House of Commons Hansard #89 of the 36th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was flag.

Topics

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

All those opposed will please say nay.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

In my opinion the nays have it.

And more than five members have risen:

Proceeds Of Crime (Money Laundering) ActGovernment Orders

4:20 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Mr. McClelland)

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Division No. 1279Government Orders

5:10 p.m.

The Speaker

I declare the motion lost.

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. for Bras d'Or—Cape Breton, Human Resources Development; the hon. member for Halifax West, National Defence; the hon. member for Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup—Témiscouata—Les Basques, Human Resources Development.

Division No. 1279Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

Egmont P.E.I.

Liberal

Joe McGuire LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food

Madam Speaker, I move:

That Motion No. 2 be amended by deleting all of the words after the words “19.1 If an officer decides,” with the following:

“to exercise powers under subsection 18(1), the officer shall record in writing reasons for the decision”.

I also move:

That Motion No. 3 be amended by deleting the following words:

“, on grounds that the officer believes to be reasonable,”

Division No. 1279Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The amendments are in order.

Division No. 1279Government Orders

5:15 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate. I thank again and recognize the efforts of the hon. member for Charlesbourg who moved Motions Nos. 2 to 7. These motions highlight a concern which I think we all have. Certainly we in the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada share the concerns with respect to this new agency passing on unrelated information that it might have about Revenue Canada.

For example, if the agency had reasonable grounds to pursue an individual case of money laundering, that much is fine, but money laundering has become a very serious issue and one that should be considered a threat to national security.

Globally experts estimate that between $300 billion and $500 billion in United States currency is criminally derived from international capital markets or funds that are derived from outside our borders. In Canada the federal government estimates that between $5 billion and $17 billion in criminal proceeds are laundered in this country each year. If this new agency does not have enough power and enough evidence to pursue the case of money laundering, it could determine that there is not enough evidence to get the person on tax evasion and could conceivably release information to Revenue Canada. It is crucial that we ensure on behalf of Canadian taxpayers that this new agency is not swallowed up by the Godzilla tax collector out there, also known as the department of revenue.

What we saw happen in the House just a short time ago epitomizes how the government is flying by the seat of its pants. We saw a member on the government side try to amend an amendment. What was intended was to amend the act itself, which the Chair quite properly ruled out of order. The member rose and we had to delay the debate because of the fact that the government did not know what it was doing.

This shows there is no plan. The Liberals have lost the plot again with respect to a very important piece of legislation on which they should have taken the time to do their homework and prepare what they wanted to do instead of simply trying to hoodwink everybody that was in the House.

The Progressive Conservative Party supports the broad principles of the bill before us on debate. It is one of the most important efforts that we can all make with respect to law enforcement, with respect to the integrity of our country and with respect to the efforts of our law enforcement agencies to curtail and control a growing money laundering problem and criminal activity within our borders. The Conservative Party supports the broad principles.

When members of the RCMP call this legislation long overdue and say that it will make a significant difference, we have to take them at their word. The Canadian Bankers Association has spoken very favourably about the legislation. It similarly says that the legislation is long overdue and that organized crime will be much deterred by it.

International money capital markets annually are very much affected. We know that the bill is aimed at addressing fiscal problems that occur when money is funnelled through legitimate organizations like banks. We know as well that the amendments which have been introduced very much ameliorate and prop up some of the intended passages.

We feel the legislation will be an improvement upon the current situation in the country, but we have to hearken back to where some of the real problems lie. Where do the real problems stem from in terms of the ability of our law enforcement agencies to somehow control the situation?

We see a bill that is aimed at tightening up some of the legislative framework, but what we really need to do to improve the situation is to prop up the RCMP and CSIS by giving these law enforcement agencies the backup and resources they need to combat a very sophisticated organized crime syndicate in this country.

We know the government has a reputation for being laid back and very non-supportive of our law enforcement agencies when it comes to their ongoing uphill battle with existing crime syndicates, not only motorcycle gangs but the increasing presence of Asian gangs, Russian gangs and the traditional Mafia within Canada.

Compared to countries like the United States we pale in comparison in terms of the support that we give law enforcement agencies. The other message that should be coming out in this debate is that it is not enough simply to put a legislative framework in place. We have to pony up to the bar and put dollars on the table so that the men and women who are very much dedicated to our law enforcement services are not only seen to be given support but are given actual support. We need to do this right away.

The Progressive Party of Canada has always been very much supportive of agencies in the country that are tasked with this very important task. They are the thin blue line between the Canadian public and those who choose a life of crime.

The bill is one of which our party is supportive. The amendments as well are supported by our party. The reaction from the community, from the banking community and from agencies across the land, seems to be one that has embraced the intention of the bill. One would hope that there will be rapid passage of the legislation when it reaches the committee and when it comes back to the House.

