Debates of Nov. 27th, 1996

Judges Act

[Alfonso Gagliano, Liberal, Minister of Labour and Deputy Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it has been impossible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Orders 78(1), 78(2) or 78(3) regarding the proceedings on amendments by the Senate to Bill C-42, an act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another act.

Pursuant to Standing Order 78(3), I give notice of my intention to propose a motion of time allocation at the next sitting of the House, for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days and hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage.

[John Williams, Reform, St. Albert, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Standing Order 78 calls for the introduction, if any, of a notice of time allocation to be given during the orders of the day. We are now in Private Members' Business because you have already called for Private Members' Business. Therefore, I think the time allocation notice is out of order.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The hon. member for St. Albert has raised a point of order with respect to the validity of the notice given by the Minister of Labour pursuant to Standing Order 78(3) of the Standing Orders of the House. I would point out to him that the wording of the standing order says:

A Minister of the Crown who from his or her place in the House, at a previous sitting, has stated that an agreement could not be reached-

There is no reference to the fact that the notice must be given during the time for Government Orders, although it is clear that the motion that is subsequently made based on the notice must be made during the time for the consideration of Government Orders. Accordingly, I believe the notice given by the Minister of Labour is valid.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, just for clarification, can the government House leader or a minister rise on a point of order to bring that in or does he have to rise during debate?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The minister did it on a point of order. It has been done in the past on a point of order, I am apprised, and from my own experience I can confirm that is the case. I am sure the hon. member, had he been here in the last Parliament, would have seen it done that way on numerous occasions.

I believe that the notice which was given by the Minister of Labour is in order, as I have indicated.

Parliament Of Canada Act

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

moved that Bill C-316, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, like all my colleagues in the House from whichever political party, I was honoured and proud to be elected to the Parliament of Canada on October 25, 1993.

On November 9, 1993 at my swearing in ceremony, I had the honour as a re-elected member of the Canadian Parliament to pledge allegiance to the Queen of Canada, as required by the Parliament of Canada Act. This meant more to me than simply swearing allegiance to the Queen as a person; it meant swearing allegiance to everything the monarchy represents, which includes the Canadian Constitution, Canadian citizens, all our Canadian institutions, laws and customs.

Having been re-elected to Parliament by the electors of the Carleton-Gloucester riding by a record 46,800 votes in my favour, about 35,000 votes more than my nearest challenger, I felt proud and honoured but above all I felt duty bound not only to my electors but to all my constituents and all Canadians no matter what their political beliefs. I felt duty bound to protect and serve all of them. For this reason I wanted to clarify our parliamentary oath by adding to the present oath of office to the Queen a pledge of allegiance to Canada and its Constitution.

Since I first introduced this bill in 1993, I have had many conversations with Canadians and have received many letters from my constituents and from Canadians from various regions of the country as well as from my colleagues applauding this initiative.

The point was well made when someone close to me once asked: "Are we the only country in the world where politicians do not swear allegiance to the country?"

A local radio station recently held an open line show commenting on my private member's bill.

A Canada-wide citizens association launched a campaign supporting my bill. I would like to read a letter which I received recently from the association:

Dear Mr. Bellemare:

I can assure you that Canada First and its more than 1,500 members support you wholeheartedly in your attempt to make MPs swear an oath of allegiance to the country and the Constitution as well as the Queen of England.

For your information, we are immediately launching a Canada-wide campaign to obtain support for your proposal. You can expect anywhere from upwards of a thousand letters of support over the next few weeks from our members.

Yours truly,

Lowell Green, President, Canada First.

I have also been interviewed by the media across Canada on the same subject. All of my colleagues in the Liberal Party are also supporting me in my initiative. It is with this support that I present it today.

Our allegiance to the Queen is in no way questioned in my private member's bill. She is the embodiment of our parliamentary system and part of our historical heritage.

There are those who think that the bill I am presenting is redundant, that the oath of allegiance to the Queen already implies an oath of allegiance to Canada and to Canadians, and that it would be pointless to add an oath of allegiance to Canada and to the Constitution.

I know from experience that things that are not spelled out are often interpreted differently by different people.

That is why I think it important to affirm what one believes when making an affirmation of loyalty, and in this case I proudly affirm my loyalty to Canada and to Canadians.

Canada is a country which is part of the Commonwealth and as a member country of the Commonwealth we are headed by the Queen. The existing oath made by members of Parliament is a swearing of allegiance to the Queen. However, the oath of allegiance pledged by all members of the House is almost identical to the oaths pledged in all the Commonwealth countries which may lead to confusion or discussion.

