Debates of Dec. 10th, 2002

Prebudget Consultations

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, having spent some time in a courtroom, I know that if the representations made by ministers of the crown and by members of the government were made under oath, I believe they would have been found in contempt of court. I believe that under provisions of the Criminal Code they could have been liable.

Do I believe that the consequences of those misrepresentations could result in criminal charges? The consequences of where that money went and the fact that much of it is unaccounted for, in my view, should very much be the subject of an RCMP investigation. That in and of itself may lead to some concrete criminal charges.

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I think everybody in the House has a wish list of what they would like to see in the coming budget. There is no doubt that health care is on everybody's minds, with the Romanow report just having been published. That will certainly occupy a very central part of the budget.

If we go back to the Speech from the Throne, the government has put forward a number of areas as high priority. For example, child poverty and the need to develop a child care program as part of our early childhood education, which is a tremendously good investment in our young people. There are the needs of our cities in terms of urban infrastructure. There is a long term plan that will be developed and this budget will provide the opportunity to start it.

We also need investments in transit and in housing. Affordable housing is part of strengthening our cities. The report recently published by the Liberal caucus committee on cities calls for an urban strategy. It is a good framework to develop this kind of measure. I hope we will see things like that in the budget.

I hope we will see more money for defence. As I have suggested before, we need at least $1 billion a year to square the defence program with the defence budget. I am hopeful that will be solidly addressed in this budget.

Then there is the environment. Having adopted Kyoto today there are measures that need to be advanced there as well.

One difficulty in all of this is that Canadians, while I am sure they would like us to invest in all the areas I just covered, want to ensure that we do not go into a deficit again, the kind of $42 billion deficit that we inherited from the Conservative government.

I listened to the member just a few moments ago. I found it galling of him, when we consider the kind of mess in which his government left this government and this country with respect to its finances. The Liberal government over its nine years has pulled us out of that deficit situation and has reduced the debt substantially. As a result of those good economic measures, we have seen a lowering of our interest rate, an increase in our employment rate and now we can proceed with $100 billion plan to cut taxes. That is the trick.

In summary we have to find a balanced approach. I know the Minister of Finance and the past minister of finance have excellently served this country in those portfolios. I know the Minister of Finance has very little room to manoeuvre because he said that the forecast for new surplus is not that significant in the coming fiscal year.

We will probably have to look at developing multi-year approaches. We have done that in the tax cuts area. We may well have to do it in defence. We will have to do it in health care. There is no way we can afford all those things that Mr. Romanow suggests in his report. Even if we decide to adopt all his report or even a portion thereof, it is a very costly measure over a number of years; some $15 billion. Obviously multi-year programs will be required to fund that.

We want to ensure that we continue to find that balance. We want to continue to cut taxes, reduce debt and absolutely stay out of deficit. We want to continue to invest in the kinds of things that will help spread opportunity for all Canadians, whether it is helping to strengthen our cities or our health care program, or dealing with child poverty, or defence or the environment. These are all important things and I hope they will all be addressed in this coming budget.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The hon. member will have the rest of the 20 minutes when we resume debate on this motion at the next sitting of the House.

It being 6:14 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Parliament of Canada Act

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

moved that Bill C-219, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Madam Speaker, this bill aims to modify the swearing of allegiance of members of Parliament.

When elected to the House of Commons members must swear allegiance to the Queen. This is done in front of the Clerk. The present oath reads as follows, “I [name of MP] do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors, according to law”.

What I propose today is that newly elected members be asked to add to the swearing of allegiance to the Queen the following affirmation:

I, [full name of the member], do swear [or solemnly affirm] that I will be loyal to Canada and that I will perform the duties of a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly.

I personally made this declaration after the 1993, the 1997 and 2000 general elections. I would also encourage my colleagues from various parties to do the same. To my pride and joy, a great number of newly elected members followed suit and I wish to congratulate and thank them.

