Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Renfrew North-Nipissing East) moved

that Bill C-223, to amend the Criminal Code (domestic and foreign flags), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

He said: Madam Speaker, during the course of the twenty-eighth parliament I had two private members' bills on the order paper of the House of Commons. Bill C-197 was a bill to amend the Criminal Code, and the purpose of that bill was to make it an offence to insult, in any way, a Canadian or provincial flag.

The second, Bill C-198, was a bill to amend the Criminal Code with regard to foreign flags, and the purpose of that bill was to make it an offence to insult, in any way, the flag of a foreign country lawfully represented in Canada.

Neither of those bills came to second reading prior to the end of that particular session of the twenty-eighth parliament.

The bill before us today, Bill C-223, encompasses in its present form all three of the points in the previous two bills. When proposing legislation of this nature it is important to make certain that the law being proposed is practical and can be enforced in the courts. If this is not the case, passing such a law would merely be window dressing instead of something realistic, practical and meaningful on the statute books of Canada. With regard to this latter point I would like to express my appreciation to hon. members in all parties with whom I have had consultations with reference to this bill. I wish to make it quite plain that they have been most co-operative and understanding.

I have also had several discussions with legal authorities who are concerned about the implementation and

February 18, 1975

protocol of a law of this nature. Because of these latter discussions, and other research I have undertaken on the subject, I have this afternoon decided to make a major change in this bill by making it less complicated and, it is to be hoped, more practical. It is my personal wish to request the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw three words from proposed section 49.1. Those words are "or Provincial flags."

In addition I wish to withdraw proposed section 49.2 in its entirety. This would make the bill deal with Canadian flag legislation only, and it would then read as follows:

1. The Criminal Code is amended by adding immediately after section 49 thereof the following:

"49.1 Every one who destroys, disfigures, mutilates, defaces, defiles, desecrates or casts contempt upon the Canadian flag is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction."

My reason for wishing to withdraw these two items is that I hope their withdrawal will ensure easier passage for the remaining part of the bill, plus the fact that we would be dealing with the ramifications of enforcing one particular piece of legislation instead of three at the same time.

For example, if the House were to approve the bill this afternoon in its present form, the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs could be faced with representatives from provincial governments across Canada who might wish to comment on the bill. The committee could also be faced with many representations from groups across the country in regard to the foreign flag section of the bill. Then, of course, there may well be people wishing to comment on the Canadian flag section of the bill. After considering all the ramifications of the present form of this proposed legislation, I have come to the conclusion that both the provincial and foreign aspects should be removed from the bill.

I am advised by legal experts that it is normal procedure for the provinces to recommend to the federal government the changes they wish in the Criminal Code as it applies directly to them. Therefore, if I were to retain the part about provincial flags I might end up stepping on the toes of some provincial legislatures. That is certainly not my intention.

Similarly the foreign flag section presents a problem in that many foreign flags of countries legally represented in Canada are on the various embassy properties which are excluded from Canadian jurisdiction. If such a foreign flag is insulted in any way, the Department of External Affairs extends an apology on behalf of the Government of Canada and ensures that the matter is brought to police attention for action under the appropriate law. Many people have expressed views to me, and I am sure that other hon. members have had the same views expressed to them, that they are quite often disgusted when they see a flag being torn down, burned, or insulted in any way-and I mean with intent to insult.

I do not consider it an insult to or desecration of the Canadian flag if people wish to wear a sweater of T-shirt with the Canadian flag on it, if they wish to wear a Canadian flag on the hip pocket of a pair of jeans, or if they wish to sew a Canadian flag on their knapsack when travelling. This is simply a way for people to express pride in their country and their very definite identification with Canada.

Criminal Code

By bringing this bill forward today I wish to make quite clear to hon. members that if it becomes law I would not wish to have it used to charge someone where the intent is simply to express pride in Canada. If this bill passes I would want the resulting law to be used against those who wilfully damage a Canadian flag or insult it in any way, or where there is clear evidence that there was intent to do so.

Any time that I have seen a Canadian flag being desecrated or insulted, my first thought was that the person or persons involved had no pride in the nation. There is also the underlying feeling that citizenship in this country carries with it not only rights and privileges but also duties. I hope that this bill will help such individuals to realize that Canadian citizenship is something in which Canadians take a great deal of pride, and that citizenship carries with it certain duties and responsibilities, and not just rights and privileges.

