flags beside the Speaker's chair. Many of us
wear the Canadian flag pin on our clothing. I wonder why he
feels there is a need for additional flags.
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, with respect to other G-7
countries, frankly I do not care what other G-7 countries do with
respect to how they treat their national symbols.
What I am saying to the hon. member is that the overwhelming
majority of Canadians, including his very own constituents, want
him to have the right to display the Canadian flag at his desk.
If he were truly representing the people of his riding, he would
vote in favour of this motion. It seems that what is being asked
here this afternoon is not the ability to disrupt the House, to
wave large Canadian flags. Some members of Parliament, I
included, want the right to do it. Why should I be prohibited as
a member of the Canadian Parliament from waving this flag at my
desk? What is so offensive—
Mrs. Elsie Wayne: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of
order. The hon. member for York South—Weston referred to the
fact that there was a poll—
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): That is not a point
of order. It being 5.43 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the
proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose
of the business of supply.
The question is on the amendment. Is it the pleasure of the
House to adopt the amendment?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those in favour
of the amendment will please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): All those opposed
will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): In my opinion the
nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Call in the members.
1815
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
|
Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Vellacott
|
Wilfert
| Williams – 50
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
|
Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
|
Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Perron
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Pratt
| Price
| Proctor
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
|
Riis
| Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
|
Saada
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
|
Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wood – 195
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost. The next
question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the House
to adopt the motion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Speaker: All those in favour of the motion will
please say yea.
Some hon. members: Yea.
The Speaker: All those opposed will please say nay.
Some hon. members: Nay.
The Speaker: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:
1825
(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hanger
| Harris
|
Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Jaffer
| Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
Manning
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McNally
|
Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Morrison
| Nunziata
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
| Schmidt
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Vellacott
| Wilfert
| Williams – 51
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alarie
| Alcock
| Anderson
|
Assad
| Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
| Desrochers
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Lévis)
|
Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
| Gauthier
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
|
Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Guimond
|
Hardy
| Harvard
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
| Jackson
|
Jennings
| Jones
| Jordan
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marchand
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
|
Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
|
Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
|
Vautour
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wood – 194
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
ALLOTTED DAY—EDUCATION
The House resumed consideration of the motion and the amendment.
The Speaker: Pursuant to the order made on Thursday,
March 12, 1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred recorded division on the amendment relating to the
business of supply.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting nay.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ivan Grose: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, I would ask that my vote be recorded with my party.
Mr. Tom Wappel: Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote to be
recorded as having voted no with my party.
Mr. Jim Karygiannis: Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote
recorded as having voted no with the government.
Mr. Joe Comuzzi: Mr. Speaker, I would like my vote
recorded as having voted no with the government.
Mrs. Judi Longfield: Mr. Speaker, I would vote no with my
party.
Mr. Bryon Wilfert: Mr. Speaker, I am voting no with my
party.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no and I would like to note that the member for
Kelowna had to leave. He is not included in this vote tally.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
obviously in favour of the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the New Democrats present
will vote no but I would like to add two members who have just
arrived: the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar and the
member for Churchill River. These members will also be recorded
as voting no on this issue and on subsequent motions.
1830
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, all members of our party
present will be voting against the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against
the motion.
Mr. Peter MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The hon. member for Burin St. Georges will be voting no with his
party to this motion.
(The House divided on the amendment, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Alarie
| Asselin
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
|
Debien
| Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
|
Dumas
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guimond
| Lalonde
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Marchand
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Rocheleau
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Venne – 29
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Benoit
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Casson
|
Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
|
Charbonneau
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Earle
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
|
Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goldring
| Goodale
|
Gouk
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
|
Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Manning
|
Mark
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McCormick
| McDonough
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McNally
|
McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Morrison
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Penson
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Reynolds
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Vautour
| Vellacott
|
Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 223
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the main
motion.
The Speaker: Is it agreed to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 102]
The Speaker: I declare the motion lost.
1835
SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES (B), 1997-98
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That Supplementary Estimates (B) for the fiscal year ending March
31, 1998, be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present will
vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party present in
the House tonight will be voting against the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the vote
just taken, I would like to point out that my colleague, the member
for Louis-Hébert, had to be away.
[English]
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Gouk
| Grewal
|
Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
|
Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McDonough
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Morrison
| Nunziata
| Nystrom
| Obhrai
|
Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
|
Power
| Price
| Proctor
| Reynolds
|
Riis
| Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
|
Solomon
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Strahl
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
|
Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
|
Williams – 109
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
supply bill motion for second reading in the name of the
President of the Treasury Board.
The Speaker: I think I have to introduce the bill and
then I can do that.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-33, an act for granting
to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public Service for
the financial year ending March 31, 1998, be read the first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the second
time and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
above motion.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 103]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and the House
went into committee thereon, Mr. Milliken in the chair)
The Chairman: The House is in committee of the whole on
Bill C-33. Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Chairman.
could the minister give the House his assurance that this bill is
in the usual form?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman,
the form of the bill is the same as those passed in previous
years.
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
1840
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the schedule carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
(Title agreed to)
(Bill reported)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find
consent to apply the results of the vote taken at second reading
to the concurrence at report stage and the motion for third
reading.
The Speaker: Is it agreed we proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 103]
(Motion agreed to)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 103]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
INTERIM SUPPLY
Hon. Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board and
Minister responsible for Infrastructure, Lib.) moved:
That the House concur in interim supply as follows:
That a sum not exceeding $14,657,688,320.06 being composed of:
(1) three-twelfths ($2,486,268,410.25) of the total of the amounts of the
items set forth in the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31,
1999 which were laid upon the Table Thursday, February 26, 1998, and except
for those items below:
(2) eleven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Finance Vote L15,
National Defence Vote 10, and Treasury Board Vote 5 (Schedule 1) of the
said Estimates, $579,405,748.17;
(3) nine-twelfths of the total of the amount of Fisheries and Oceans
Vote 10 (Schedule 2) of the said Estimates, $31,195,500.00;
(4) eight-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage
Vote 85, and Human Resources Development Vote 35 (Schedule 3) of the said
Estimates, $4,166,666.66;
(5) seven-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote
30, Finance Vote 20, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Vote 5, and
Parliament Vote 10 (Schedule 4) of the said Estimates, $784,050,749.99;
(6) six-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Vote 140,
Industry Vote 50, Public Works and Government Services Votes 10 and 15, and
Transport Vote 1 (Schedule 5) of the said Estimates, $85,084,000.00;
(7) five-twelfths of the total of the amount of Canadian Heritage Votes 40
and 55, Indian Affairs and Northern Development Votes 15 and 30, Industry
Vote 110, Justice Votes 1 and 50, National Revenue Vote 10, Public Works
and Government Services Vote 1, and Solicitor General Vote 5 (Schedule 6)
of the said Estimates, $2,799,449,166.66;
(8) four-twelfths of the total of the amount of Agriculture Votes 1, 10,
15 and 20, Canadian Heritage Votes 1, 20, 35, 60, 65, 70, 75, 80, 90, 105,
110, 120, 125, 130, and 135, Citizenship and Immigration Votes 1, 10 and
15, Environment Votes 1 and 15, Finance Votes 1, 30, 35 and 40, Fisheries
and Oceans Vote 1, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Votes 1, 15, 20,
40, 45, 50 and 55, Governor General Vote 1, Health Votes 1, 5, 10, 15 and
25, Human Resources Development Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25 and 30, Indian
Affairs and Northern Development Votes 1, 5, 35 and 45, Industry Votes 1,
20, 30, 35, 40, 45, 55, 65, 70, 85, 95, 100, 105 and 115, Justice Votes 5,
10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35, 40 and 45, National Defence Vote 1, National
Revenue Vote 1, Natural Resources Votes 1, 20, 25, 30 and 35, Parliament
Votes 1 and 5, Privy Council Votes 1, 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 30, 35 and 40,
Public Works and Government Services Vote 20, Solicitor General Votes 1,
10, 15, 25, 30, 35, 45 and 50, Transport Votes 15, 20, 25, 30 and 35,
Treasury Board Vote 1 and Veterans Affairs Votes 1 and 10 (Schedule 7) of
the said Estimates, $7,888,068,078.33;
be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year ending March
31, 1999.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I think you will find unanimous
consent to have members who voted on the preceding motion recorded
as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal
members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no. I would like to note that the member for
Cypress Hills—Grasslands and the member for West
Kootenay—Okanagan are not present for this vote.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, Bloc Quebecois members are
opposed to the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, members of the NDP
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, members of our party present in
the House will be voting against the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.
