Part of the experience of the Olympics is witnessing cultural events of the host country; indeed the Games can be a significant venue for the expression of culture and nationalistic pride. In a rather unexpected way, the Nagano Winter Olympics created a debate on Canadian culture and politics here at home.

When Bloc Québécois MP Suzanne Tremblay returned home after visiting Nagano, she had a question for Heritage Minister Sheila Copps. Tremblay rose in the House of Commons on February 26, 1998, to ask her question. In so doing she was exercising her Parliamentary right and fulfilling her function of “seeking information from the Government and calling the Government to account for its actions . . .” She was intending to ask about copyright laws, but it was assumed, because she had previously expressed, outside the House, her displeasure at the number of Canadian flags displayed by the Canadian contingent at the Olympics, that her question would be about that issue. When she was recognized by the Speaker, an eruption occurred. MPs from other parties waved Canadian flags of various sizes and even drowned her out by singing O Canada. As a result, events were set in motion that occupied almost three weeks of public discussion and volumes of media space.

The resulting controversy revealed an important aspect of the role of “Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition” and the problematic nature of nationalism. In his book The House of Commons at Work, former Speaker of the House John Fraser characterizes questions to the Government as aiming “. . . to attack the Government . . . with the opposition on one side striving to set traps for the Ministers and the Ministers doing their best to spot and avoid the traps.”

Tremblay, however, did not get to set any trap, since, according to a Reform strategist quoted in The Toronto Star on February 27, 1998, “Reform MPs handed out Maple Leaf pins last week and planned the theatrics in anticipation of Tremblay’s first question when she returned from Nagano.” Liberal MPs were also involved, according to the same article, and pulled out small plastic Canadian flags that had also been distributed in advance.

The symbolic staking out of territory in the House of Commons with miniature flags, and the distraction and muzzling of a recognized speaker who legitimately has the floor, raised questions regarding parliamentary rules, regulations, and procedures as well as questions about the use or misuse of symbols like the Canadian flag.

What is the Canadian flag and what does it symbolize? What is a legitimate display of our flag, or any flag for that matter? What are national symbols and how do they function in terms of the public psyche? What are reasonable limits to nationalism or patriotism? Was this incident political manipulation and therefore a sign of disrespect to the flag and the values it represents or was it a legitimate expression of political opposition to the separatist agenda? To some observers, both sides in the debate might claim their freedom of expression was being denied. Both also might be accused of excessive nationalism.

Speaker of the House of Commons Gilbert Parent had the unenviable task of defusing the situation and ruling on a point of order that the use of the flag and the national anthem stopped the working process in the House. The Speaker’s role in the incident (a key role in the functioning of our parliamentary system) came under fire from all sides as the debate raged, on and off the floor. He eventually ruled that, because no Speaker has the authority to change the rules of the House, flags could not be displayed on MPs’ desks. The flag, however, still has its place behind the Speaker’s chair. Following Parent’s ruling, Reform put forward the motion to change the practice. The motion was debated and defeated.
Although the incident and the rhetoric that followed may seem relatively minor, it did create a conceptual debate about what is acceptable “Canadian” behaviour, about the use or misuse of national symbols in the strict code of parliamentary procedure, and about the nature of nationalism itself.