Regardless of what human frailties we may have, as members of the House of Commons or indeed as members of the Canadian community as a whole we surely must agree that we live in a country with great potential. We live in a country with great institutions, and we live in a country that presents all kinds of challenges and frustrations. The latter we must tackle, and while doing so we must display a reasonable amount of patience and perseverence.

[DOT]

A flag is a very important symbol to any nation, and by insulting the flag you are indeed insulting a nation and its people. If we, as Canadians, are able to treat that important symbol with the dignity and decorum that true Canadian citizenship has a right to demand from us, then it will make us look that much bigger in the eyes of other nationals. By doing so we are not in any way merely paying lip service to or worshipping a piece of cloth, as some agnostics might wish to have us believe; instead it should be interpreted as an act of respect and loyalty to our nation and to the people who occupy this nation.

I suppose all of us in this House of Commons had many occasions over the years to visit the Cenotaph on Remembrance Day, November 11. There we see the ceremony carried out with decorum and respect by those who fought to retain our nationhood, while at the same time we pay our due respects to those who made the supreme sacrifice on the battlefield to preserve it.

We are also well aware that the Canadian Armed Forces wherever they are around the world consider any ceremony dealing with flags, and with the Canadian flag in particular, as something that must be carried out to the nth degree of perfection along the lines that protocol demands. They have been responsible to a very large degree for portraying the Canadian image around the world, and the Canadian flag has become clearly indentifi-able in the international community.

I wish to thank this House for its patience and consideration during the course of my remarks and before I sit down I should like to ask unanimous consent of the House to remove the two parts of the bill that I have mentioned or, if not, I will give the House a commitment that if the

February 18, 1975

Criminal Code

bill receives formal second reading today I will see to it that those amendments are moved at the committee stage.

Agreed.

No.

Mr. Leonard C. Jones (Moncton):

Madam Speaker, I would certainly not agree that the items the hon. member has suggested be deleted. I think the manner in which his bill was framed was good, no matter what his constitutional experts or the Department of External Affairs may have told him.

There was an instance not too far from my own constituency in the summer of 1974, where an organization obtained moneys from the federal government and an incident took place when the Union Jack was desecrated and insulted. I think section 49.2 should remain, and I certainly would not consent to withdrawing it.

Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):

Madam

Speaker, it gives me pleasure to say a few words on this bill, and to congratulate in particular the hon. member who introduced it. Indeed it seems that if one considers what the Canadian flag represents one realizes immediately how important it is for Parliament to pass official legislation to protect it and particularly explain clearly to the people of this country what the flag truly represents.

Those who sat here a few years back during the very difficult debate which then certainly divided Canadians for a while must understand that step must now be taken to avoid another division of Canadians on the flag issue, a flag which now, quite on the contrary, unites Canadians from coast to coast. It seems important to me that the bill be enacted because I had myself opportunities to wish that it were so.

I come from the heart of Montreal, a part of our country which is particularly noisy and which is represented at the provincial level by a member who advocates breaking up Canada and who certainly managed to gain a few supporters. I already received representations from certain people in my riding asking to be protected because they wanted to fly the Canadian flag but felt threatened. I think it is absolute nonsense that a citizen of Canada-such a free country-should even feel threatened when he wants to fly the flag of his country, the national emblem. That is why I think the bill introduced by the hon. member is excellent, and I will support it.

I would also like to make the following remark: It seems to me that respect for law and order in a society such as ours can only be enhanced if there were respect for its symbol, probably the most important, at least the most known, in that society-its flag.

That is why I congratulate the hon. member and I will support his bill.

Madam Speaker, I thought the two parties of the opposition were going to speak on this bill. First of all, let me congratulate its mover. To my mind, deleting the words provincial flag and foreign flag is an excellent idea, because we would otherwise be intervening somewhat in someone else's responsi-

bility; what we are concerned with now is the national flag.