After my private member's bill was drawn last month, I sat in front of the House of Commons private members' business committee to request that my bill be deemed votable. I had followed all five rules required to make a private member's bill votable, namely: that it be drafted in clear, complete and effective terms; that it be constitutional and concern areas of federal jurisdiction; that it not concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda; and finally, that it transcend purely local interests and not be couched in partisan terms.

My bill addressed all of these criteria. Unfortunately, and to my great surprise and disappointment, the committee decided otherwise and made my bill non-votable. Why, I ask? This is unbelievable.

Canadians often ask me why it is that we seem to be the only country in the world where legislators do not swear allegiance to their own country. Perhaps those members among us who were against such a notion should explain to their constituents their rationale. I for one feel an obligation to my constituents and to all Canadians. It is also for me a principle of patriotism as well as accountability.

It is indeed a matter of patriotism and pride, but also a matter of accountability. We live in a country which, ever since its early days, has distinguished itself by an impressive series of achievements, both internationally and nationally.

I do not think it is necessary to point out the merits of Canada, but I do hope that its contributions make you feel the same sense of pride that I feel. The Canadian public itself certainly seems to feel that pride.

When asked to identify their ethnic origin, more than eight million citizens indicated Canadian, that is more than any other possible nationality, according to the 1996 census data published by Statistics Canada. This is something that is rather new in Canada. Until then, citizens were more likely to refer to their English or French, Irish or Italian origins, to give just a few examples.

This brings me to another important aspect. Without loosing sight of our history and traditions, to swear allegiance to Canada and its Constitution is consistent with today's reality and desire, especially since the new oath would be in addition to the oath of allegiance to the Queen.

This private member's bill in no way negates or removes our allegiance to the Queen. Our parliamentary monarchy is part of our Canadian Constitution, our Canadian history and our Canadian heritage. We in the House also know that the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament alone without the consent of the provinces and territories.

My proposed oath of solemn affirmation to Canada would be but an amendment to the Parliament of Canada Act, not the Constitution, and is therefore in proper order. It comes as an addition to swearing allegiance to the Queen. This is not an attempt to diminish the Queen. She still represents Canadian traditions. However the monarchy no longer embodies the whole picture.

The Canada of today is very much a multicultural society, depicting citizens from all over the world. Amid this impressive mosaic, “Canada” is the one word that applies to everyone in the country regardless of their region or background. This is, in large measure, because Canadians feel an overriding sense of pride and a sense of belonging in their country.

Recently, while he was being sworn in, a new senator added the word “Canada”. This gave rise to a short debate in the other place, where it was decided that it might be desirable for everyone in Parliament to swear allegiance to Canada. This is interesting coming from the Senate.

I think it is desirable to go ahead, to take the lead and not wait for the Senate to do so. We can only benefit from an initiative showing our pride in and gratitude to a country that has given us so much happiness and good fortune.

The affirmation that I am proposing, which would be added to the swearing of allegiance, is not just a series of words. It is the recognition of democracy and responsibility. This is about what our actual form of government is all about. It is a representative democracy. We owe our allegiance and accountability to the people who elected us and who we represent. This is in accordance with democratic principles around the world.

More often than not, democratically elected officials in countries around the world swear allegiance to their country and to the people of their country. Some will state that we are part of the Commonwealth. I would inform members that Jamaica and India are but two examples of Commonwealth countries that changed their oath to include the country. Many others are debating similar measures, such as Australia for example.

We have to recognize that we are elected by the people to represent their interests and their concerns. We answer to the people and we are responsible to the people who elected us. Let us make it official and further enhance the trust that Canadians have in their parliamentarians. We owe it to all Canadians. Vive le Canada.

[Scott Reid, Canadian Alliance, Lanark—Carleton, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am speaking today in response to Bill C-219, an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation). I am generally supportive of the principle of this act.

Just to repeat, the bill would add to the current oath that we as members of Parliament swear. The current oath is very brief. It simply says, “I”--and then the person would give his or her name--“do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second...”.