Money laundering is but one part of the equation when it comes to organized crime. We know that drug enforcement has been a huge problem from our law enforcement perspective. We know that guns and other contraband material are coming across our undefended borders.

We know as well that child pornography and people smuggling are very much a problem. We do not have impenetrable borders, and that will never happen. The dismantling of the ports police which the government orchestrated by having weak border patrols was highlighted recently by the fact that we had an international terrorist cross into Seattle from Canada. This alarmed American law enforcement officials. They have called upon Canada to tighten up, to try to pick up the slack, because they are feeling very vulnerable as a result of Canada letting down the side.

All the indicators are there. All the signs are speaking out to Canada to do something about it. The legislation at least indicates that we are moving in the right direction, but sadly as we have come to expect from the government it is a baby step as opposed to a giant step or even a significant step in doing the right thing by propping up the men and women who are tasked with protecting the country's integrity, not only with respect to illegal funds but with respect to the whole gamut of illegal activity that is taking place.

We know that gangs are very much rearing their ugly heads not only in cities like Montreal, Toronto and Calgary. They are now making their presence known in rural communities across the country.

Because of the huge boundaries of water we have and because of the lack of resources that we have for the coast guard and the lack of resources that we have for the RCMP to actually partake in patrols on docks and in major ports, once again we are being very much left open to contraband materials entering the country. Money laundering is very much the focus of the bill, but we know that there are other very significant tasks, other very significant problems that are faced by law enforcement agents.

The government is letting down the side. It has not lived up to the billing. It has not responded to requests from the RCMP. It has not responded to requests to renew and bring back the ports police in this country. It is not listening, and we know it is not listening.

More and more we are getting the indicators that this is a tired, arrogant government. When the Prime Minister goes abroad and sticks his foot firmly in his mouth, it proves that time and time again. We knew that long before he went to the Middle East. He was doing the same thing in this country, but now he has demonstrated it to the whole world.

What we want to hear is that the government is listening. Canadians want to hear that the government is actually listening to them. This is an opportunity for the government to do so, but I do not think it is listening.

Division No. 1279Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh.

Division No. 1279Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Peter MacKay Progressive Conservative Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS

I hear hon. members opposite becoming a little alarmed by the fact that we are pointing this out, but Canadians know what is happening and those members can say what they want. The indicators are there. The ears are closed. The message is going out but they are not listening.

We will see a byelection in Newfoundland which will indicate that Canadians have had it with the Liberal government. When that happens, maybe that message will start to penetrate those ears. The Liberals have big earmuffs on when it comes to listening to what Canadians have to say.

With money laundering legislation that is aimed at a specific problem perhaps finally we will be able to get the attention of the government. We hear about things like this happening in the country. Unfortunately the national media are not always the most responsible in reporting exactly how it is, but we know that the particular problem has been broadcast across the country. It has been broadcast clearly as an issue that has to be addressed and addressed now.

We hope that side of the House will continue to support initiatives like this one. Unfortunately more and more the initiatives that matter most to Canadians, whether it be tax reduction, health care, something to do with student debt or initiatives to help our law enforcement agents, are coming from the opposition side because the Liberals are bankrupt on ideas. We know that when it comes to principle there is another party in here that can be very bankrupt.

I thank the House for its indulgence and for the time to speak to the legislation. I look forward to seeing it passed through the various stages and becoming law.

Division No. 1279Government Orders

5:25 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

It being 5.30 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's order paper.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

5:30 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON

moved that Bill C-451, an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to rise today to debate my private member's bill, Bill C-451, an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada.

I have been working on this bill for a very long time. It was originally introduced in 1996 but died on the order paper when the election was called the following year. I was not able to reintroduce it until this spring and was very happy when it was drawn in the draw for Private Members' Business.

The idea for this bill comes from a discussion I had with my constituent, Joyce Hammond. When we realized that there were several oaths of allegiance in use, but no one official oath, we both agreed that an official oath should be adopted.

An official oath of allegiance to the Canadian flag and all that it represents would be a wonderful gift now, at the dawn of a new millennium. The 19th century gave us nationhood. The 20th century gave us our flag. In the 21st century, Canada should have an oath of allegiance.

Some people have asked me why an oath of allegiance is important. We have a national anthem. Why would we need anything more? The answer is simple. An oath would give us an opportunity wherever the flag is present to show our commitment to and appreciation for Canada and all that our flag represents. When we look at the maple leaf, we see Canada, but reciting an oath would encourage us to really think about what our flag and what our country stand for. All the values that we as a country hold dear are embodied in the maple leaf.