1845
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bertrand
|
Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Easter
|
Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
|
Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
| Gallaway
|
Godfrey
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
|
Karygiannis
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
|
Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
|
Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
|
Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
|
Pillitteri
| Pratt
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
|
Rock
| Saada
| Serré
| Shepherd
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
|
Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
| Whelan
|
Wilfert
| Wood – 142
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
|
Bergeron
| Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Blaikie
|
Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Earle
|
Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
|
Gauthier
| Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Guimond
| Hanger
| Hardy
| Harris
|
Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
|
Kerpan
| Konrad
| Laliberte
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lill
| Lowther
|
Lunn
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marchand
|
Mark
| Matthews
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nunziata
|
Nystrom
| Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
|
Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
| Price
|
Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
| Rocheleau
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
| St - Jacques
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
|
Turp
| Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Williams – 107
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that Bill C-34, an act for
granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Public
Service for the financial year ending March 31, 1998, be read the
first time.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the second
time and referred to committee of the whole.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would
find consent to apply the results of the vote just taken to the
motion for second reading.
The Speaker: Is it agreed to proceed this way?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104]
(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)
(Bill read the second time and the House went into committee
thereon, Mr. Milliken in the Chair)
The Chairman: The House is in committee of the whole on
Bill C-34.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 2 agreed to)
[English]
Mr. Monte Solberg: Mr. Chairman, can
the minister give the House his assurance that this bill is in
the usual form?
Hon. Marcel Massé: Mr. Chairman,
the proportions requested in the bill are intended to provide for
all necessary requirements of the Public Service of Canada up to
the second supply period in 1998-99. In no instance is the total
amount of an item being released by the bill. The form of the
supply bill is the usual one for interim supply bills.
The passing of this bill will not prejudice the rights and
privileges of members to criticize any item in the estimates when
it comes up for consideration in committee. The usual
undertaking is hereby given that such rights and privileges will
be respected and will not be curtailed or restricted in any way
as a result of the passing of this measure.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Shall clause 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 2 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 2 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 3 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 3 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 4 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 4 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 5 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 5 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 6 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 6 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall schedule 7 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Schedule 7 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall clause 1 carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Clause 1 agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the preamble carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Preamble agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the title carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Title agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall the bill carry?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Bill agreed to)
The Chairman: Shall I rise and report the bill?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: On division.
(Bill reported)
1850
[English]
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be concurred in.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe you would find consent
to apply the results of the vote just taken to the report stage and
also to the motion for third reading of Bill C-34.
[English]
The Speaker: Is it agreed to proceed in this fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[Editor's note: See list under Division No. 104]
(Motion agreed to)
The Speaker: When shall the bill be read the third time?
By leave, now?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Hon. Marcel Massé moved that the bill be read the third
time and passed.
[Editor's Note: See list under Division No. 104]
(Motion agreed to, bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
SMALL BUSINESS LOANS ACT
The House resumed from March 13 consideration of Bill C-21, an
act to amend the Small Business Loans Act, as reported (without
amendment) from the committee.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, March 13,
1998, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at report stage of Bill C-21.
The question is on Motion No. 1.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting nay.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will be voting against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, the NDP members present
will vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party who
are present vote nay on this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting no.
(The House divided on Motion No. 1, which was negatived on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Vellacott
| Williams – 44
|
NAYS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 205
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare Motion No. 1 lost.
The next question is on the motion for concurrence.
Hon. John Manley (Minister of Industry, Lib.) moved that
the bill be concurred in.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, I believe that you would
find consent to apply the result of the vote just taken, but in
reverse.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in this
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Asselin
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
|
Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
| Bakopanos
|
Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
| Bélanger
|
Bellehumeur
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
|
Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
| Bonin
| Bonwick
|
Borotsik
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
|
Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
|
Comuzzi
| Copps
| Crête
| Cullen
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
|
Discepola
| Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
|
Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
| Duceppe
| Duhamel
|
Dumas
| Earle
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Finestone
| Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
|
Fry
| Gagliano
| Gagnon
| Gallaway
|
Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
|
Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grose
| Guimond
| Hardy
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Lastewka
| Laurin
|
Lebel
| Lee
| Leung
| Lill
|
Lincoln
| Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
|
Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
|
Marchand
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
Matthews
| McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
|
McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
|
Murray
| Myers
| Nault
| Normand
|
Nunziata
| Nystrom
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Perron
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
|
Phinney
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Plamondon
| Power
| Pratt
| Price
|
Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
| Robillard
|
Rocheleau
| Rock
| Saada
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Jacques
| Stoffer
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Venne
| Wappel
|
Wasylycia - Leis
| Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
|
Wood
– 205
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Benoit
|
Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Duncan
| Elley
| Epp
| Forseth
|
Gilmour
| Goldring
| Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
|
Hanger
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
| Mark
|
Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Reynolds
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| Strahl
| Vellacott
| Williams – 44
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
* * *
MACKENZIE VALLEY RESOURCE MANAGEMENT ACT
The House resumed from March 13 consideration of Bill C-6, an
act to provide for an integrated system of land and water
management in the Mackenzie Valley, to establish certain boards
for that purpose and to make consequential amendments to other
acts, be read the third time passed.
The Speaker: Pursuant to order made on Friday, March 13,
the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred
divisions at third reading of Bill C-6.
1855
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House agrees I would
propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on
the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now
before the House, with Liberals voting yea.
The Speaker: Is that agreed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
[English]
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois oppose the motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present vote
no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members present from our
party will vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting with the
government on this matter.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Brison
| Brown
| Bryden
|
Bulte
| Byrne
| Caccia
| Calder
|
Cannis
| Caplan
| Carroll
| Catterall
|
Cauchon
| Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
|
Finlay
| Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Harvard
|
Harvey
| Herron
| Hubbard
| Ianno
|
Iftody
| Jackson
| Jennings
| Jones
|
Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
| Keyes
|
Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| MacAulay
| MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
|
Malhi
| Maloney
| Manley
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| McCormick
|
McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
|
Mifflin
| Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
|
Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
| Patry
|
Peric
| Peterson
| Pettigrew
| Phinney
|
Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
| Power
| Pratt
|
Price
| Proud
| Provenzano
| Redman
|
Reed
| Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
|
Saada
| Serré
| Shepherd
| St. Denis
|
Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Jacques
| Szabo
|
Telegdi
| Thibeault
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
|
Ur
| Valeri
| Vanclief
| Wappel
|
Wayne
| Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 160
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
|
Casson
| Chatters
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Duncan
| Earle
| Elley
| Epp
|
Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Gilmour
|
Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Hardy
| Harris
| Hart
| Hill
(Macleod)
|
Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
| Jaffer
|
Johnston
| Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Lowther
| Lunn
| Manning
|
Marchand
| Mark
| Mayfield
| McDonough
|
McNally
| Meredith
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nystrom
|
Obhrai
| Penson
| Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
|
Plamondon
| Proctor
| Reynolds
| Riis
|
Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
| Solberg
| Solomon
|
Stoffer
| Strahl
| Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
|
Vautour
| Vellacott
| Venne
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Williams
– 89
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the third time and passed)
* * *
CANADA LABOUR CODE
The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Labour Code (Part I) and
the Corporations and Labour Unions Returns Act and to make
consequential amendments to other acts, be read the second time
and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: The next deferred division is on the motion
at second reading stage of Bill C-19.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree I
would propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who
voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the
motion now before the House with Liberal members voting yea.
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present vote no to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will oppose this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members vote yes on
this matter.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting against
Bill C-19.