The bill proposes to add the following words to that oath, “I”--again the person would give his or her name--“do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada and that I will perform the duties of a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly”.

When I was sworn in, in November 2000, I proposed a secondary oath very similar to the one proposed here in addition to the one that is required by law. About 50 or 60 other members of Parliament did the same thing. This was a practice followed by some members of Parliament in 1997 and some others following the 1993 election. Therefore, the tradition of swearing an oath that is not strictly legally binding but which we regard as being morally binding upon ourselves of swearing an oath to the people of this country and to the country itself, in addition to our oath to the Queen, has been developing and growing.

The bill proposed by the hon. member does retain the existing oath. As an enthusiastic supporter of the monarchy, I am very grateful to the hon. member for having kept that in. I think it is important, not merely because of my own support for the monarchy but because there is a value in maintaining and keeping our traditions. This includes the traditional forms of our government and the traditional forms of our oath. I do not think that one necessarily has to be a monarchist to swear the oath. As I will explain a bit later on, I believe that the Queen and the monarchy is and has been understood to be a symbol and a representation of the Constitution itself.

It is important, however, as we go through a debate like this, that one ought not to put too much weight in an oath itself as a separate institution from the two relevant factors that govern us in our actions as members of Parliament: first, the act of being elected legally; and, second, the act of performing our duties in conformity with the norms of our society, the norms of this place and of course the law of the land. A failure to take the oath or a failure to take the oath in a manner that is genuinely enthusiastic and wholehearted does not, it seems to me, mean that one should not be permitted to sit in the House of Commons.

When the Parti Quebecois was first elected in Quebec in 1976, many members of the new government found it very difficult to take the oath that was then in effect for members of the Quebec provincial legislature. The saying was that they took the oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs. The oath of office was subsequently changed to read, “I”--and the person would give his or her name--“do solemnly affirm that I will be loyal to the people of Quebec and that I will perform the duties of a member honestly and justly in conformity with the Constitution of Quebec”.

While that sounds different, it is really very similar in practice to the oath that exists in Canada at the federal level because, as I say, the Queen was understood in 1867 to be the representative, the keystone, of our Constitution. This simply was an attempt to modernize the wording. While I regret the fact that the monarch was taken out of the Quebec oath, I think the substance is the same.

Similarly, I think what the hon. member is attempting to do in his proposed bill is to expand the current oath by reaffirming in more modern language the sentiment that was at the heart of the 1867 oath. Therefore, the two parts of the oath, the one that has existed since 1867 and the one being proposed by the hon. member, it seems to me, are actually parts of the same package and reaffirmations of the same sentiment.

What is particularly important in our actions as members of Parliament is that we act in conformity with the norms that govern the behaviour of members of Parliament and that we act in a spirit that conforms with the Constitution of the country. I do think there is a danger that members of either the federal or provincial Houses can act in a manner that is in contempt of their oath.

Taking an oath and then not following through on it is a very serious offence. In the most serious cases, and these are of course extraordinarily rare, it amounts to a betrayal of the Constitution that one has taken an oath to maintain. This has happened in a number of countries. It has happened, for example, to many American senators, congressmen and representatives who were elected in the 1850s and the 1860s. They subsequently violated their oath to represent the constitution of the United States. That act was terrible, indeed it was treasonous, but that did not prevent them from taking that oath initially.

The important thing is that we must always remember the substance of our oath of office, whatever those words may be, and that we follow through on those words as we perform our duties as members of Parliament.

[Peter MacKay, Progressive Conservative, Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, NS]

Madam Speaker, I will speak very briefly to the bill before the House, Bill C-219, keeping in mind that it is not a votable item.

I do very much respect what the hon. member is attempting to do with his bill. I understand completely the intent of the bill, but I must profess my bias at the outset. It is a personal bias. I am not speaking on behalf of my party in this instance.