As you well know, Madam Speaker, our flag is very highly respected around the world. When people see a Canadian flag flying atop one of our embassies or sewn on a backpack, they immediately think of tolerance, diversity and peacekeeping. These are attributes we can and should all be proud of. An oath would reaffirm our commitment to these values.

Others have asked why we should pledge allegiance to a piece of cloth. To that I say that our flag is much more than just a piece of cloth. It represents not only our values but also our common history and our traditions. The flag represents millions of people coming to Canada to build a better life for their families. It represents two official languages working together. It represents democracy and freedom. Of course, to many it represents Mounties, beavers and snow.

The point is that if someone looks at the flag and only sees the flag, they are missing the point. This oath would help to make it clear that our flag means so much more to us as a nation.

Some people are concerned that an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada is somehow too American. I would like to point out that the United States is not the only country to have an oath of allegiance. Besides, if our neighbour to the south has a good idea, why should we not steal it?

Many Canadians think that an oath of allegiance is a wonderful idea. This bill has been endorsed by 500 municipalities across Canada and by Canadians from more than 700 different communities. The letters, e-mails and phone calls of support continue to arrive.

Recently I received a letter from Les Peate, national secretary of the Korean Veterans Association of Canada. Mr. Peate wrote:

Perhaps the time has come for us to stand up and be counted, and have an officially-approved standard “Pledge of Allegiance”, which need not be mandatory but should be available for schools, veterans' groups, service organizations and any other gatherings where we can still show pride in being Canadian.

I agree with Mr. Peate. I am not proposing a mandatory oath. Forcing patriotism tends to lead to dangerous consequences. However, I do feel strongly that Canadians should have an official oath as a means of showing their patriotism.

Mr. Peate also tells a story about a fellow veteran who visited an American legion post. After the American veterans recited their pledge of allegiance, the Canadians were invited to do the same. Mr. Peate's colleagues were embarrassed to admit that we do not have an official oath. This is an embarrassment that could easily be alleviated with this bill.

Many veterans have written in support of Bill C-451. Whether they fought to defend the values that our flag represents or served on peacekeeping missions to uphold those same values, an official oath of allegiance holds a special significance for them. They are not alone in believing that they need to pay tribute to our flag and all that it represents.

Young Canadians have also shown a strong interest in this legislation. Either through the encouragement of their teachers or on their own, I have received sample oaths from students across Canada. Leanne Rutledge of Iron Bridge, Ontario suggested:

I pledge my loyalty to my country as the greatest country in the world to me.

Given Canada's number one ranking by the United Nations for quality of life six years running, an oath like this is especially relevant.

Jocelyn Smid, a student from Cochrane, Alberta wrote the following:

I pledge allegiance to the flag of Canada and its people. I will try to keep our country free, peaceful and beautiful. I will obey the laws of the land and will protect our environment. I will respect all of Canada's people, regardless of race, colour or religion.

In fact, Canadians from all walks of life have provided suggestions for the oath of allegiance. Howard Scrimgeour, a veterinarian in my riding of Guelph—Wellington, has proposed the oath currently taken by members of the Canadians forces.

I do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law.

As members can see, different people have different ideas as to what the oath should say. That is why I am proposing that the oath be drafted by a parliamentary committee in consultation with Canadians. It is not only important that we have an official oath of allegiance, but that the oath is our oath. It is extremely important that Canadians be able to identify with the oath and that the oath is a source of inspiration to all of us. What better way to ensure the oath's relevance.

We, as Canadians, have so very much to be proud of and even more to be thankful for: freedom, equality, clean water and air, vast expanses, access to quality health care and education, all things that we may take for granted but that many people around the world are still fighting to achieve. An official oath of allegiance to our flag would serve as a reminder that we are among the privileged few. We fought to make Canada the best country in the world and we won.

An oath of allegiance would also serve as a reminder of all that it took to get to where we are today. It would give us time to reflect on the duties we all share as citizens of this great nation. The swearing of an oath is done solemnly and respectfully. It is not something done lightly and would encourage greater understanding of what it takes to ensure that Canada remains the best country in the world in which to live.

I look forward to what my hon. colleagues have to say about Bill C-451. I want to thank them for taking part in this debate and sincerely hope that we can work together to make this bill a reality.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

5:35 p.m.

Reform

Inky Mark Reform Dauphin—Swan River, MB

Madam Speaker, I applaud the member for Guelph—Wellington on her private member's bill, Bill C-451, an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada.

I will begin by saying that I do support the bill. As Canadians we are all proud to live in this great country, a place where everyone from around the globe wants to come. Our flag is a national symbol, as are our institutions. The very parliament buildings that we are in today rival any in the world. Canadians who visit Ottawa always return home feeling more patriotic than when they first came.