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Adams
| Alcock
| Anderson
| Assad
|
Assadourian
| Augustine
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
|
Baker
| Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
|
Bélair
| Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
|
Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blaikie
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Boudria
| Bradshaw
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Catterall
| Cauchon
| Chamberlain
|
Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
|
Coderre
| Cohen
| Collenette
| Comuzzi
|
Copps
| Cullen
| Davies
| Desjarlais
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Dromisky
| Drouin
| Duhamel
| Earle
|
Easter
| Eggleton
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Fry
| Gagliano
|
Gallaway
| Godfrey
| Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Goodale
|
Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
| Grose
| Hardy
|
Harvard
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jennings
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
|
Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
| Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
|
Kraft Sloan
| Laliberte
| Lastewka
| Lee
|
Leung
| Lill
| Lincoln
| Longfield
|
MacAulay
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Marleau
| Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
|
McCormick
| McDonough
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
|
McLellan
(Edmonton West)
| McWhinney
| Mifflin
| Milliken
|
Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Minna
| Mitchell
| Murray
|
Myers
| Nault
| Normand
| Nystrom
|
O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
| O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
|
Parrish
| Patry
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Pratt
| Proctor
| Proud
| Provenzano
|
Redman
| Reed
| Richardson
| Riis
|
Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
| Serré
|
Shepherd
| Solomon
| St. Denis
| Steckle
|
Stewart
(Brant)
| Stoffer
| Szabo
| Telegdi
|
Thibeault
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vautour
| Wappel
| Wasylycia - Leis
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Wood – 159
|
NAYS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Anders
| Asselin
|
Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Bellehumeur
| Benoit
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Borotsik
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
|
Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
| Casson
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
| Dalphond - Guiral
| Debien
|
Desrochers
| Doyle
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duceppe
| Dumas
| Duncan
| Elley
|
Epp
| Forseth
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
|
Gilmour
| Girard - Bujold
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Goldring
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Guimond
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvey
| Herron
|
Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
| Hoeppner
|
Jaffer
| Johnston
| Jones
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Konrad
| Lalonde
|
Laurin
| Lebel
| Lowther
| Lunn
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Manning
| Marchand
| Mark
|
Matthews
| Mayfield
| McNally
| Meredith
|
Mills
(Red Deer)
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| Penson
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Power
|
Price
| Reynolds
| Rocheleau
| Scott
(Skeena)
|
Solberg
| St - Jacques
| Strahl
| Thompson
(Charlotte)
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vellacott
| Venne
|
Wayne
| Williams – 90
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried. Accordingly
the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Human
Resources Development and the Status of Persons with
Disabilities.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
COMPETITION ACT
The House resumed from March 16 consideration of the motion that
Bill C-20, an act to amend the Competition Act and to make
consequential and related amendments to other acts, be read the
second time and referred to a committee.
The Speaker: We will now proceed to the taking of the
deferred division at second reading stage of Bill C-20.
[Translation]
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Speaker, you will find unanimous consent
for the members voting on the previous motion to be recorded as
voting on the motion currently before the House, with the Liberal
members voting yea.
[English]
The Speaker: Is there agreement to proceed in such a
fashion?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Chuck Strahl: Mr. Speaker, Reform Party members
present will vote yes to this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Speaker, the members of the Bloc
Quebecois will vote against this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Speaker, NDP members present
tonight vote no on this motion.
[Translation]
Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Speaker, the members of our party will
vote in favour of this motion.
[English]
Mr. John Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will be voting in
favour.
1900
(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the
following division:)
YEAS
Members
Abbott
| Ablonczy
| Adams
| Alcock
|
Anders
| Anderson
| Assad
| Assadourian
|
Augustine
| Axworthy
(Winnipeg South Centre)
| Bachand
(Richmond – Arthabaska)
| Baker
|
Bakopanos
| Barnes
| Beaumier
| Bélair
|
Bélanger
| Bellemare
| Bennett
| Benoit
|
Bernier
(Tobique – Mactaquac)
| Bertrand
| Bevilacqua
| Blondin - Andrew
|
Bonin
| Bonwick
| Borotsik
| Boudria
|
Bradshaw
| Breitkreuz
(Yellowhead)
| Breitkreuz
(Yorkton – Melville)
| Brison
|
Brown
| Bryden
| Bulte
| Byrne
|
Caccia
| Calder
| Cannis
| Caplan
|
Carroll
| Casson
| Catterall
| Cauchon
|
Chamberlain
| Chan
| Charbonneau
| Chatters
|
Chrétien
(Saint - Maurice)
| Clouthier
| Coderre
| Cohen
|
Collenette
| Comuzzi
| Copps
| Cullen
|
DeVillers
| Dhaliwal
| Dion
| Discepola
|
Doyle
| Dromisky
| Drouin
| Dubé
(Madawaska – Restigouche)
|
Duhamel
| Duncan
| Easter
| Eggleton
|
Elley
| Epp
| Finestone
| Finlay
|
Folco
| Fontana
| Forseth
| Fry
|
Gagliano
| Gallaway
| Gilmour
| Godfrey
|
Goldring
| Goodale
| Graham
| Gray
(Windsor West)
|
Grewal
| Grey
(Edmonton North)
| Grose
| Hanger
|
Harris
| Hart
| Harvard
| Harvey
|
Herron
| Hill
(Macleod)
| Hill
(Prince George – Peace River)
| Hilstrom
|
Hoeppner
| Hubbard
| Ianno
| Iftody
|
Jackson
| Jaffer
| Jennings
| Johnston
|
Jones
| Jordan
| Karygiannis
| Keddy
(South Shore)
|
Kenney
(Calgary - Sud - Est)
| Kerpan
| Keyes
| Kilger
(Stormont – Dundas)
|
Kilgour
(Edmonton Southeast)
| Knutson
| Konrad
| Kraft Sloan
|
Lastewka
| Lee
| Leung
| Lincoln
|
Longfield
| Lowther
| Lunn
| MacAulay
|
MacKay
(Pictou – Antigonish – Guysborough)
| Mahoney
| Malhi
| Maloney
|
Manley
| Manning
| Mark
| Marleau
|
Martin
(LaSalle – Émard)
| Massé
| Matthews
| Mayfield
|
McCormick
| McGuire
| McKay
(Scarborough East)
| McLellan
(Edmonton West)
|
McNally
| McWhinney
| Meredith
| Mifflin
|
Milliken
| Mills
(Broadview – Greenwood)
| Mills
(Red Deer)
| Minna
|
Mitchell
| Murray
| Myers
| Nault
|
Normand
| Nunziata
| Obhrai
| O'Brien
(London – Fanshawe)
|
O'Reilly
| Pagtakhan
| Paradis
| Parrish
|
Patry
| Penson
| Peric
| Peterson
|
Pettigrew
| Phinney
| Pickard
(Kent – Essex)
| Pillitteri
|
Power
| Pratt
| Price
| Proud
|
Provenzano
| Redman
| Reed
| Reynolds
|
Richardson
| Robillard
| Rock
| Saada
|
Scott
(Skeena)
| Serré
| Shepherd
| Solberg
|
St. Denis
| Steckle
| Stewart
(Brant)
| St - Jacques
|
Strahl
| Szabo
| Telegdi
| Thibeault
|
Thompson
(Charlotte)
| Torsney
| Ur
| Valeri
|
Vanclief
| Vellacott
| Wappel
| Wayne
|
Whelan
| Wilfert
| Williams
| Wood – 204
|
NAYS
Members
Asselin
| Axworthy
(Saskatoon – Rosetown – Biggar)
| Bellehumeur
| Bergeron
|
Bernier
(Bonaventure – Gaspé – Îles - de - la - Madeleine – Pabok)
| Blaikie
| Chrétien
(Frontenac – Mégantic)
| Crête
|
Dalphond - Guiral
| Davies
| Debien
| Desjarlais
|
Desrochers
| Dubé
(Lévis)
| Duceppe
| Dumas
|
Earle
| Gagnon
| Gauthier
| Girard - Bujold
|
Godin
(Acadie – Bathurst)
| Godin
(Châteauguay)
| Guimond
| Hardy
|
Laliberte
| Lalonde
| Laurin
| Lebel
|
Lill
| Marchand
| McDonough
| Nystrom
|
Perron
| Picard
(Drummond)
| Plamondon
| Proctor
|
Riis
| Rocheleau
| Solomon
| Stoffer
|
Tremblay
(Rimouski – Mitis)
| Turp
| Vautour
| Venne
|
Wasylycia - Leis – 45
|
PAIRED
Members
Bigras
| Brien
| Canuel
| de Savoye
|
Fournier
| Guay
| Harb
| Karetak - Lindell
|
Lefebvre
| Marceau
| Marchi
| McTeague
|
Mercier
| O'Brien
(Labrador)
| Scott
(Fredericton)
| Speller
|
Stewart
(Northumberland)
| St - Julien
|
The Speaker: I declare the motion carried.