I would like to point out that we have all been elected by Canadians, by citizens of Canada, and I trust that we represent all Canadians, and not people living in other Commonwealth countries such a Australia, Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Pakistan or Nigeria.

As an elected representative, each member sitting in the House of Commons, including members of the opposition, represents not just those who voted for him or her, but also all the inhabitants of his or her riding, without exception and regardless of their political affiliation.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois, members of the official opposition, in accordance with the system of government established under the Canadian Constitution, say they represent Canadians living in Quebec. They even swore an oath of allegiance to the Queen when they were sworn in to the House of Commons. Why did they not want to support my bill the first time I tabled it, two years ago?

The official opposition has a duty to keep a careful eye on the government, on behalf of all Canadians, in order to ensure that the party in power does not take unfair advantage of that power, that the government fulfils its duties for the common good of all Canadians, as provided for in the Constitution.

The Constitution is what enables Bloc Quebecois members to present their views in the House of Commons, with all the freedom it gives them. It is a source of pride and a privilege to be able to take part in the creation of legislation, as we do in Parliament, under the Constitution. Bloc Quebecois members are, I trust, fully and sincerely involved in that process, I also trust that they respect the parliamentary system, the rights of the citizens of Canada, as well as their role as the official opposition on behalf of all of the people of Canada.

In all good conscience, do their votes on each bill, motion or amendment count for something? I wonder, are their votes in the House a deception? If not, let them admit that they respect the rules which allow them to express their opinions in this House, that is to say the rules set out in the Constitution.

If a member of Parliament takes an oath and considers it a mere formality, what credibility does that member, and the party he represents, have when performing his duties? Do Bloc Quebecois votes count for anything in the House of Commons?

If "a pledge to the Queen is a pledge to the collectivity, and that is still very important" as Lucien Bouchard noted in the Ottawa Citizen on September 24, 1993, then is Canada not that collectivity as embodied in our Constitution? If the present oath is an oath to the Canadian community, then let us say it outright.

The Constitution represents the rights, duties and freedoms of the people of this country. When we take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, we pledge allegiance to the British parliamentary system whose cornerstone is the Constitution. The Queen, the monarchy, represents all our democratic institutions.

I would like to point out that taking an oath of allegiance only to the Queen is rather ambiguous. To many people, she is a person who has very few connections with Canada.

In fact, every country in the Commonwealth has become independent. However, we must realize the Queen represents more than just herself. She represents institutions that guarantee respect for the fundamental rights of all Canadians. She personifies the rule of law under which we live.

This oath of allegiance is important for Canada as a nation. Members elected to the House of Commons must take this oath to affirm, loud and clear, their loyalty to the country and to the citizens they have a duty to represent.

The Constitution represents different things to different people. To a legal expert, it is the constitutional documents by which a nation is governed. To others, it is the ideology that presided over the creation of a country. To others again, it is a symbol of the rule of law, of fair and equitable government for all citizens.

In the spirit of the Constitution, it is entirely acceptable to want to criticize, change and improve it to make it reflect the new realities of life in Canada. But I hope we all agree that the Constitution is essential to the responsible governance of this country and that it is thanks to the Constitution that we are all here, on behalf of all Canadians, to promote their well-being in a free and democratic society.

The primary function of a Constitution is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens against possible abuse by their government. A country where there is no respect for the

Constitution is a country where citizens are exposed to severe abuse by their politicians.

A member of Parliament who would refuse to swear solemnly to respect and defend the constitutional laws which are the essence of our society would be a member we could not trust to defend his or her constituents against abuses of power and despotism.

If the official opposition takes its role seriously as the watchdog of the government, as it says it does, its members should therefore be the first to applaud and support this addition to the oath of allegiance.

This oath to Canada and the Constitution should be the first essential commitment taken by a member of Parliament on behalf of his constituents if democracy and the respect of human rights are indeed valuable to this person.

That some may not agree with all the clauses of the Constitution is perhaps understandable. However, it would be immoral and reprehensible if politicians refused to uphold the constitutional clauses that protect the fundamental rights and liberties of Canadian citizens.

If human rights and democracy have evolved and progressed through history, it is in great part due to the fact that we have realized our leaders need to be reined in by the rules of law as specified in the Constitution in order to hinder any abuses of power they may feel the urge to commit.

The most developed countries, with the highest quality of life, are those whose constitutional rules are taken seriously and really respected by those in government so as to protect those most vulnerable and to ensure that those in power govern for the good of the people.

Simple laws may be amended. Here and elsewhere the Constitution is amended, but one thing must remain sacrosanct: the primacy of the constitutional rules protecting the fundamental rights of our society.