It is a private member's bill, but I very much would encourage Canadians to continue the swearing of allegiance to the Queen of Canada. I listened with great interest to the previous speaker from Lanark—Carleton, who I think has given a very insightful and knowledge based recitation of the evolution of how we have adopted this particular oath of allegiance. Keeping in mind the historical difference between Canada and the United States and the evolution of our two countries, we evolved from a Dominion and from a Commonwealth, whereas the United States broke away through an act of war. That is very much a part of their history. We obviously in fact have retained closer ties to the United Kingdom and to the monarchy and the Queen in particular.

This past summer was a wonderful example of how Canadians responded to the presence of the Queen. My colleague from St. John's West is very proud of his Irish heritage. Ireland, within the United Kingdom, has had a diverse history and a history that has at times been very contentious, but there is no denying history. I think we have to be very careful when we embark on any sort of revisionism. I am not suggesting for a moment that this is what the hon. member is doing, but there have been attempts by learned authors and others, including on some occasions members of Parliament, to rewrite history in a creative way that is not really reflective of where we came from.

My own personal view is that we should embrace this particular link to Great Britain, to our very origins, and embrace the fact that the Queen has continued, in a very diligent and forthright way, to continue this lineage, this connection to our country. It is something that I as a Canadian feel very proud to continue.

We saw huge crowds of people, many of whom were young people who in their lifetime may not have even seen the Queen in Canada, yet I felt that this was a very heartfelt and genuine outpouring of affection and a link, a real connection, to the country's history.

I have personally taken the oath, as has every member of Parliament, with respect to this declaration. Yet there is no practical reason that a person who chooses not to swear allegiance to the Queen would ever be prevented from entering the House of Commons, as is the case in Great Britain in fact, because we know that members of the Bloc Québécois take their seats in the House of Commons having not professed this particular oath of allegiance. I would suggest that this tradition to allow an individual to accept or not to accept allegiance in this particular instance is within the Constitution. It is something that we should never truly engage in to prevent an individual who has been democratically elected from coming to this place.

This is a private member's bill. I am not going to get into the issue of the contentious and ongoing debate on how private members' bills come before the House, on some of the discrepancies in that issue and how the government has continually dropped the ball and left this problem hanging, as is the case. It is probably a microcosm of its approach on many issues in the country. That would be too partisan and too biased and this is not the time for it.

The bill is one that gives us an opportunity to at the very least debate the issue, to hear from members of Parliament, as a healthy and obviously useful exercise.

It is a pleasure for me to speak on this bill. I think this is an important debate. It is an opportunity for the members of the House of Commons to express their personal views. It is wonderful and great that each member be given a chance to participate in this debate in a very personal way.

This deals directly with one of the first formal entrances that one experiences upon being elected, one's oath and commitment to one's constituents, country and, if one chooses to do so, to the Queen.

I wish to congratulate my colleague for the work he has done on this particular bill. He has brought forward a thoughtful bill and obviously it is an issue he feels strongly about. I would encourage him to continue on this venture and to engage parliamentarians as to whether they want to see this particular formal entrance into the House of Commons.

I agree with him and the sentiments he expressed near the end of his remarks. He spoke of the need for representatives to represent their constituents, and the concerns and the interests of those who they represent, and to be answerable and accountable to the people, not only of their constituency but of the country. That official oath to Canada, to the Queen, is indicative and important of that commitment by all elected officials at the federal level and we see this in provincial and municipal governments as well.

On behalf of the constituents of Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough I am proud to say, and I can say with fairness, that the constituents in my riding have expressed to me, and members of the Monarchist League of Canada have expressed quite clearly, that they are satisfied to continue the traditions of recognizing the Queen as the official head of Canada. They wish to continue the symbolism and history that comes with it, and the Governor General as Her official representative in Canada. It is something that is inextricably linked to our country's past and something that we should proudly embrace.

[Geoff Regan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise to speak in today's debate on Bill C-219, An Act to Amend the Parliament of Canada Act. I would like to thank my hon. colleague, the member for Ottawa—Orléans, for introducing this bill to bring about a dialogue on this important issue of the oath.