As the preceeding speaker said a while ago, we have had enough discussions about the national flag. When we voted, I was a member of the joint committee on the flag. I still remember the terrible discussions we had for months. Some will doubtless say that this bill is not necessary. I feel that if we limited ourselves to the spirit of Canadian citizenship, we would, at first glance, be inclined to say: Offhand, we would say this bill is not needed because those who do not respect the national emblem have no love for their country. Whether they have reason is another story.

The national emblem is in my view somewhat in the nature of a family picture, for instance. Children have a love for family emblems because they were brought up to respect authority, to love their parents. Laws will never be needed to prevent them from tramping on their parents' picture. This is something inherent that cannot be imposed by statute. But since we have in Canada different tendencies, I believe a bill to that effect is really needed, unfortunately, to prevent unseemly acts across the country.

If someone has reason not to love his country and to make it known by tearing up or destroying the national emblem, we are entitled to ask ourselves why they tend to do so. It is certainly because they were not impressed by the behaviour of parliamentarians and the authorities in the country, or probably because they were disappointed by the administration of justice or witnessed shortcomings. These are questions that come to my mind when I think of the bill.

I suggested it should be a natural thing to respect one's national emblem, to the extent that all citizens love their country. Who is going to induce them to do so? People in authority. If citizens see only gangsterism in the government, in the Cabinet, and in every parliamentary organization, how can they love their country?

I believe primary responsibility rests with parliamentarians. We, as members of parliament, should learn to show dignity, and especially in the course of these debates, knowing we are here to represent the people of Canada and we alone can make citizens love their country. They will love it to the extent they feel free and happy to live here.

I am not ready to put immediately the blame on the groups who are going to rebel against the flag or any other emblem of this country. Instead, I wonder if this action was not provoked by people who should set a good example. This is why respect for the flag should not be forced by legislation, but should come from the pride that the citizens have of their country, from the confidence that they have in their administrations and from the security that they can enjoy in their country.

I support this bill somewhat reluctantly since I would have liked that this Parliament promulgate more humane laws so that all Canadian citizens could be happy to live in Canada. In this way, Madam Speaker, we would be sure never to have to legislate to insure respect for the Canadian emblem.

Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):

Madam Speaker, although the hon. member who introduced this bill did not obtain unanimous consent for his amending proposal, he gave a certain undertaking. I think the House agrees with the bill in principle, and perhaps we could give it second reading and refer it to the appropriate committee without delay or further debate. As unanimous consent was not given for the hon. member's proposal, perhaps the committee might deal with it.

This matter deals with questions of propriety, and some may think that the federal parliament is not displaying good manners if it deals with the matter, as some provinces may be offended. I say this because of certain opinions which have been expressed in the past by the Department of External Affairs. I remember one occasion when the Department of External Affairs gave an opinion about the propriety of flying the flag of the Ukraine in front of City Hall. That opinion was not an opinion in the legal sense so much as an expression of belief. The department suggested it would be improper to fly the flag, and great difficulty resulted. Eventually the city decided not to heed that dubious advice of the Department of External Affairs and flew the flag of the Ukraine on Ukrainian national day.

Perhaps we ought to commend the hon. member for Moncton (Mr. Jones) for withholding unanimous consent. The hon. member who introduced the bill gave an undertaking; consequently, as I think there is general agreement, the subject matter of the bill should be sent to committee.

Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):

Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier) was surprised because representatives of the official opposition and of my party had not taken part in this debate. The reason has now been given by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker). We know that some genuine questions could be asked about this bill, but we think that the idea that we should make sure respect is shown for the emblem of this country is good, and we support it. Therefore, we think it would be a good idea to read the bill the second time and send it to the committee.

The hon. member who introduced the bill has indicated the changes he will make. He was not given consent for those changes to be made in the House, but this can be done in committee if the committee is so disposed. That was our reason for not participating in the debate, lest the bill get talked out. We are prepared to allow the bill to be read the second time and be sent to committee.

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):

Is the House ready for the question? Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?

Agreed.

Six o'clock.

Income Tax

The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Morin):

Before we call it six o'clock does the House agree to revert to committee of the whole for the consideration of Bill C-49?

Agreed.

Six o'clock.

The Assistant Deputy Chairman:

As the committee has agreed to call it six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.

At 5.30 p.m. the committee took recess.