National symbols are very important. Our national flag is respected around the world. As members of parliament, the lapel flag pins are in great demand by our constituents, especially to those Canadians who wish to travel abroad. They come back with stories telling us that wherever they travel this little flag gives them an identity. They are welcomed and very well treated when they are away from Canada.

Our exercise of patriotism in my opinion has certainly declined over the years. As a former school teacher for 26 years, I have seen many of these changes, certainly in the classroom. The House sings O Canada once a week. It is unfortunate that this practice has not been around very long. It is also sad that Canadians do not take more pride in the singing of our national anthem.

It is even more amazing that we do not begin each day in the House, the House that belongs to the people of Canada, by the singing of O Canada. Yes, we in the House are the model for this country. If we expect Canadians to be more expressive in their nationalism, we can certainly lead by example. If we do not wish to sing the anthem, perhaps we could invite Canadians from across the country to come here and sing our national anthem.

Today we are talking about an oath of allegiance to our flag. I find it rather ironic that since I have been here we have had a debate about displaying flags in this very room which was voted down. Again, this House is a model of behaviour for Canadians to follow. I believe Canadians want to show allegiance to this country by both song and word. That is why I support the bill.

Another issue that needs to be addressed is the desecration of our national flag. At this time the criminal code does not protect our flag. I know that the Canadian Legion is leading the charge to put more teeth into the law on the desecration of our national symbol, our flag. Government officials at this time, however, state that such legislation would contravene the charter of rights and freedoms and, in particular, section 2 which guarantees freedom of expression.

Research completed by the Library of Parliament indicates that the United States is the only country that has an oath of allegiance to the flag. Although its oath is official in law, the United States supreme court ruled that the oath is voluntary only. Countries like Japan, Germany, Italy, Russia, Great Britain and the European union do not have oaths of allegiance to the flag. Many have other oaths of allegiance, such as the oath of citizenship. In Canada, we also have such oaths for members of parliament upon taking office, privy councillors, senators and Canadian citizenship.

By definition, an oath of allegiance is a declaration of loyalty to a country that a citizen makes to safeguard the country's interest. There is a bond, whether it be emotional, coercive or legal, that binds the subject to the nation's sovereignty. Bill C-451 calls on the parliamentary committee to draft an oath to the flag of Canada. Oaths are not pious statements of goodwill. They are legally binding commitments with punishment for failure to live up to them. As a critic for the Canadian Alliance, I will support the bill.

In closing, our flag is a symbol of our great country. An oath of allegiance to the flag is just another way of showing our respect for our great country.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

5:45 p.m.

Bloc

Pierre De Savoye Bloc Portneuf, QC

Madam Speaker, Bill C-451 introduced by the member for Guelph—Wellington proposes to establish an oath of allegiance to the Canadian flag. The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill. I will explain why.

Do not misunderstand me. I am not questioning the relevance of national symbols. All countries in the world have distinctive symbols, such as coats of arms, an emblem in the form of a flower or an animal. The flag has always been an important symbol flown proudly by the various countries of the world.

For example, the flag of a nation is part of all official ceremonies, is flown from the flagstaffs of institutions, accompanies delegations and identifies the nationality of whomever is flying it. Indeed, a country's flag is a powerful symbol identifying the country, reflecting its values and affirming its culture, and I have a profound respect for the flag of all nations since each flag is being borne by a people. This is true of the Quebec flag and of the Canadian flag.

Recognizing and respecting a national flag is one thing. Making it the object of patriotic devotion is another. Yet, this is unfortunately what the hon. member for Guelph—Wellington seeks to do with her bill, which begins by saying that it is desirable to establish an oath of allegiance that would allow Canadian citizens to display their patriotism, and continues by saying that an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada would recognize the importance of our flag in our lives.

That is not right. No one has yet demonstrated the desirability of an oath of allegiance that would allow Canadian citizens to display their patriotism, and I am not talking about Quebecers.

Patriotism is love for one's country and devotion to it. Patriotism is not about taking an oath. My motherland, which I love and for which I work hard, is Quebec. I work for it in a totally legitimate, legal and respectful way.

The member for Guelph—Wellington also contends that an oath of allegiance would recognize the importance of the Canadian flag in our lives. That seems to me to be not only exaggerated, but also completely foreign to Quebecers' feelings.

To respect the flag of a nation is one thing, but it is totally inappropriate to say that the Canadian flag deserves to be recognized in our daily lives through an oath. Indeed, in the daily lives of ordinary people, what is important is not to adore a flag, regardless of which one it is, but to earn a living, raise children, fulfil ambitions and look after one's health.