(Bill read the second time and referred to a committee)
* * *
POINTS OF ORDER
TABLING OF DOCUMENTS
Mr. Paul Bonwick (Simcoe—Grey, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I
would like to seek unanimous consent to table the following
documents: Hansard of March 9, 1998 and a news release
from the office of Deborah Grey, member of Parliament.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): As a point of
clarification, these are the documents that were referred to in
debate earlier today.
Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to table the
documents?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Mr. Ken Epp: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a
point of order. It is not necessary for the member to table
copies of Hansard since they are a public record. Is that
not true?
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): Whether or not it is
necessary to table them, the hon. member has unanimous consent
and they are tabled. The House will now proceed with the
consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's
order paper.
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS
[English]
CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.), seconded by the hon.
member for Kamloops, moved that Bill C-245, an act to amend the
Criminal Code, penalties for sexual offences involving children,
be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I stand today to perform one of my most
important duties as the member of Parliament for Oxford. This
duty is to introduce legislation when I see that current
legislation is not responding to a need within our society.
Over the last year and a half I have identified such a need. I
have found that those who sexually prey upon our children are
merely being slapped on the wrist by our judicial system. This
seems horrendous to me and to my constituents. Finding that the
sentences for these crimes against our children are inadequate, I
introduce Bill C-245 which we have before us today.
I would like to thank the NDP member for Kamloops for seconding
the bill. The bill will increase the maximum sentence for sexual
assault on a child to life imprisonment without possibility of
parole for 25 years. As well the sentence for forcible
confinement of a child is increased to 14 years from the current
10. The definition of child pornography would extend to any
information or reproduction transmitted by electronic means.
In the next few minutes I want to share with hon. members why my
constituents and I believe the bill should be passed by
Parliament.
The current maximum sentence for sexual assault is 10 years.
According to information obtained through the adult criminal
court survey, the average sentence given in 1993 and 1994 for
level two sexual assault and level three sexual assault was 1,287
days, less than four years. Yet level two and level three sexual
assault are sexual assault with a weapon and aggravated sexual
assault. These statistics were compiled using data from nine
provincial jurisdictions.
There is no real distinction between sexual assault on a child
and other charges of sexual assault.
1905
I would like to share with this House the average sentence for
sexual touching of a child under 14. For this charge, in which
sexual intent must be proven, the average sentence imposed by the
courts was 288 days, not even a full year. Furthermore, 77% of
the accused in solved violent incidents involving children under
12 had a relationship with the victim. In 31% of these cases,
the accused was a member of the victim's immediate family.
As members can see, these are not statistics that make one sleep
easily at night.
I spent 36 years of my life in education as a teacher, union
representative, principal and superintendent. I worked with our
children. I am witness to the effects of abuse on children. I
know the innocence of a child is destroyed by sexual abuse. I
have heard the confusion and self-guilt in the mind of a
sensitive teenage boy after his experience with a pedophile.
We as legislators must ask ourselves how an average sentence of
377 days for level one sexual assault can atone for the loss of a
child's innocence and self-respect.
Bill C-245 speaks directly to sexual assault upon a child. The
bill seeks to amend section 271 of the Criminal Code by
increasing the maximum sentence to imprisonment for life with no
parole eligibility for 25 years if found guilty of sexual assault
on a child under eight or under fourteen who was under the
offender's trust or authority or dependent on the offender.
I want to make it very clear that this sentence is the same
sentence as that for first degree murder. It is my belief and
that of many of my constituents that in the very worst cases of
child sexual assault the sentence should be equal to that of
murder. Why? Because these assaults have murdered the child's
soul, the child's self-esteem and the child's mind.
We cannot see a Martin Kruze throw himself off a bridge without
knowing why. His abuser led him there and pushed him off with
his continued abuse as surely as if he were present.
One constituent wrote to me of the sentence received by a sex
offender. The writer said “He gets a lousy two years probation
and my child gets life”. Two years of probation to walk the
streets, be employed and have a life while the child is
devastated and emotionally murdered and his parents hope that
just maybe he might find his life worth living again.
Unfortunately many victims of abuse find that life is not worth
living again. And far too many of their abusers walk the streets
after a sentence that does not reflect the severity of their
crime.
My office has received many letters like the one I have just
quoted from. Some are short and simply indicate support for this
bill. Others are long and tell of the writer's experience with
sexual abuse. These letters are not easy to read because they
talk of the hurt and betrayal felt by the victims.
Of the three main cases I have received correspondence on, all
have told of abuse delivered by someone known to the victim and
to his or her family. The abusers were not strangers but a
stepfather, a neighbour and a “big brother”, that is in this
case a volunteer from the Big Brothers organization.
I would like to quote from one letter I received from a woman in
my riding whose son was abused by his Big Brother volunteer. The
mother says “I cannot believe when this man came to my house,
when I thought it would be good for my son to have a big brother
to look up to, a father figure in his life, that he could end up
doing the things he did to him. I interviewed this man for at
least two hours and was happy to think that my son was lucky to
have a man like this in his life”.
Many years later this mother was devastated by the news that
this man, this father figure, had sexually abused her child
beginning at the age of eight. The woman's son had a very
troubled adolescence. He spent time in jail and his mother now
knows why. This woman has asked me to do everything I can to
ensure that those who prey upon our children, as this man did on
her son, are punished severely for their crimes.
I want us to promise her today in the highest legislative body in
this land that we will not let her down.
1910
This issue was brought to my attention through a case in my
riding. A father was convicted on three counts of unlawful
confinement for locking his three sons in wire cages in a dark
basement, three counts of administering a noxious substance for
making them eat their own feces and drink their own urine, and
three counts of assault for beating them. In addition this man
was convicted of numerous sex charges, including three counts of
intercourse with a girl under 14. The victims of the sexual
assaults were his three stepdaughters. The perpetrator of these
crimes was sentenced to 18.5 years in prison but he will be
eligible for parole in just over six.
I would like to offer my thanks to the Woodstock Daily
Sentinel Review for bringing this case to my attention. The
reporter who covered this trial for the Sentinel Review
called it the most disturbing case she has ever had to report on.
I can honestly say that this bill represents a fine example of
how the press and the community has worked with me, their local
member, to try to correct the weakness in our judicial system.
Because of the frightful instances of forcible confinement in
the aforementioned case, I have included in Bill C-245 an
amendment to section 279 of the Criminal Code. This amendment
would increase the maximum sentence for forcible confinement to
14 years from 10 in the case of a parent or ward who confines
their child and thereby harms the child's physical or mental
health. Anyone who questions why I felt an increase in this
sentence is necessary need only recall what that father did to
his sons.
The final section of Bill C-245 would ensure that the definition
of publication in the case of child pornography would cover
display, transmission or storage by electronic mail and the
Internet.
Some think government has no business regulating the information
superhighway but I suspect that protecting our children in
society from those who would trade in child pornography is far
more important than any supposed right on the Internet.
Information technology is an incredible development. I continue
to encourage my constituents to take advantage of the Internet to
benefit themselves and their communities, but we cannot allow
criminal use of the information superhighway to endanger our
children.
It is my belief that my introduction of this bill into the House
of Commons was my duty as the member of Parliament for Oxford. As
I stated at the outset, it is a duty I take very seriously. As a
member of Parliament and as a citizen of this great country of
ours, I also have another duty. That duty is to speak for and to
protect those members of our society who cannot protect
themselves.
Each of us here in this House has a moral obligation to protect
our children from those who prey upon them. I do not doubt for a
moment that all members feel this obligation to our nation's
children.
Bill C-245 is not a votable bill. During the subcommittee
meeting I was asked by the member for Brandon—Souris why I felt
my bill would increase sentences when in fact it did not impose a
minimum sentence for these crimes. It was an excellent question.
I dare say some members who are to follow me in this debate will
raise this as an objection. For this reason, I offer my
colleagues an answer.
Parliament speaks with a loud voice in the courtrooms across
this land. If we were to pass this bill, we would be saying to
our judicial system that the protection of our children is
paramount.