Of course the matter of the distribution of powers among various governments is important. However, politicians' quarrels must not overshadow the matter of priority-our commitment to the people and the protection of their fundamental rights.

One thing is clear: in the history of the most democratic countries, one factor vital to their progress was respect for the constitutional rules ensuring everyone equal representation and fair government. These rules enable dissenters to speak out freely in our society and Canadians to express their approval or disapproval of government action.

Canada differs from the other members of the Commonwealth. The oath, which I changed and which I made with respect to my constituents, indicates clearly that I represent Canadians and not the people of the Commonwealth as a whole.

The change to the oath of allegiance is part of a series of other measures Canada has taken since the second world war as an expression of its national identity and its maturity.

Unfortunately, the bill I put before the House today is not a votable item. Therefore my colleagues will not have an opportunity to decide on this expression of attachment to our country and our Constitution.

I would hope that each of my colleagues sitting in the House today would like a chance to go on record and officially tell their constituents that they are not only proud to represent them but they would swear in the House of Commons to uphold their rights and defend their liberties.

[Paul Zed, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on Bill C-316 today. I congratulate the member for Carleton-Gloucester for his determination and his conviction in bringing this matter forward. Members will recall that this is the second time he has brought this issue to our attention.

In the first session of this Parliament he brought us Bill C-201. That bill was considered by this House and several members spoke in favour of it but ultimately it did not proceed.

The member, who obviously believes passionately in his idea, was not deterred and rather than abandon this project he has steadfastly introduced this bill again in this new session. When his name was drawn he proceeded anew.

This member is neither the first to recognize the importance of oaths and affirmations nor is he alone in proposing changes with respect to oaths in use in Canada today.

In the previous Parliament the member for Hamilton West, today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, proposed a bill with similar objectives. The member for Parkdale-High Park spoke eloquently in favour of that bill. Recently our colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, sponsored Bill C-223 which, like the bill before us today, proposed amendments to an oath, namely the one found in the Citizenship Act to provide for an oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance to Canada and the Constitution.

What is it that these members are trying to capture in their bills? Obviously something is happening, a desire I would suggest to express patriotism and pride in a place that we can all share.

I have no polls or focus groups results to back me up but I suspect that these bills reflect the strong beliefs of a great many of our constituents. Those beliefs are overwhelmingly positive. They speak of the quality of life Canadians enjoy, the rights and freedoms they exercise. They speak also of nation building and the future we possess collectively.

Despite its positive tone and motivation some members may be reluctant to share in the enthusiasm that the member for Carleton-Gloucester has in this bill.

The technicians among them may argue that this bill is flawed. Others may claim that it is redundant because the Constitution already requires that a member take an oath before taking his or her seat in the House and ask what is the point of two oaths.

I would respectively suggest that is not what today's debate is about. Rather, this debate invites all of us to speak with greater clarity on our roles and responsibilities in this place and our commitment to a Parliament and a country which can welcome debate on the wide range of views which membership of this House represents.

I have no problem with the principles expressed in the member's bill. I congratulate him for bringing this matter forward. It rekindles the pride I have in the work we do here, our Parliament and this country. I think it does us all good to pause and reflect on our reasons for being here and the solemn oath and affirmation we each made before being seated in our places.

For this I thank and salute the member. I know he was disappointed when his bill was not made votable but as a fellow member I want to offer him some congratulations and encouragement. The desire and pride which this bill expresses will continue to grow. It is one of Canada's and Canadian's greatest strengths. Members and Canadians from all walks of life are shedding their traditional reluctance to acknowledge their patriotism and commitment to Canada. Today's debate is but one step in that process and I invite the hon. member to carry on. He is among good company. Congratulations.

[François Langlois, Bloc, Bellechasse, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to Bill C-316 presented by the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.

Like my colleague from Fundy-Royal, I would like to congratulate the member for Carleton-Gloucester for the energy with which he has defended the principles underlying Bill C-316, the purpose of which is to have members of the House of Commons or the Senate swear an additional oath before occupying their seats.

It cannot be said that the member is not persistent, because he presented Bill C-201 during the first session of the 35th Parliament, at which time I expressed the official opposition's point of view, although in the case of private members' business we are more likely to express our own personal views.

Shortly after the October 25, 1970 election, I swore the following oath in the presence of Robert Marleau, the House clerk: "I, François Langlois, do swear, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II".