It seems to me that this House and its members have more pressing things to do than to spend time, energy and money to draft an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada and to encourage and promote the taking of such an oath.

When it comes right down to it, what purpose would this oath of allegiance serve? When would it be used? Who would be authorized or encouraged to take it? And what exactly is the meaning of clause 5 of the bill, which reads “The Minister shall encourage and promote the giving of the oath”.

When we see how, for too many years, the federal government has used Canada's flag and Canada Day for its own propaganda agenda, at a cost of tens of millions of dollars, in an attempt to destroy the identity of the Quebec people, I have the very strong feeling that, if ever this bill were to be passed, it too, unfortunately, would be used for the same base propaganda purposes in order to wipe out our identity as Quebecers.

As far as I know, Canada is not handicapped by the lack of an oath of allegiance to the flag. Many countries in the world do not have such an oath and they are none the worse off.

France is a good example. The absence of an oath of allegiance to the flag of France has never prevented the French, through numerous trying events, from demonstrating their vibrant patriotism when circumstances required it. The Americans, for their part, have chosen to have such an oath. That is their choice and it goes along with their mentality.

But we are neither the French nor the Americans. We are Canadians and Quebecers, and that is that. Although we share some values, there are others that set us apart.

A flag is the symbol of a nation's values. The bill of the member for Guelph—Wellington recognizes this by providing that a committee be struck to ensure that the wording of the oath of allegiance contains a statement of the principal values symbolized by the flag of Canada.

What are these values? Is it true that all Canadian and Quebec citizens share exactly the same values and accord them exactly the same importance?

Perhaps it is true that the people of British Columbia share the same values as the people of Newfoundland. Perhaps. But Quebecers attach far greater importance to community values, whereas the people in western Canada attach greater importance to values of individualism.

This is totally irreconcilable, as we can see in the handling of the Young Offenders Act, a bill everyone in Quebec opposes, and the Minister of Justice of Canada does not seem to care a whit.

Here in the House of Commons, we in the Bloc Quebecois respect the great democratic value of 50% plus one, whereas it means nothing to the Liberals.

This bill is not appearing in isolation at this point. In fact, just last week, the Conservative government of Ontario announced that the national anthem of Canada and the oath of citizenship would be part of the daily routine of Ontario school children. The totalitarian regimes of the 20th century could not do better.

In fact, asking children in this the beginning of the 21st century to swear their loyalty to Queen Elizabeth II seems totally anachronistic to me. And to say that all this commotion serves to ensure better security—that is right, security—in the schools of Ontario. The outcry this announcement raised last week was not surprising.

The bill of the member for Guelph—Wellington is cut from the same cloth. It is a bill that, in the guise of patriotic virtue, attempts to force people to express their belief in moral values to be decided by a committee. This has nothing to do with patriotism, not even with the freedoms of thought and expression guaranteed by the charter of rights and freedoms.

As a Quebecer, I cannot swear allegiance when the values and patriotism expressed are not part of my own convictions, which I share with my fellow citizens of Quebec.

I have this freedom, we have the freedom to think as Quebecers and to act as Quebecers. This freedom can never be denied us by law. The Bloc Quebecois opposes this bill.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The hon. member for West Nova has indicated that he would like to speak to the subject. Is that agreed?

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

5:50 p.m.

Progressive Conservative

Mark Muise Progressive Conservative West Nova, NS

Madam Speaker, I wish to thank my colleagues for allowing me to say a few words on this subject.

I am pleased to participate in the debate over the possible establishment of an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada.

I congratulate my hon. colleague from Guelph—Wellington for having introduced this private member's bill. It is a credit to her that she has persisted in her attempts to instil a greater sense of patriotism within this country by drawing attention to the significance of the Canadian flag and the symbolism it represents. I do not think enough Canadians, or at least enough young Canadians, recognize or appreciate the significance of the Canadian flag. It has been stated repeatedly through a number of studies that Canadians do not know enough about their own history. We must ask ourselves why this is the case.

At first glance we immediately point the finger at our educational system. Our education system is not focusing enough attention on teaching our young people about their own history. As a result they fail to develop proper appreciation for the struggles of their ancestors. Our education system must certainly bear some of the responsibility. However I think the problem goes much further than that.

For whatever reason, we Canadians do not believe in beating our own drum. Unlike our neighbours to the south who never miss an opportunity for self-promotion, we Canadians are much more reserved in displaying our own patriotism.

Sadly, most Canadians might find it easier to identify great names in American history than our very own Canadian heroes.

And yet, we do have a number of heroes in Canada. Our Canadian history is full of great people who gave a part of lives to build the best country in the world.