Our voice with the governor general's signature attached would
say that in the worst cases of abuse, those who prey upon our
children must be removed from society for life. Our voice would
represent constituents across the country who speak through us
and who want their children protected.
Some changes may need to be made to this bill. I feel our
colleagues on the justice committee can make these changes in the
best interests of our children.
The support I received for this bill from the Canadian
Association of Chiefs of Police and the Canadian Police
Association has let me know that our front line law enforcement
officers agree with increased sentences to protect our children.
1915
I feel that this bill should be voted on by members of this
House. For those members who are not familiar with the cases I
have dealt with in my riding they need only look at cases in
their own ridings. Any members who have dealt with children have
met those who have suffered from the horrors of abuse.
We can all remember the recent problems within Maple Leaf
Gardens or with Graham James and Sheldon Kennedy. We can recall
the abuse perpetrated on our aboriginal children in orphanages
and residential schools, religious or otherwise. Thank God for
people like Sheldon Kennedy who spoke out about the years of
abuse he suffered. He has battled back to be a model for victims
but we must also remember that for every Sheldon Kennedy there is
a Martin Kruze who saw as his only escape, especially after a
ridiculously short sentence given to his abuser, a jump off
Toronto's Bloor Street viaduct.
I would ask members to look into their hearts and ask themselves
if we would be performing our duty if this bill was not put to a
vote. It is time to send a message to sex offenders that the time
for judicial slaps on the wrist has past. Canadians will not
allow us to pass the buck to other jurisdictions or wait until
some obscure commission passes recommendations.
If this House decides in approximately 35 minutes that this bill
should not be votable I ask those members present to look into
the eyes of a victim or the mother of a victim and tell them why
they have to wait for justice. If amendments should be made let
us send this bill to committee so it can hear witnesses and make
changes to improve the bill.
Early in my speech I read from a letter sent to me from an abused
child's mother. I would like to refer to that letter again.
This mother says:
Child abuse of any kind has to stop, and the introduction of
your bill will certainly be a start. I am tired of those people
being set free and sent to counselling and everything is okay. It
certainly is not okay, that doesn't do a thing for the victims
who have to live with this the rest of their lives. In
requesting higher sentences for these sex offenders, how can I
ask this be considered out of line, when, in fact, the children
are sentenced to life without parole, in trying to live with what
was inflicted upon them.
It is time to perform our duty and to protect our children. I
ask this House for its support of Bill C-245.
Mr. Paul Forseth (New Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby,
Ref.): Mr. Speaker, it is a privilege to be able to speak
today to the bill sponsored by the member for Oxford dealing with
penalties for sexual offences involving children.
I commend the member for Bill C-245. I support the amendment he
is making to the Criminal Code. I wish that more members from
his side of the House would also recognize that creating stiffer
penalties would go a long way to curbing crime in Canada,
especially of this heinous type.
Reform members came to Ottawa in 1993 with a commitment to the
Canadian people to reform Parliament. Included in those reforms
was the promise to be supportive whenever possible of the
people's agenda over party manoeuvres. We promised not to oppose
government legislation or private members' bills simply for the
sake of opposition. If a bill enhances public safety we will
support it. We therefore support the member for Oxford.
Bill C-245 if passed by this House will change the definition of
publication in the case of child pornography to cover
transmission by electronic mail or posting the material on the
Internet or any other electronic net. This amendment to the
Criminal Code is simply in keeping with the advances of the
technology and the prevalence of child pornography on the
Internet today. I applaud the hon. member's effort in this
regard. However, this amendment should and could have been
enacted by the government. However, there is a pattern. The
government is weak. When action is needed there is a pattern of
Liberal government weakness.
While this government is introducing legislation which deals
with technology and privacy it has neglected to make the
necessary Criminal Code amendments to protect our children from
the perverts who surf the net. It is not surprising given the
low priority this government places on the protection of society
and in particular our children. We have discovered sex slavery
in Canada and sadly we have juvenile prostitution in every major
city. The government has done little while at the same time
shuts down private members' bills that deal with these things.
The government is weak.
Despite claiming in June, 1997 that revamping the Young
Offenders Act was a priority, the justice minister has failed to
bring one single amendment. The minister's failure in this
regard has put our children who are most often the victims of
crime at needless risk.
We also support the increase in the maximum penalty for
forcible confinement from 10 to 14 years in the case of a parent
or a ward who confines a child and thereby harms the child's
physical or mental health.
1920
The Reform Party fully supports the penalty of imprisonment for
life with no parole eligibility for 25 years for anyone found
guilty of sexually assaulting a child under 8 or a child under 14
who is under the offender's trust or authority or who is
dependent on the offender.
I do, however, question the age of eight years. In 1994 the
Liberal government refused to amend the Young Offenders Act to
include 10 and 11 year olds, claiming they were much too young to
be held accountable for their criminal behaviour. I therefore
have to wonder why the hon. member for Oxford has not at least
included 10 and 11 year olds. I would recommend including
children up to the age of at least 13, in recognition of the
vulnerability of children within this tender age group.
I also find it questionable that the member for Oxford has
proposed what can only be considered a heavy penalty, one which
would not be supported by a majority of his own 1700
colleagues.
In 1995 a majority of Liberal members voted against eliminating
the faint hope clause for murderers. I question why this member
and his Liberal colleagues would ever agree to put a child
molester behind bars for a minimum of 25 years when they have
repeatedly failed to keep murderers locked away for at least the
25 years.
Let us not forget that it was the Liberal Party which gave us
the faint hope clause, claiming some hope must be given to first
degree murderers.
Clifford Olson raped and killed 11 innocent children and after
serving only 15 years of his life sentence this sadistic killer
took full advantage of the Liberal made faint hope clause and
applied for early release.
I might add that the former justice minister is directly
responsible for Olson's full press court. The former justice
minister failed to bring in Bill C-45 in time to prevent Olson
from once again terrorizing these victims' families. There was
plenty of warning. There was no excuse.
I and many of my colleagues were there the day Olson, to the
horror of the nation, was once again terrorizing his victims'
families. I and many of my colleagues were there, at court, the
very day Olson, to the horror of the nation, was once again
granted the absurd privilege of making a mockery of our justice
system.
Last week when representatives of the Canadian Police
Association were in Ottawa they left a message for the Liberal
government. Topping their list was the elimination of the faint
hope clause. Perhaps finally the justice minister will see to it
to repeal section 745 of the Criminal Code and keep murderers
behind bars where they belong.
There are a number of other areas which require attention. To
date the justice minister has done little or nothing with regard
to enhancing public safety.
Conditional sentences for violent offenders must be eliminated.
How many more rapists must walk free before the justice minister
amends specifically her predecessor's flawed section of the
Criminal Code?
I point to one significant omission in Bill C-245. It does not
amend the Young Offenders Act. Therefore, anyone under the age
of 18 who sexually assaults a child will not be sentenced to life
imprisonment. The maximum sentence they will receive under the
YOA is three years, plus a possible two years of additional
control.
Adolescent males commit approximately 20% of sexual assaults
against teens and adults, and between 30% to 50% of such assaults
against children. According to the forum on correctional
research, January 1995, sexual assaults committed by youth are as
serious as those committed by adults.
Without changes to the YOA the maximum penalty a youth can
receive for raping or molesting a child will remain three years,
with an additional optional two years. If the young offender is
released into the community no one will know because of the
privacy provisions of the YOA which do not allow for the
publishing of young offenders' names, including young rapists. I
mentioned that today in my question to the justice minister and
received a very unsatisfactory answer.
Jason Gamache was a sex offender, but this fact was not made
known to his neighbours. An unsuspecting mother allowed Mr.
Gamache to babysit her young daughter. Her daughter was raped
and killed by Gamache. The mistakes in the provincial
administration of this case were all started by the secrecy
provisions of the Young Offenders Act.
On September 26 my colleague from Crowfoot introduced a private
member's bill to amend the YOA. Unlike the Liberal justice
minister, the member for Crowfoot worked all summer on Bill C-210
and at the first opportunity introduced his bill.
We in the Reform Party have introduced many private members'
bills on the Young Offenders Act. Where are the minister's?
Amending the YOA is a priority for the Reform Party, as it is for
many Canadians.
In June, 1997 the justice minister said that the YOA was a
priority, and yet we have seen nothing.