This oath takes four seconds to pronounce. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester has taken 20 minutes to explain what his oath means. I do not need additional explanations regarding the oath I swore other than to do my work as a parliamentarian as conscientiously as possible, to carry out my duties in the House, in committee and as a representative throughout Canada to the best of my abilities and, when the time comes, to be accountable to those who elected me in Bellechasse. I do not need to swear an oath other than to the established authority.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to turn to you as a constitutional expert. You are well aware that in a monarchist system such as the one we know, which is probably held in high esteem by many in the House, the government is embodied in the person of the monarch, not in other institutions, but in the monarch, who is, of course, much more a symbol than a daily reality. It has been at least 200 years since we saw a monarch exercise any real power, the right of veto in particular. But we do have a symbol.

Like the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who last week wanted to replace the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty with a different kind of oath to be taken by new Canadian citizens, that is immigrants to this country, what the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester is proposing today is basically to push the monarchy slowly, little by little, ever so quietly, out the back door, so as not to generate any debate.

My position as a Quebecer is clear. In a sovereign Quebec, the matter of the monarchy will be settled very quickly. We have always said that we wanted a republican state in which the president would be selected in the manner we deemed most appropriate. Some might prefer election by universal suffrage, while others might favour election by the members of the National Assembly, or by an electoral college. That will be something to be debated. We have taken a position on this.

If I were in English Canada, however, I would be worried. It would worry me that, by gradually doing away with the symbols, the question of the institution of the monarchy in Canada is being challenged. I would invite the monarchist leagues, the loyalist

leagues, to be on their guard, to write to the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, and to other members from English Canada in this House, to make their views known.

If there is to be a debate on the monarchy in Canada, it is not going to be settled through minor bills here and there. Instead, it needs to be settled by an open debate, by a referendum in English Canada.

You know as well as I do that the Constitution of 1982 requires the consent of each and every province of Canada to change the status of the monarchy in this country. Some of the people listening to us still believe in the monarchy, in Queen Elizabeth II, who is doing an exceptional job of keeping the monarchy afloat, and I think everyone can see that for themselves.

I think it is rather misplaced to challenge the status of the monarchy through the back door, so to speak, at a time when Her Majesty is doing her best to maintain this tradition in what remains of the empire and in the very heart of the empire.

The loyal subjects of this Dominion should be concerned about these rather sneaky attacks against the institution. I hope people in English Canada will wake up to this fact. If they do not, it may be an indication that people want to change Canada's constitutional status, especially that of English Canada, from a monarchy to a republic. If that is what people want, let them write to their member of Parliament. Otherwise, if nothing is done about it, bills like these will be passed.

As long as Canada is what it is today, these bills do not mean a thing. To adopt the principle of the bill would mean that the oath we all took here in this House, the oath I recited earlier and which was taken by everyone who ever sat in this House since 1791, since the Constitution Act was passed-the oath is the same; only the name of the sovereign has changed over the years-no longer has any value.

So if this oath had no value for those who were here in the past, why should it have any for those members who are here today? Why bother to add another one? Does the hon. member who moved this motion not believe in the value of the oath which he took?

As far as we are concerned, we have an additional argument. On the face of it, this bill constitutes an addition which is not compatible with the Constitution of Canada, in that section 128 of the Constitutional Act, 1867 , the British North America Act, already provides for the oath to be taken by members of the House of Commons, the Senate or a provincial legislative assembly, and it is the one I recited earlier.

If we want to change section 128 in order to add another oath, what we need is not an ordinary bill but a constitutional resolution. The hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, who knows this Parliament, should have known that he had to introduce a constitutional resolution in order to change the oath.

He knew, though, that in so doing he would reopen the fundamental debate facing English Canada. Does English Canada still want a monarchy for its Canada? The debate will not be resolved by a private member's bill. It is a national debate for English Canada that extends from the Atlantic to the borders of Ontario and from Ontario to the west and north of Canada, because, in Quebec, I think the question is already resolved.

Except that, obviously, the monarchy is not mentioned in any of our policies, because our aim is not to criticize Canada's head of state, but simply to carry out our plan to create what this country lacks. And what this country lacks is another country, which is our country of Quebec, a sovereign republic of Quebec.

Therefore, I cannot support the motion and the bill of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask two questions. First of all, I would like the consent of the House to ask questions or to comment on the speech by the member for Bellechasse.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is there unanimous consent in the House for the hon. member to ask questions?

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

No. The hon. member may have a chance to make comments at the conclusion of the debate if there is time left in the hour. I would remind him of that fact which may be helpful to him.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in rising today to speak on Bill C-316, I would like to make mention that when the parliamentary secretary on the government side rose he congratulated the member for bringing the issue forward for a second time. I guess that really means that Reform can take that as a major compliment, because it has been Reform policy since 1987 that this oath needed to be changed.