We have a proud history of very distinguished Canadians whose exploits not only helped change the face of this country but also had a positive influence on the history of the world.

We could begin with our fathers of confederation who shared a vision for a strong and united country, a country that could compete not only with our southern neighbours but also with the rest of the world. Their legacy continues today as Canadians take on a leading role in developing new partnerships with other foreign countries which ultimately help strengthen our competitive edge here at home.

There are perhaps no other events in our history that help define us as a country than our participation in the first world war. Canada came of age as the exploits of our brave soldiers drew the respect, admiration and appreciation of all peoples throughout the world.

Our victory at Vimy Ridge to this day continues to instil pride in all Canadians. Against unbelievable odds, our brave Canadian soldiers confronted the forces of evil in a battle that would forever change the course of the first world war.

Too many of our young people know nothing about the exploits of our Canadian soldiers during the first and the second world wars. I believe the federal government is to be blamed for such ignorance. It is a pity our veterans are only recognized once a year on Remembrance Day. Thanks to their suffering, today we can enjoy this symbol of our freedom, our very own Canadian flag which freely flaps in the wind.

It was only 35 years ago that our government adopted the Canadian flag as we know it today. It is here, in the city of Ottawa, in 1965, that the maple leaf was seen flying atop the parliament buildings for the first time.

Our Canadian flag is a symbol of a strong and compassionate society. It represents the struggle of millions of Canadians throughout our history who have devoted their lives toward making this a better country. It is more than just a flag; it is a reflection of who we are and what we stand for as a people and as a country.

The Canadian flag is one of the most recognized and appreciated symbols in the world. Our citizens can go anywhere throughout the world wearing the Canadian insignia and be recognized and greeted warmly by their hosts. We can do that because we have distinguished ourselves throughout the world as a peaceful and humane society. People throughout the world recognize Canada's flag as a symbol of a kind and gentle society where human rights are respected.

I think it is important that as a country we begin focusing greater attention on recognizing the many achievements of our great Canadians.

Last year from May 19 to June 19 the Dominion Institute and the Council for Canadian Unity conducted a survey asking Canadians to identify our top Canadian heroes. Among those selected were our fathers of confederation; our first prime minister, Sir John A. Macdonald; the architect of Canadian medicare, Mr. Tommy Douglas; World War I flying ace Mr. Billy Bishop; Laura Secord, who was credited with saving the British and Canadian forces at the battle of Beaver Dams during the war of 1812; and Nellie McClung, one of the famous five women who fought to have women recognized as persons under the law.

I have mentioned but a few of the many Canadian heroes who have influenced the growth of our great nation. The list goes on: Sir Frederick Banting, Dr. Norman Bethune, Lester B. Pearson, Tecumseh, Alexander Graham Bell and many others. The point I am trying to make is that our flag represents the tremendous accomplishments of all those Canadians.

Swearing allegiance to the Canadian flag is more than simply a case of symbolism; it is a patriotic gesture in recognition of a great country and of the great Canadians who have had the courage to stand for what they believe in.

Somewhere along the line we Canadians have lost the sense of patriotism. I think it is time we worked together to bring it back.

I remember as a young student standing at attention every morning at my desk to sing the national anthem. Today when I have the opportunity to sing the national anthem in the House of Commons it reminds me of those days as a little boy in class and the same patriotism flows through me. We are missing that and it should be brought back.

The attempt by the member for Guelph—Wellington to instil a sense of patriotism in all Canadians should be commended. Supporting an act to establish an oath of allegiance to the flag of Canada will go a long way toward promoting Canadian values.

Having said that, it is important that Canadians have an opportunity to voice their opinions as to the proper wording of this oath so that the oath itself is representative of all Canadians from coast to coast.

I support Bill C-451 and I am pleased I had this opportunity to speak to it.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6 p.m.

Liberal

Brenda Chamberlain Liberal Guelph—Wellington, ON

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to stand in reply to my bill. I want to thank the hon. member from the Reform Party for agreeing and for wanting this bill also.

He said that symbols are important. I agree. I want to point out to the hon. member that we do display flags in this Chamber, because he mentioned in his speech that we do not. There are two large Canadian flags right beside the Speaker's chair. I think it is important to point that out. In the seven years I have been here the flags have always been displayed in this honourable room.

Unfortunately, members of the Bloc are against this bill. I am not surprised, but I am sorry that is the way they feel. The Bloc member who spoke stated that the flag is a powerful symbol and that he has profound respect for it, but he does not see it as necessary. He felt that this perhaps would be propaganda against Quebec. That is most unfortunate.