Last year the justice committee travelled throughout the
country, spending close to half a million dollars reviewing the
act.
1925
In April, 1997 the committee tabled a report containing a number
of recommendations for amending the YOA and the Reform Party
produced a minority report which was rejected by the committee
because it was too comprehensive. We ensured that our report was
given to all the provincial attorneys general, many of whom have
been requesting similar changes to the Young Offenders Act.
Since the former justice minister mandated the committee to
review the Young Offenders Act upon the 10th anniversary of its
enactment, the Reform Party has questioned the commitment of the
justice minister and the Liberal dominated justice committee to
effectively change this act which is now 14 years old.
This government failed during its first three and a half year
mandate to improve public safety and it is failing again. This
justice minister has done very little. It has been a very weak
performance.
The member for Oxford can count on Reform's support but,
interestingly, he cannot count on the support of his bleeding
heart pals who refuse to keep murderers locked up for at least 25
years. By the process of this bill today, we can see that the
justice agenda of average Canadians is reflected in the Reform
Party position and not the bureaucratic, top down agenda of the
Liberals.
The conclusion is obvious. If Canadians want a good justice
system they need to elect a Reform Party government.
[Translation]
Mr. Michel Bellehumeur (Berthier—Montcalm, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
private member's bill C-245 covers three extremely important
points.
The first has to do with the transmission of child pornography
through the Internet or electronic mail. The second has to do with
sexual assault on a child, and the third has to do with the
confinement of a child by a parent or ward. These are three
extremely important points. As the member who introduced the bill
said earlier, these are three things that cannot be tolerated in a
free and democratic society such as ours.
I am going to examine the bill clause by clause, because there
are only three of them.
The first clause deals with the definition of publication per se.
The issue raised by the first clause of the bill is a very special
one. What is the role of the lawmaker with respect to cyberspace?
Although clause 1 of the bill looks specifically at the publication
of child pornography, it raises the more general issue of
governments' responsibility with respect to management of the
Internet.
Each of us has his or her own perception of cyberspace. Some
people positively worship the Internet. Internet surfers consider
this virtual space to be one of the great achievements of the 20th
century. Others fear the Internet. This electronic network seems
to interfere with the respect of certain principles our community
holds dear.
If the Internet is seen as a source of all knowledge, it is
also the favourite realm of individuals with a warped view of the
world, who spend their time using it to distribute illegal
material. Child pornography is a perfect example. The following
question therefore arises: What can we as lawmakers do to stop
this unhealthy use of the Internet?
Whether to limit the distribution of hate propaganda,
discriminatory material or child pornography, various initiatives
have already been suggested.
In the United States, the suppression of child pornography
focuses on protecting the children that are its subjects. In
Canada, while not dealing specifically with publication on the
Internet, section 163(1) of the Criminal Code defines child
pornography in broader terms.
Child pornography is condemned not just because of its direct
impact on the young people who are its subjects, but also in order
to eliminate its impact on pedophiles and various criminals of this
sort who use these media.
Nonetheless, as the Université de Montréal authors of a work
entitled Droit du cyberespace pointed out, the regulation of
violence on information highways must be consistent with the
imperatives of freedom of expression. Concerns about the
circulation of violent material arise primarily from the fear that
exposure to this kind of material trivializes the real phenomenon
of violence or encourages people to resort to violence. To this
general concern is naturally added the concern to protect children.
1930
Striking a balance between freedom of expression and a
justified control of material harmful to society is not easy. For
example, in 1996, there was an American bill, the Decency Act,
which was intended to criminalize the distribution of pornographic
material, but it was declared unconstitutional.
Considering how difficult it is to establish the identity of
a user, the effect of that legislation was to restrict the freedom
of expression of the distributors on the one hand, but also the
right of adult users to receive information on the other hand.
This clause does not solve all of the problems relating to use
of the Internet, and others, but it does engage a debate, which
makes us reflect as lawmakers. The Bloc Quebecois is in favour of
this more thorough analysis.
Clause 2 addresses sexual assault against children. There is
most certainly nothing more abhorrent than sex crimes involving
children. Children are the incarnation of everything that is most
fragile in our society. When someone decides to sully the
innocence of our young people, society as a whole suffers.
Children are arguably our most precious resource.
How, then, can such acts not be vigorously denounced? How can
we understand someone stooping so low as to commit such monstrous
acts? A lawmaker cannot remain indifferent to offences of this
nature.
The bill of the hon. member for Oxford is intended to offer
some elements of a response to these questions.
Clause 2 of the bill provides for special sentencing of those found
guilty of sexually assaulting children.
This bill would add to section 271 of the Criminal Code, which
pertains to sexual offences, and include in it a special regime for
cases when children are the victims. The sentence proposed is
harsh: imprisonment for life. This sentence is sought when the
crime is particularly heinous, but that is what he are dealing with
in cases of sexual assault of children.
Nevertheless, while the bill is severe, the member proposes
certain application criteria that would require the courts to
evaluate certain characteristics of the victim. Clause 2 thus
provides that imprisonment for life would apply when the child
involved is under the age of eight years or under the age of
fourteen years and in the trust of or dependent on the offender.
Thus the terms provided in section 271(1.1)b) would provide a
defence for the accused if it could be proven that the victim aged
between 8 and 14 years was not in a in the trust of, under the
authority of, or in a relationship of dependency on, the offender.
It should be pointed out that the Criminal Code currently
provides a defence that the offender charged under section 271
could use.
Section 150(1) of the Criminal Code provides that a person accused
under section 271 may use consent as a defence, if the victim is
between 12 and 14 and the aggressor is all of the following: aged
12 or older but less than 16; less then two years older than the
victim and not someone with whom the victim is in a relationship of
dependency.
The problem is that the bill makes no mention of section
150(1). While this silence does not affect the merits of the bill,
that is, the application of a more severe sentence in the case of
the sexual assault of children, the fact that it does not mention
the terms of section 150(1) would have the effect of proposing two
different defences for a single offence.
Once again, we agree with the content, with the objective of
clause 2, but I believe it lacks some refinement to really achieve
the intended objective.
Clause 3 deals with the confinement of a child or ward. It
proposes an addition to section 279 of the Criminal Code to
introduce more severe sentences when the offence of confinement or
imprisonment involves children.
Like sexual assault, this offence is most intolerable, since
it takes advantage of children's weakness. Once again, this
situation must be denounced and the bill seems to meet that need.
As I have said, this private member's bill addresses three
extremely important points, since situations or acts involving
children are involved.
1935
However, as always, we in the Bloc Quebecois do not
necessarily always have a visceral reaction in such cases. I
believe that an analysis that is as cold and objective as possible
of these clauses is necessary if we are to attain the objective of
amending the Criminal Code in such a way as to truly have the
desired impact.
The goal is to protect our young people, the most important
thing in our country. I do not believe anyone in this House could
be against this bill. I do, however, think that it merits more
study in order to improve its clauses and its approaches to the
objective sought.
[English]
Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops, NDP): Mr. Speaker, I am
pleased to rise in this important debate on Bill C-245. Let me
first say how much I appreciate my colleague from Oxford for
bringing the bill forward. It is very timely and very
appropriate. It provides members of Parliament with the
opportunity to speak out on behalf of those who are unable to
speak for themselves. I refer particularly to the children of
Canada.
Over the last number of years I spent a great deal of time with
friends and associates who have worked in the Kamloops Sexual
Assault Centre. I have received countless letters from
constituents concerned about the issue of child abuse, sexual
predation upon children and other related issues.
In my time before I became a member of Parliament I was a
teacher for 15 years. I knew of countless cases of young people
whose lives had been destroyed irreparably because of some
unscrupulous person involving them in unwanted sexual acts at a
very young age.
Many of my friends are guidance counsellors and family
counsellors of one kind or another. Many are in the field of
rehabilitation in terms of sexual assault victims as well as
those accused and found guilty of sexual assault. The stories
they tell can be summarized in a word and that is devastation.
Young people who are forced to experience this type of activity
at a young age essentially have their lives destroyed in most
cases forever.
I cannot help but mention many of my friends, particularly those
in the Shuswap First Nation in Kamloops, who over the years
brought forward the stories of their experiences in so-called
Indian residential schools which, I am loathe to say, were
sponsored by various religious orders. They tell of the physical
abuse they experienced and in particular sexual abuse that not
only destroyed their lives in many ways but destroyed the lives
of their children as well.