In fact if I read from the blue sheet it says: "The Reform Party supports amending the MP's oath of office, such that they swear or affirm allegiance to their Queen, their constituents and to Canada". We have long had that in our policy position.

The difference between the Liberals and Reform is that we would make it happen. It is part of our policy. The Liberals have the

power to pass the bill brought forward by this member. They have the power, but for some reason they have chosen not to do it.

The first thing I would like to do is ask for unanimous consent of the House to make the bill votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House that the bill proposed by the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester be made a votable item?

[An hon. member]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

I hear a no. There is not unanimous consent.

[Ted White, Reform, North Vancouver, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it was worth one more try. I have tried this on all of the non-votable private members' bills, but democracy did not prevail.

As I mentioned, this is an interesting bill from the Reform perspective because it has been the Reform position for at least eight years that this needed to be done. However, the Reform position was not driven by the presence of a separatist party in the House. It was driven by the recognition that MPs, in swearing only their allegiance to the Queen, were placed in the position of ignoring any allegiance to their constituents. They are forced to ignore any allegiance to the people of Canada, the people who pay their salaries. And in the case of Liberal MPs, the people who pay their gold plated, extreme pension plans.

I noticed that the Deputy Prime Minister did not even flinch in her seat, so I can tell that she is not the least bit embarrassed about those pension plans but most Canadians are quite outraged about them.

As I said, Reformers have long wanted to see MPs swearing allegiance to their constituents so they focus exactly where their allegiance should be.

I want to mention that the Reform caucus shortly after becoming elected in 1993, most of us and perhaps all of us, took a separate oath of allegiance in our constituencies. In my riding office in North Vancouver on January 7, 1994 I took an oath of allegiance to my constituents. I would like to read the preamble as well as the oath because it relates directly to the topic we are discussing.

A copy of this oath of allegiance to my constituents is hanging on the wall of my office. This is a statement of principles and a pledge of commitment by me as the Reform Party member to my constituents.

I, Ted White, having been elected by the voters of the Federal Constituency of North Vancouver to represent you in the 35th Parliament of Canada, do hereby sincerely pledge that I am committed to the following principles as I carry out my duties on your behalf:

I am committed to the development of a new and stronger united Canada: a balanced democratic federation of provinces, distinguished by the acceptance of our social responsibilities, and the recognition of the equality and uniqueness of all our provinces and citizens.

I am committed to equality for all Canadians, regardless of race, language, culture, religion or gender; and will give true and faithful representation to all my constituents.

I am committed to being your democratic and fiscal conscience in the 35th Parliament and I am prepared to demonstrate this commitment by showing leadership by example.

I believe you have sent me to the House of Commons to present your views in that forum, not to represent Ottawa's views to you. I believe that the House of Commons must be the house of the people, not the house of the parties. The word "politician" must mean a representative of the people, not a servant of the party. To that end, I shall not only encourage you to communicate with me, but I am committed to consulting your views at every opportunity, and shall make myself available to you regularly, within our constituency. I need your advice and guidance.

I believe that when decisions are to be made on contentious issues of major or national importance, it is my duty to seek the consensus view of my constituents, and to represent that consensus in Parliament, even if it conflicts with my own personal view.

I believe you have placed me in a position of great trust. I shall therefore conduct my personal and public life with honour and integrity-

I further pledge that I shall honour, to the utmost of my ability, all of the commitments made in this statement.

It finishes with the final part of the pledge:

I, Ted White, your member of Parliament, do pledge, that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to the Canadian federation and to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, and that I will faithfully represent the people of the Electoral District of North Vancouver in the Canadian House of Commons.

It is dated in North Vancouver on January 7, 1994.

Members can tell from this that Reform has long had a commitment to have the oath changed to really represent the way we feel about Parliament and what we should be doing here as MPs.

Members can also tell from that oath that, unlike the Liberals and the old line parties, I do not believe this desk and this chair belong to my party. They belong to my constituents. They do not belong to me. This seat and this desk belong to my constituents and I am pledged to represent them from this position.

When the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester introduced the bill, he mentioned that he respects the views of people of all political beliefs, and yet in this House he has made mean-spirited attacks on Reformers on regular occasions. In fact, the whole thrust of his bill seems to be couched in the form of an attack on another group of representatives in this Parliament. It is true that most of us do not agree with the position that group is espousing. However, the reason for bringing forward this change to the oath should not be based on attacking another group for its beliefs, it should be

based on the feeling that there is a real need to change the oath for good reasons.