I want to remind the hon. member that Quebec is a province of Canada. Quebecers are proud Canadians. I have had a number of them write to me on the flag issue. A number of councils in the province of Quebec have written to me to say that they endorse this bill. It is very important that we as Canadians be able to stand and be proud of who we are. Quebecers certainly are proud Canadians.

He asked what we would do with such an oath. I am proposing that it would not be mandatory, but that at places like scout meetings, Rotarian meetings, or wherever a flag would be present, there would be the opportunity to say an official oath.

Hundreds of people have written to me and phoned saying that they would like to have some sort of official oath of allegiance.

I want to thank the Conservative member, who also supported the bill. He talked about the significance of the flag for patriotism. He talked about our heroes, who we are as a country, our vision of a strong and united country. Our flag is recognized all over the world. We are looked at as a kind and gentle society, peaceful and caring. These are all things that the Conservative member recognizes. He also said that we should work together to bring patriotism back.

Any time that we as Canadians can show our love for our country it is very important to do so. I think the reason that some things have gone off track in Quebec is because that has not been allowed.

Brian Mulroney ordered that the Canadian flag be taken down on federal buildings in the province of Quebec to appease some Quebecers. He thought that would be a good thing. This federal Liberal government decided that it would not be a good thing. We ordered all those Canadians flags to be put back up on those federal buildings.

I think we know in our heart of hearts that it is important to know who we are as a nation, what we stand for, what we care about and the pride that we feel from coast to coast to coast.

I implore the House to adopt the bill. It will show our love for Canada.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActPrivate Members' Business

6:05 p.m.

The Acting Speaker (Ms. Thibeault)

The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Since the motion was not votable, the item is dropped from the order paper.

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

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:05 p.m.

NDP

Michelle Dockrill NDP Bras D'Or, NS

Madam Speaker, in January a damning internal audit of the Department of Human Resources Development was released. Despite the best efforts by the government to play down the issues, the concerns over misuse of funds surrounding the department continue to multiply daily, with related RCMP investigations and further audits revealing some of the government's deepest and darkest secrets.

Since December of last year I have been trying to get information on a company in my riding which applied for further TJF funding just months before it went into receivership.

This company, Scotia Rainbow, has received almost $20 million in public loans and grants, yet the government has been incapable of answering questions about the financial position of the company and the proof for how many jobs Scotia Rainbow actually created.

With the amount of public and private funding it received this company should have created many more jobs than it did, but why is there no proof being offered to Canadian taxpayers as to how many jobs were actually created with their money? There is no doubt in my mind that most Canadians share our opinion in the New Democratic Party that good job creation initiatives are an essential part of government operations.

Does Scotia Rainbow represent a good return in the number of jobs proportionate to how much funding it received? Is Scotia Rainbow just another one of the government's deep, dark secrets? Why is it at a time when there appears to be no money for our health care system that is in crisis, no money to reduce the debt load for students, that money can be still found to finance a company to the tune of $20 million in an approximate 18 month period which is now in receivership? We may never be repaid.

Can the government explain why neither it nor the company have any financial documents to back up their claims for the number of jobs created at Scotia Rainbow? If the government has the documentation, why will it not show it to Canadian taxpayers?

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

Oakville Ontario

Liberal

Bonnie Brown LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of Human Resources Development

Madam Speaker, the member opposite is throwing numbers around, which is leaving an inaccurate impression in the minds of those who are listening to or who will later read this debate. The $20 million she referred to is the sum total of all the investment in this project. It is investment that came from this government, from the provincial government, from private investors and from a chartered bank. Our share was by far a minority share.

Having said that, I must say that our priority is to help Canadians get back to work. That is why we supported the creation of about 291 jobs in an area with a 20% unemployment rate. We did that along with the Government of Nova Scotia. This was a good use of taxpayer dollars.

Obviously it is very unfortunate that the company ran into financial difficulties and had to declare bankruptcy, despite nearly everyone's best efforts and best will. One has to ask why this company ended up going bankrupt when it was off to such a good start. Is it perhaps because the member opposite has spoken so negatively about this project on many occasions in this House that some investor pulled his investment, or is it because a bank closed down a line of credit? Could that be it? Surely not. Or, could it be that the member spoke negatively about this project because the ideology of her party is against aquaculture which this project represented? I do not know.

I do know what the local paper said about it. On February 22 the Port Hawkesbury Reporter observed: “When our elected representative—”, that being the member opposite, “—openly condemns federal aid in this area, then it is time to ask that representative to step down. The families of those former fishermen are just as important as the families of miners. They do not deserve to have their representative trying to jeopardize their employment”. Their representative was successful in that attempt because that company is closed.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:10 p.m.