Bill C-219 is straightforward and well written. The essence of the bill is found in two clauses. Clause 3 would add a new section to the Parliament of Canada Act providing that no person holding a seat in the House of Commons shall sit therein nor shall any funds be made available to such a person for the carrying out of parliamentary functions unless the person has taken the oath or made the solemn affirmation to Canada.

Clause 6 would add a new schedule to the Act with the text of the oath or solemn affirmation to Canada to be sworn by members. The proposed oath reads as follows:

I, full name of the member, do swear (or solemnly affirm) that I will be loyal to Canada and that I will perform the duties of a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly.

As all of us are aware, section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires all members of Parliament, senators and members of provincial legislatures to make an oath to the Queen. The oath is found in the fifth schedule to the Constitution and reads:

I...do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Victoria.

Obviously she was the Queen at the time and the oath has been adjusted for the monarch of the day.

This oath is consistent with other oaths found within our institutions of government. For example, cabinet ministers take an oath to the Queen. Under the Public Service Employment Act and the Oaths of Allegiance Act, public servants take the following oath:

I...do swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors. So help me God.

I welcome today's debate as it provides an opportunity for us to consider this aspect of our institutional measures.

The oath that we are required to take under the Constitution has remained unchanged since 1867. Since then, Canada has become a mature, modern and independent country. For example: in 1931 we secured our authority for foreign affairs under the Statute of Westminster; in 1947 we established our own citizenship laws; in 1949 we abandoned appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in London; in 1965 we adopted our own flag, on February 15, if I recall correctly; in 1982 we patriated our Constitution; and, through years of immigration, we have become one of the most multicultural societies in the world.

As a result of all these changes, one might wonder why it is that we have an oath of allegiance based on conditions present in 1867. In this regard, we are seeing changes made to some oaths. For example, under Bill C-18, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration is proposing a new citizenship oath to include loyalty to Canada, so it is appropriate for us to consider whether the oath required of parliamentarians is appropriate in today's context.

I would note that there are a number of other factors that we should consider as we debate the bill. For one, we run the risk of having an inconsistent approach to the oaths within the institution of Parliament. For example, this bill does not cover senators, who would continue to be subject to the oath in the Constitution but would be unable to make an oath to Canada. As well, the bill would be inconsistent with the oath to the Queen required by cabinet ministers.

There are also legal factors that need to be considered in this approach.

Some could argue that this bill is an implicit amendment to the Constitution, raising questions about whether or not Parliament can unilaterally amend the provisions of the Constitution dealing with the oath. However, we know that Quebec's National Assembly has established an additional oath for its members, so this concern may not in fact be prohibitive.

I believe that the member for Ottawa—Orléans has put forward a valuable issue for consideration in the House. Perhaps there are other, non-statutory ways of achieving the bill's aims, such as through the Standing Orders, that might mitigate the concerns associated with this legislative approach, and since, of course, a modernization committee has recently been established, perhaps this is an issue that the committee could consider in its deliberations.

[Eugène Bellemare, Liberal, Ottawa—Orléans, ON]

Madam Speaker, I very much appreciate the hon. members' comments. Their statements have one thing in common with my own and that is the respect we have for the Queen of Canada. I am in no way suggesting that we remove the word “queen” from the oath of allegiance. I am proposing that we add something, an affirmation of loyalty to our country.

We must respect those who have elected us. We must respect all Canadians who take the trouble to vote for their members of the House of Commons. We are accountable to the country and to our electors.

Madam Speaker, I wonder if you would consider asking the House if it would give unanimous approval to have my bill made votable.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there agreement to make the bill votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Some hon. members]

No.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Is there unanimous consent of the House to see the clock as 7:14 p.m.?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

The time provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. As the motion has not been designated as a votable item, the order is dropped from the Order Paper.

Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 6:43 p.m.)