However, as I said earlier, the general thrust of the bill is good. It is exactly in line with what Reformers have wanted to do, even if our reasons for wanting to do so are somewhat different.

I would like to mention once again the section from the blue sheet, just to remind members that this has long been Reform policy. It was put in our material in 1987. I am sure the member has never taken the time to read the blue sheet. If he had he would have found a whole slew of policies that he would be very pleased with.

This particular policy reads:

The Reform Party supports amending the M.P.s' oath of office such that they swear or affirm allegiance to their Queen, their constituents and to Canada.

We are obviously going to be supportive of Bill C-316. I am very sorry that there was not unanimous consent to make it votable. Despite other differences between us as members, I sincerely support the member's right to have a votable bill and I am truly sorry that did not happen.

In conclusion, Reform is supportive of this bill and would have voted in favour of it had it been a votable.

[Brenda Chamberlain, Liberal, Guelph—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester for introducing Bill C-316, for his love of Canada and for his love of Parliament. He has spent a lot of years here.

While not votable, I believe that this legislation allows us to debate an important issue for us as parliamentarians and for all Canadians.

The bill proposes to amend the oath for members of Parliament. It changes the wording so that we as members of the House of Commons would swear or affirm that we will be loyal to Canada, rather than to the Queen. Given that a number of members of Parliament want to break up Canada, this is an important distinction.

Regional interests have always been represented in this House and in the British House of Commons. In fact, Welsh, Scottish and Irish separatists have sat and continue to sit in the House of Commons in Great Britain. Unlike Canada, they do not have the numbers to make up the official opposition.

A great number of my constituents, and I am sure the constituents of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are troubled by the presence of the Bloc Quebecois in this Parliament. While recognizing that Bloc members were freely elected, the fact that they sit in the national Parliament to represent regional issues is difficult to accept.

The Bloc members argue that they are here to represent the many Quebecers who support the break-up of Canada; that is of course when they wish to discuss separation. Many seem to be unsure of whether they want their own country, a partnership or some sort of association with Canada. None seems to be able to convince anyone outside of their own caucus of how this would benefit Quebec and Canada.

However, despite the fact that on two separate occasions Quebecers have rejected the idea of whatever it is the separatists are trying to sell, they remain in this House.

Members of the Bloc are Canadians. They benefit from Canada like everyone else in this House. They are supported by the Canadian government. They were elected by Canadians to serve Canadians and they are paid through the taxes remitted by Canadians. Each and every one of them is allowed to sit in Parliament because they have affirmed their loyalty to the Queen.

Bill C-316 makes an important distinction. Certainly there are a number of Canadians who feel a strong attachment to Queen Elizabeth II. For example, Guelph is know as the royal city because Guelph was the name of the royal family at the time of our founding in 1827. I see you are surprised by that, Mr. Speaker. Like most municipalities, our coat of arms includes the crown.

Some may find discomfort with the change in the oath of affirmation. I understand and appreciate that. They do not want us to ignore Canadian traditions. However, elected officials' affirming their loyalty to Canada also acknowledges the traditions that make us unique and that have helped to make us the greatest nation on this earth.

The current oath used by members of Parliament is similar to that used in Great Britain. In Great Britain members say: "I", and give their name, "do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and be true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".

It is interesting that refusing to state this oath prohibits members of the House of Commons from voting and taking part in debate. When a member breaks the rule he or she is subject to a fine of 500 pounds and their seat is declared vacant. Members cannot draw a parliamentary salary or expenses unless he or she has taken the oath of affirmation.

In the United States, article 6 of the constitution states that senators and representatives shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution. Their oath, sworn in public in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, states: "I do solemnly swear and affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this

obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office in which I am about to enter, so help me God". This oath is said in public together before each new Congress.

There are some who believe that changing the oath or solemn affirmation will mean that the separatists will disappear from this Chamber. This is probably not true. As I have said earlier, nationalist separatists sit in the British House of Commons. Members of the Bloc Quebecois claim they can affirm loyalty to the Queen, head of state of Canada, while they attempt to destroy this country. Unfortunately, swearing an oath of allegiance to our country will probably not change that position.

Does this bill deal with mere symbolism? In a press release issued following the introduction of the bill, the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester said: "If this bill were to pass I acknowledge that it would create a certain dilemma for people who want to be elected to destroy or separate our country. However, I think that an oath of allegiance to our country will strengthen the sentiment of pride which the majority of members feel when they arrive in the House of Commons".