NDP

Gordon Earle NDP Halifax West, NS

Madam Speaker, it is crucial on many levels that Canada's forces reflect the ethnic diversity that makes up our country. That is why I am disheartened by the response of the Minister of National Defence to my question on April 13, which I asked in the House. I pointed out to the minister at that time that there were too few visible minorities and aboriginals in the senior ranks of Canada's land forces and regular navy to even register as a blip on the radar screen.

Just as bad are the targets, with a visible minority target of less than 10% for army and regular forces and less than 5% for aboriginals in the same category.

I asked the minister to commit to targets and dates to increase representation in all senior ranks, including using fast-tracking where appropriate and committing to fostering an environment promoting diversity, as recommended by his own advisory board.

The minister responded with vague motherhood generalities about ensuring that people from all parts of Canada can participate in the forces. The minister said that his own advisory board on this issue has made worthwhile recommendations. Which recommendations does he see as worthwhile? Which ones will he implement and in what timeframe?

The people of Canada deserve specific and concrete details and not just vague generalizations. As a Canadian of colour I have heard good words all too often and seen good action all too seldom.

In March of this year the minister's own advisory board on Canadian Forces Gender Integration and Employment Equity submitted its report to the minister. Women and aboriginals were determined to be less than half of their minimum potential representation in the forces and visible minorities were at less than one-quarter of the minimum potential. That is appalling.

I understand that targets have been set to increase the representation of visible minorities from 2% to 7% of the total army over 10 years. Why only 7%, and what specifically is being done to meet this target?

Canadians of colour are so scarce at the officer and non-commissioned member level to not even register in the advisory board's report.

How does this Liberal government expect to increase representation of visible minorities and aboriginal Canadians when role models from their communities are so scarce?

The minister's advisory board heard comments expressed by land forces personnel, such as: “We are not doing aboriginals and visible minorities a favour by allowing them to look so different by wearing turbans or braids. How can they possibly integrate when they stick out like a sore thumb?” A sore thumb indeed. How does the government seriously expect to foster diversity with an attitude like that?

The minister's advisory board noted the need to increase representation in the senior ranks of women, aboriginals and visible minorities. What is the minister's position on fast tracking qualified individuals?

I recognize the changes that occur only at the top tend to be short-lived. It is essential that the Liberal government learn that change must be throughout the ranks. Superficial treatment of this crisis will breed superficial results. Women, visible minorities and aboriginals deserve to know the government's plan in detail. We deserve to know that there is a comprehensive plan and to be able to see this plan.

Recommendations were also made in a similar vein to the same minister last year arising out of the Canadian forces debacle in Somalia. The Minister of National Defence agreed in 1999 to establish regular liaison with anti-racist groups to “obtain assistance in the conduct of appropriate cultural sensitivity training and to assist supervisors and commanders in identifying signs of racism and involvement with hate groups”. Has this happened and if so, who was consulted and what were the results of these liaisons?

Last year the Canadian Human Rights Commission gave the Canadian forces a failing grade for its efforts to reflect Canada's cultural makeup. So far the pupil does not seem to be doing much better.

I trust the government will respond to my comments with a specific plan including dates, targets and measures to be taken at all levels within the forces. Anything less would be an insult.

Oath Of Allegiance To The Flag Of Canada ActAdjournment Proceedings

6:15 p.m.

Pontiac—Gatineau—Labelle Québec

Liberal

Robert Bertrand LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence

Madam Speaker, the Canadian forces is an important national institution that does far more than defend Canada's territorial integrity. It also defends and reflects the values and principles that we as Canadians believe are important.

Achieving diversity in a large organization like the CF is a complex task but it is one that the minister and his department are committed to doing.

The Canadian forces must reflect the mosaic that is Canada. That is why the Canadian forces is actively recruiting aboriginal people and other visible minorities.

The military is also fully complying with the federal government's employment equity legislation. Through a formal plan authorized by the chief of defence staff, CDS, the Canadian forces is actively identifying possible barriers to advancement that visible minorities and aboriginal people sometimes face. However, promotions are based on merit and will continue to be based on merit. Unlike civilian organizations, the Canadian forces cannot simply recruit people into senior positions. Its leaders must be grown within the organization and this takes time.

The military has taken many steps to address barriers to aboriginal people and other visible minorities including measures to accommodate religious and cultural differences that permit for example aboriginal people to wear braids; the integration of diversity training at all levels of core CF leadership training; where possible, the identification of qualified aboriginal and visible minority Canadian forces members to serve as course instructors; and the establishment of community contacts to support the cultural needs of Canadian forces members.

Canada is a diverse society and the Canadian forces must reflect the society it serves. Diversity within the Canadian forces is something that we truly value.