We have seen generation after generation of people whose lives
and the lives of their children and perhaps their grandchildren
have been affected in a negative way because of being involved in
some sexual predation.
My colleague from Oxford brought forth Bill C-245, an act to
amend the Criminal Code regarding penalties for sexual offences
involved children. I applaud him for this initiative. I assume
all members of Parliament, when they have a chance to vote on it,
will vote in support of the bill. I know I speak for myself and
for colleagues to whom I have talked about the bill when I say we
endorse it enthusiastically.
Let me simply say that the reason there is so much enthusiasm in
support of this initiative is that many members of Parliament
find that sentences for crimes against children are inadequate in
today's court system.
Countless times people have said to me that we have a legal
system but we do not have a justice system, that it lacks a sense
of justice. Therefore, the bill which will increase the maximum
sentence for sexual assault on a child to life imprisonment
without the possibility of parole for 25 years is supportable.
As well, the sentence for forcible confinement of a child in the
bill is increased to 14 years from the present 10 years.
The definition of child pornography would now extend to any
information or reproduction transmitted by electronic means.
1940
In the next few moments I want to say why I support the bill so
strongly. The current maximum sentence for sexual assault, as I
said, is 10 years. According to information obtained through the
adult criminal court survey, the average sentence being given for
sexual assault is less than 1,287 days, less than four years.
These are sexual assaults with a weapon. These are sexual
assaults resulting in aggravated assault. These are horrendous
acts perpetrated against a person, in this case against children.
It is difficult to imagine a more unscrupulous, heinous type of
individual than one who would participate in these types of acts.
Because there is no real distinction between sexual assault on
the child and other charges of sexual assault, the member shared
with the House the average sentence for sexual touching of a
child under 14. This is a charge in which sexual intent must be
proven, I might add. The average sentence imposed by the courts
is 288 days, less than one full year.
People involved in a direct sexual way with the intent of having
a sexual act with a child, if found guilty, may receive a penalty
to serve time in prison of less than a year. What kind of signal
does that send to people who have destroyed some young child's
life? Having a few days in jail certainly does not deter one,
but it sends a signal that we as a society essentially or
relatively condone this type of behaviour. As a society we ought
not to have any tolerance at all regarding violence toward
people. We should not have any tolerance at all involving adults
perpetrating sexual activity with a young child.
Seventy-seven per cent of the accused in solved violent
incidents involving children under 12 years of age have had some
kind of relationship with the victim. In 31 per cent of these
cases the accused was a member of the victim's immediate family.
This is the kind of information that does not make one feel
terribly comfortable.
Bill C-245 speaks directly to sexual assault on a child. It
amends section 271 of the Criminal Code by increasing the maximum
sentence to imprisonment for life with no parole eligibility for
25 years, if guilty of sexual assault on a child under 8 years of
age or a child under 14 years of age who is under the offender's
trust or authority or dependent on the offender.
Just as an aside at this point, I might add that it is a rare
case when a serious pedophile or someone who has been involved
with aggressive sexual behaviour with a child is rehabilitated. I
know there are programs that people attend. I know there are
courses that people are required to attend when serving prison
terms for these types of offences, but I think the evidence would
suggest that it is a rarity for someone to modify their behaviour
sufficiently to ensure that type of behaviour will not be
repeated.
That is why I think locking these people up, these sexual
predators of children, makes sense in terms of protecting society
from this type of behaviour.
I want to make it clear at this point that the sentence being
advocated in Bill C-245 is the same sentence as that for first
degree murder. It was the mover's suggestion that many of his
constituents felt that in the very worst cases of child sexual
assault the sentence should be equal to that of murder, the
reason being that these assaults have in many ways murdered the
children's soul, the child's self-esteem and the child's mind.
We just need to recall the abuse of young hockey players that
occurred in the Toronto stadium, Maple Leaf Gardens. One of the
victims ended up committing suicide as a way of dealing with his
trauma.
I could go on and on, but I will not take up valuable time
because I know other of my colleagues want to speak to this
important issue.
I refer particularly to the section of the bill that suggests we
should increase the maximum penalty for forcible confinement from
10 to 14 years in the case of a parent or ward who confines a
child and thereby harms the child's physical or mental health.
My colleague pointed out the case where the individual locked his
three sons in wire cages in a dark basement.
1945
We can all recall these kinds of examples we see revealed in the
courts from time to time where parents or those responsible for
young children for whatever peculiar horrible set of reasons
decide to confine children in unimaginable circumstances. It is
fair to say that anybody who is perpetuating that type of
activity should be punished. More important, society needs to be
protected from these kinds of people.
I thank the member for Oxford for introducing this bill. We
have to take steps to keep child pornography off the electronic
mail and the Internet. He can count on my support.
Mr. Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, PC):
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of the bill put
forward by the hon. member for Oxford. I support his initiative
in this regard. It is indeed a pleasure for me to speak on this
piece of legislation.
As a number of speakers have already mentioned, if adopted, this
bill would essentially accomplish three things. In the worst
cases of sexual assault involving children, the sentence imposed
on the individual would be given the same emphasis, the same
range of sentence for the judge who would be handing down that
sentence. That range would include a sentence of up to 25 years.
The maximum sentence of imprisonment for life with no parole
eligibility for 25 years would accurately reflect society's
disdain for the serious types of sexual assaults that sadly do
occur in our society. It would allow society to feel protected
in the sense that it would have the assurance that a judge would
have that at his or her discretion. If adopted, the act would
create an increase in the maximum penalty for forcible
confinement from 10 to 14 years in the case of a parent or ward
who confines a child and thereby harms the child's physical or
mental health.
It is important to consider the deterrent effect that this
increased range of sentence has when looking at cases such as
this. In this scenario, a judge's discretion should be expanded
to allow for that. Sadly, in my career as a crown prosecutor, I
encountered a number of cases where if the maximum sentence had
been expanded, if the judge had that range, perhaps higher
sentences would have been handed down.
The third thing this piece of legislation would accomplish is
with respect to the Internet and the use of the Internet as a
means of transmitting child pornography. The bill would make
this a prohibited act under section 163.1. It would give
assurances that the definition of publication in the case of
child pornography would cover transmissions via electronic mail
or posting of material on the Internet.
With a rapidly changing ability to transmit and the use of
technology, it is with some sad reflection that we are faced with
the fact that there are those in society who will use this mode
of communication for such a sick and twisted purpose. This bill
puts in place something in the Criminal Code that allows us to
respond and to respond with force.
This private member's bill has received the support of both the
Canadian Police Association and the Canadian Association of
Chiefs of Police. They have said: “Sentencing reform for
sexual offences against children is, in our view, an important
improvement and required”.
I am sure the remarks we have heard in this Chamber and the
remarks from many groups, including victims advocate groups,
parental groups and society in general would certainly echo those
remarks.
I am very proud to have worked in the justice system with many
dedicated men and women whom I have spoken to in relation to this
legislation.
I voice their support of it through my comments today.
1950
I have spoken to individuals in Antigonish—Guysborough who have
worked in the justice system, Corporal MacGenny, Sergeant MacNeil
and many others who are on the front lines. They are the thin
blue line of the police who deal with these laws. I am
encouraged to see that initiatives are taken to bring forward
very positive changes to our Criminal Code.
I am also pleased to say that the Progressive Conservative Party
of Canada equally embraces and encourages these initiatives taken
by the hon. member for Oxford. It is indeed time to give
children the protection that they need. It is time that we as
legislators send a very serious message to the courts stating
that sexual offenders deserve tougher sentences.
As victims of child sexual offences have asked many times, those
victims who are struggling with painful stories, why does an
individual who has perpetrated such a heinous act receive a light
sentence and probation at times.
Again, to use the analogy that has been made in this House, the
child is forced into a life sentence of coping and of dealing
with this trauma. That life of painful memories and the damage
that results cannot be erased and will never be erased because of
the ensuing court case and the ensuing cases. However, I would
suggest that it does, in some small measure, restore some dignity
and faith in the system and its ability to react.
At a time when victims' rights should be at the centre of the
changes to our criminal justice system, this bill provides
victims in question the comfort of having offenders at least
sentenced or at least the possibility that they can be sentenced
to a real significant period of incarceration.