The member also spoke about the loyalty that we as members of Parliament must carry out to the country and the tradition of tolerance and compromise.

The presence of separatists in the House of Commons is perhaps the greatest example of our tolerance and understanding as a nation. We are fortunate to have in this Parliament representatives from a variety of ethnic groups, women, unilingual francophones, unilingual anglophones and a number of members who were born outside Canada. We bring together a variety of tradition, history and culture.

Each of us in our very own way contributes through our talents, our experiences and our hopes for a better Canada to serve our constituents in a national forum. We are here because we want to help address problems and make the future better for our children and our grandchildren. Perhaps the fact that the separatists are here and are in such a prominent position really shows how great our country really is.

We are so tolerant and we are so democratic that we allow a party which is determined to break up the country to sit in this House of Commons as the official opposition. We are here to solve problems, not to create them.

I remain hopeful that Canada will remain strong and united. Perhaps pondering our roles as elected representatives, pausing to affirm our loyalty to Canada, will remind us that Canada has served us well. We owe it to our history and to our future to work to better this great country.

I doubt this bill will mean that the separatists will leave. I doubt it will mean that their narrow and negative vision of our country will change. However, I do think that any reminder that we are here to serve Canada should be supported, and I congratulate my colleague and my friend for bringing forth this piece of legislation.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

Resuming debate. If the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester speaks now he will close the debate.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Carleton—Gloucester, ON]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to see a vote on this bill. If Bloc members are really convinced that my bill should not be passed, they should have the courage to rise in the House and vote before the public, before the voters, to indicate how they want to deal with this bill. They should tell their constituents that they do not stand behind the fact that a member should protect the rights and freedoms of his constituents.

The hon. member for Bellechasse told us that he took an oath of allegiance to the Queen, not to Canada or the Constitution. He went on to say that the case of the monarchy will be settled according to the position of the sovereignists. The hon. member for Bellechasse said a lot when he said that I rose in the House to challenge the monarchy through the back door. I am sure the hon. member for Bellechasse was not listening to my speech.

I would like to send him a copy of my speech so he will realize I said that in addition to the oath of allegiance to the Queen we also took an oath of allegiance to our constituents regarding their rights and freedoms.

I want to ask the hon. member for Bellechasse and the other members of the Bloc Quebecois whether they are going against what was said by their own leader, Lucien Bouchard. When asked whether he took an oath of allegiance to the Queen as a person,Mr. Bouchard answered that he took an oath of allegiance to the community. What community was he talking about, since he had been elected to the Parliament of Canada, not to the Parliament of Quebec where he is now?

The hon. member for Bellechasse noted that my bill would require an amendment to the Constitution. I have great respect for his legal background, but I may point out that we are talking about an act of Parliament, not about the Constitution.

I wonder whether he would take an oath that he would defend the rights and freedoms of his constituents. That is the basis for my bill. He said that someday Quebec will be sovereign, which I very much doubt. I am convinced that Quebec will never separate from Canada.

During the last referendum, his colleagues in the Parti Quebecois as well as sovereignists and separatists in Quebec mentioned keeping the Canadian passport and the Canadian dollar. If they want to keep the Canadian passport, why do they not want to pledge

allegiance to Canada? What does the Canadian passport mean? They want to keep the Canadian dollar. Do they want to keep it so they can have the portrait of the Queen on their bills or the faces of various Conservative or Liberal Prime Ministers? I wonder.

And what an ambiguous question they asked in the October 1995 referendum. Quebecers did not realize it really meant they wanted to separate from Canada. That is the whole point today, and that is why the Bloc Quebecois obstructed my bill.

In conclusion, I would like to say to the member for Bellechasse and to all his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that when members of the Quebec National Assembly are elected, they swear an oath to the Constitution and to Quebec, to the Constitution of Quebec, and to Quebecers.

We are here in the Parliament of Canada, where all members, regardless of their political affiliation, may offer criticism whenever they wish in order to improve the lot of all Canadians and to improve the Constitution and our laws.

Why, when they are elected in Quebec, do they swear an oath to the Province of Quebec and to the citizens of the Province of Quebec, but when they are elected to the Parliament of Canada in Ottawa, they refuse to swear an oath to the Constitution and to Canada? That is the question, and it is still the key point in my bill.

My bill requires that a member respect his constituents, regardless of their political affiliation, their race, their language or their religious beliefs. We are here to protect the rights and freedoms of those who elected us.

