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.