Statistics have consistently shown that sexual offenders are not
getting the length of incarceration that they deserve. There
have been a number of references to those sentences. The ones
that jumped out at me are based on the average prison sentences
in 1993 and 1994 when statistics showed that sexual assault
levels two and three, the more serious and high end assaults, get
an average of 3.5 years incarceration. Again one has to ask if
society is being sufficiently protected.
The average sentence for sexual touching of a child under the
age of 14 is less than one year of incarceration. One questions
the deterrent effect but one also has to question the
rehabilitative aspect of a sentence of such short duration.
On top of that, let us remind ourselves that children under the
age of 12 account for 16% of the population yet account for 28%
of the victimization. I think that we as a society and as
legislators must remind ourselves consistently that we have an
obligation and responsibility to protect those most in need and
those most vulnerable. That can be done through positive changes
to our Criminal Code.
The numbers that I have referred to and others that have been
referred to in this debate are incredible and do raise very
important and serious questions as to what we as members of this
House do in response and do we in fact do enough to protect those
who are most vulnerable. Sadly, women and children in this
country are the ones who are most often at the receiving end of
victimization.
The very least we can do is take up the challenge, take these
initiatives and see them through to fruition in a timely fashion.
These changes to the Criminal Code are presented and put forward
in a very common sense approach. It does not take a great deal
of intellectual gymnastics to figure out what the intent of these
changes are. Quite simply, I support them wholeheartedly. I
really feel that sexual offences are not and should not be
considered minor offences. Indeed, these short sentences somehow
diminish the seriousness of the effect they have on victims.
By supporting this bill, we are going to tell the courts and
those in the criminal justice system that we do consider these to
be important changes.
1955
By supporting the bill, we are also sending a very serious and
strong message to perpetrators that this type of behaviour will
not be tolerated and giving the judges an important tool to use
in combating these types of human indiscretions.
Government improvements and general improvements to the Criminal
Code transcend partisan politics as has been exhibited by the
comments in the Chamber.
Let me end by referring to what a young mother has said to me
about a young boy who was a victim of a sexual assault. She said
“In requesting higher sentences for sexual offenders, I ask how
can this be considered out of line when in fact the children are
sentenced to life without parole in trying to live with what was
inflicted on them”.
Heinous crimes are happening right now as we make these remarks.
It is up to us to take up that challenge. I support this bill
fully and I am sure those in the House will do likewise.
Mr. John Finlay (Oxford, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, I wish to thank my
colleagues on the other side of the House who have spoken on Bill
C-245 for their support and their thoughtful input on my private
member's bill which will bring about improvements hopefully in
our whole justice system.
I want to thank the member for New
Westminster—Coquitlam—Burnaby for reminding us that the Young
Offenders Act needs some improvement and changes. I know our
government will be bringing those forward.
I want to thank the member for Berthier—Montcalm who talked
about the balancing of the freedom of expression in the
protection of our children with respect to the Internet.
I want to thank the member for Kamloops who seconded my private
member's bill and who pointed out from his experience as a
teacher that this was something he had some first-hand knowledge
of.
Finally, I want to thank the member for
Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough who in his other life was a crown
prosecutor and whom I feel made the point very clearly that major
offences which incur short sentences are not really what we are
looking for in Canada which is of course exactly what my bill is
trying to address.
In my address earlier I mentioned how I considered the
introduction of the bill to be my duty as a member of Parliament
for Oxford. The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines duty as
a moral or legal obligation which one is bound or ought to do. I
can assure hon. members I do feel a moral obligation to protect
our children from abuse. This bill will help provide this
protection.
As a member of Parliament I feel a legal obligation to introduce
legislation that responds to a need within our society. My
colleagues have made that quite clear in the last hour we have
listened to them.
The cases I have laid out for hon. members show why I feel there
is a need within our society for this legislation. If any
members doubt me, they need only read of Martin Kruze or any
other victim of abuse and ask themselves if the sentences being
meted out are adequate. If so, please tell me why 44% of those
convicted of sexual touching of a child under 14 received only
probation.
I believe that we have a duty here today to provide protection
for our children from those who prey on them. As part of this
duty I ask the House for unanimous consent to introduce a motion.
I move:
That Bill C-245 be made votable, that it be eligible for two
additional hours of debate and, at the conclusion of this debate,
be put to a vote at second reading.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The hon. member for
Oxford has asked for unanimous consent that this bill be made
votable. Is there unanimous consent?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
An hon. member: No.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): There is no
unanimous consent.
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members'
Business has now expired and the order is dropped from the order
paper.
ADJOURNMENT PROCEEDINGS
2000
[Translation]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed
to have been moved.
ASBESTOS INDUSTRY
Mr. Jean-Guy Chrétien (Frontenac—Mégantic, BQ): Mr. Speaker,
on December 1, I put a very important question to the Minister of
International Trade.
The asbestos region is facing hard times with chrysotile
asbestos. Great Britain has announced its intention to ban this
asbestos following in the steps of France and seven other European
countries. Since March 1997, I have been calling on the Prime
Minister to take vigorous action with France.
He, through his Minister of International Trade, preferred to
take route of diplomatic negotiations. They led nowhere. What the
asbestos industry needs is vigorous action before the WTO against
France to avoid the domino effect that could result from other
countries like Great Britain banning chrysotile asbestos.
In addition, Canada could claim financial compensation from
France as the result of its unilateral action. Instead of dozing
off with diplomacy in the style of Jacques Roy, the government must
listen to the people in the industry and defend us just as
vigorously as it defended durum wheat and the Sherritt company of
Toronto against the United States and the Helms-Burton legislation.
In the asbestos region, Thetford Mines to be specific, the
consensus is to demand the federal government take legal action
before the WTO.
Led by the Government of Quebec, asbestos producers, LAB
Chrysotile, with Jean Dupéré, and Johns Manville with Bernard
Coulombe; the three unions, FTQ, CNTU and CSD; the members for
Québec, Vallières and Lefebvre, under the banner of the Liberal
Party of Quebec; the RCM, with its chairman Fernand Huot; the
Thetford Chamber of Commerce; all are unanimously calling on the
federal government to file a complaint with the WTO, but the
federal government is refusing to take action.
Unfortunately for the asbestos region, the response I would
have liked to hear from the Minister for International Trade, and
it is undoubtedly a response dated December 2, will be read this
evening by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice
and the Attorney General of Canada.
Of course, the response, which undoubtedly dates back to
December 2, should have been modified to fit today's circumstances,
because almost four months have passed since that time, but for
lack of anything better, I will naturally content myself with this
late response.
I hope it will provide some hope for producers and especially for
workers in our asbestos mines.
[English]
Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.): Mr. Speaker,
the objective of the Government of Canada in this dispute, in
partnership with Quebec, the industry, unions as well as local
communities, is to maintain market access for asbestos products.
2005
Turning to the specific question the member raises of
challenging the French ban at the World Trade Organization,
officials held exploratory discussions on WTO options with
interested partners, Quebec included, the asbestos industry as
well as the trade unions in September 1997.
A number of times the Prime Minister of our country has
intervened with Prime Minister Blair, specifically on September
30, 1997 and on October 22, 1997 raising this issue. Our mission
in Paris also raised the issue with senior French authorities.
It was also raised during Premier Bouchard's visit to France and
between our Prime Minister and President Chirac during the
francophone summit. There have been ongoing discussions on this
issue.
The deputy minister of international trade on November 26 also
held consultations with interested stakeholders, Quebec, the
asbestos industry as well as the trade unions.
The meeting proved to be beneficial. All the key players were
involved in all discussions that the government has conducted.
The federal government meets regularly with the Quebec
government, the industry and the unions to develop a common
approach in addressing the French ban on asbestos use as well as
its potential effects in other markets.
The federal government will continue to consult closely with all
the major stakeholders with respect to our options in the WTO.
Let me assure Canadians that Canada attaches a high priority to
protecting access to foreign markets for chrysotile asbestos and
is prepared to explore all available options to accomplish this
objective.
[Translation]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland): The motion to adjourn the
House is now deemed adopted. Accordingly, this House stands
adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order
24(1).
(The House adjourned at 8.06 p.m.)