If a member refuses to do that, what does that suggest about him as an MP? It suggests that he does not wish to respect the two principles I have mentioned, and I accuse Bloc Quebecois members of betraying their own constituents.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The hour provided for consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the item is dropped from the Order Paper.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

[Osvaldo Nunez, Bloc, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on October 8, I asked a question of the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration concerning the imposition of a visa requirement for Portuguese visitors to Canada.

Portugal is the only country in the European Union for which such a thing is required, and this is profoundly unfair and discriminatory. This country is, moreover, an ally and a friend, as well as a fellow member of NATO. The population of Portuguese origin living here numbers close to half a million, which makes it one of the largest ethnic communities in Canada and in Quebec.

This measure, which the immigration minister of the day described as temporary, was taken by the Mulroney government in 1986, as the result of certain immigration irregularities involving Portugal. The Liberals, who were then in opposition, were vehemently opposed to this decision. At that time, the hon. member for York West, who was the Liberal critic in this area, denounced this measure by saying: "That action would be unwarranted and unfair and I have asked the minister to abandon the proposal and to avoid needlessly penalizing the Canadian Portuguese community, and a European friend and ally".

This unjustified requirement generates enormous problems for family members wishing to visit relatives here.

I have asked a number of questions of the minister and her predecessor. I have prepared press releases, so far to no avail. The Bloc Quebecois supports this campaign.

I am therefore again condemning this measure, because visa applicants are being subjected to unacceptable interrogation and red tape at the Canadian embassy in Portugal. They are also being required to pay a fee which keeps going up. Sometimes, as well, they have to cope with either refusals or intolerable delays. While this is going on, the event they were invited to, such as a marriage or a baptism, has often come and gone.

In her response to my question in the House on October 8, the minister said she was, and I quote: "quite prepared to reopen discussions with the Portuguese authorities on this question". The next day, she met José Lello, the secretary of state for Portuguese communities abroad, during his visit to Ottawa. Why did the minister not take advantage of this excellent opportunity to put an end to this discriminatory and totally unjustified requirement?

I can understand the Portuguese community's anger and annoyance at the attitude of the Canadian government. Canadians and Quebecers of Portuguese origin make a significant contribution to our society. They are exceptionally hard workers. I know the

community well, especially in Montreal and the Outaouais. I know that all members of the community want to see the end of the visa.

Various Portuguese-Canadian organizations are circulating a petition in Canada on this issue. It will be tabled in the House shortly. Those signing it state that the visa hinders the development of bilateral relations in the areas of culture, education, job training and trade. Furthermore, it prevents Portuguese citizens from regularly visiting their relatives for various family events when their presence is required.

I would like to conclude by again requesting the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration to immediately remove the visa requirement for Portuguese visitors. Canada must implement a policy of reciprocity with Portugal, which does not require a visa from Canadians.

I take this opportunity to salute my many friends in the Portuguese community in Canada and Quebec.

[Maria Minna, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Citizenship and Immigration]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit I am unclear as to why the hon. member for Bourassa has asked that this particular response be clarified. The Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was straightforward and unambiguous in her original answer. I am puzzled that he did not understand the answer the first time around. Nevertheless, let me try to explain this issue in simple terms yet again.

Canada values its warm relations with Portugal. Our two countries have had a tradition of strong economic and cultural links. I know that both countries are anxious that this friendship continue. The hon. member has asked why we impose a visitor visa on Portugal. He has implied that there is something arbitrary in our decision. Let me assure him that it is simply not the case.

Citizenship and Immigration Canada has a responsibility to protect the integrity of our borders and our immigration program. It is a job that the department takes very seriously. Last year, 39 million visitors came to this country. This movement of people presents this country with both opportunities and challenges. Visitor visa requirements are an important tool which allow us to manage this flow of people effectively and efficiently.

The decision to impose or remove a visitor visa is not an arbitrary decision, far from it. Such a decision is taken only after thoughtful consideration of all alternative measures. The benefits of removing the visa requirement must be weighed against the potential for abuse.

When we look at removing a visitor visa requirement, we have to take many different factors into consideration. Does the country that the person is coming from have effective passport controls? Is there potential for forgery and abuse? Are there a large percentage of visitor visas refused each year? If so, why is that?

CIC officials conduct an ongoing review of countries affected by visitor visa requirements. Departmental staff keep a vigilant eye on the changing international landscape in order to develop policies which are fair and effective.

I can assure the hon. member that the visitor visa requirement on Portugal has no negative impact on regular immigration from that country. I would like to point out that the department has a one-day processing service in Lisbon.

As the minister said, she would be more than willing to look into this issue in the future if it becomes necessary.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Milliken)]

The motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, it being7.21 p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 10 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 7.21 p.m.)