Debates of May 7th, 2003

Canada Airports Act

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, my colleague went through some of the changes. When we look at this there appear to be changes that affect the day to day operations of airports, such as setting strict requirements for meetings, publication of notices and reports, assignments of stocks and so on. I would like his brief comment on whether he feels this is bringing the government back into those day to day operations. I expect that he does not want to see this, but I would like to hear it from him.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Madam Speaker, all I can say is that I do believe the government can always use improvement, and as a backbench member of the government side I am always trying to achieve that end.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

Before we resume debate, 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. member for Peterborough, Agriculture; the hon. member for Brandon—Souris, Ethics.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to participate in the debate on Bill C-27.

Before I begin, let me compliment the hard work done by our senior transportation critic on this issue in highlighting the problems related to this bill. Also, we will have a wonderful speech from the hon. member for Blackstrap with whom I will be sharing my time.

Bill C-27 is an act respecting airport authorities and other airport operators and amending the Canada Airports Act. Let me state that it is a combination of missed opportunities and attempts to solve problems that do not even exist.

When one looks at the state of Canada's airline industry and realizes that the Standing Committee on Transport is looking into the continued viability of the airline industry, one has to wonder why the government chose this time to introduce this legislation dealing with airports.

If we compare Canadian airports, both large and small, with similarly sized airports in other countries, the Canadian airports stand up rather well. At least there is no urgency or emergency to fix them. If something is not broken, why fix it? The real problem facing Canada's airline sector is not the way airports are run, but the way airport rent is charged by the federal government and passed on to the airlines.

This issue was raised and dealt with in the transportation committee hearings over the past few weeks. As a result, in an April 11 report this year the committee unanimously recommended that:

The federal government suspend rental payments by airports for a two-year period and the airports shall pass the rental savings to air carriers.

Further study is not needed. It is time to act. No one will find any discussion of airport rents in the Canada Airports Act.

In fact the Standing Committee on Transport made another unanimous recommendation to eliminate the air travellers security charge. This was connected to transferring responsibility for airport security to multi-modal agency that would be fully publicly funded. Here again an understanding of the nature of threats and security at small airports is helpful. Large airports have better security than smaller airports. The problem of course is that if the security is reduced at small airports but connecting passengers are allowed to proceed directly into the sterile or secure areas at big airports, the security of those large airports is compromised.

In Europe passengers arriving at places like Frankfurt, Paris or London from smaller centres are screened just like folks coming in off the street. They have to be screened before they enter the secure area of the airport to catch connecting flights. There is absolutely no mention of this idea in Bill C-27, even though it would offer better security at lower cost.

We are considering an airports act that applies to places as small as Gander with just 86,000 passengers and would also apply to any airport that has over 200,000 passengers annually. For most managers of small airports, the biggest single issue facing them is something call CARs 308. This is a recently imposed five minute emergency response time at smaller airports that has dramatically increased their operating costs. The federal government has not offered a dime in operating assistance and this unfunded federal government requirement is the biggest single issue facing many small airports.

The Regional Community Airports Coalition of Canada is calling on Transport Canada to suspend the introduction of CARs 308 indefinitely or to agree to pay for this regulation in its entirety to avoid the airports having to pass these increased operating costs on to the airlines. The coalition points out that these increased costs, applied in the form of a regulatory recovery fee, could increase airline fees at affected airports by up to 30% or higher. This will again affect the competitiveness and viability of the regional and community airports and therefore the communities they serve.

Other than the air security tax, the CARs 308 is the most important airport related issue missing in Bill C-27.

Part 6 of the Canada airports act deals with the issue of airport improvement fees. Essentially it subjects AIF to the same kind of accountability and appeal procedures that currently apply to Nav Canada fees. For airports just reaching the 200,000 passenger threshold, this will be a new level of bureaucracy, but I think that Canadians deserve to know how such fees are being spent.

If we held the Liberal government to the same standard, taxes like 1.5¢ per litre fuel tax that was aimed at cutting the deficit or the $24 air security tax would have to be much more accurately tailored to reasonable expenses, rather than a need to finance future Liberal spending or even the wasting of the money.

However even if one agrees with the general philosophy of the AIFs, the headlines that are dealing with this issue are not focusing on accountability but on the fact that the Air Canada restructuring has left many airport authorities in the red.

It seems that for many airports the AIF is included in the airline ticket prices and collected by the airlines and then handed over to the airport authority. Air Canada's financial problems are affecting many airports that trusted Air Canada to collect the AIF on their behalf. As of April 4, Canada's largest airports were owed a total $80 million in unpaid landing fees and airport improvement charges by Air Canada and that money is now tied up in the CCRA hearings.

However the air travellers security charge is not similarly affected, because Bill C-49 from last session required airlines to hold this money in trust. It does not require airlines, that collect the AIFs on behalf of many airports, to hold that money in trust as is done with the air travellers security charge.

Part 6, devoted to the question of AIF, we would think that the idea of any airline holding AIF money in trust so that airports would be paid even if the airline has a financial problem as in the case of Air Canada would have been included in Bill C-27, but it is not. This is another opportunity missed by this weak, arrogant Liberal government.

When we look at a list of priority airport issues facing the aviation industry, Bill C-27 misses virtually every opportunity to solve an existing problem. The government is trying to solve the problems that do not exist but it is not solving the problems that exist in the industry.

Bill C-27 is an attempt to codify the status quo in Canada's airline industry. This approach has two big problems.

The first is that there is no one out there calling for the status quo to be codified. No airline, airport authority or stakeholder is calling for legislation that would write down in one place the way Canada's various airports are run. It is an attempt to solve the problem that does not exist. Most of the language contained in Bill C-27 already exists in most of the leases that NAS airports have with Transport Canada. In many ways Bill C-27 is a complete waste of time.

The second big problem is that Bill C-27 would treat different airports similarly and similar airports differently causing true discrimination and causing far more problems than any codification of the status quo could potentially solve.

Since my time is almost over, let me conclude that a one size fits all solution, regardless of size and location, will not work.

Bill C-27 also fails to address major issues confronting airports, the CARs 308 issue, as I mentioned, the airport rental policy, the question of overly opulent terminals, the need for air industry representation and the need for the minister to get an arrogant airport authority to live within its mandate.

Bill C-27 is also introduced by the Minister of Transport who has repeatedly turned his back on unanimous recommendations by the committee to adopt the committee's recommendations as the department's priorities. The House should reject the legislation especially when, in cases such as this, it created more problems than it solves.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague across criticized, for the 10 minutes he had, the bill and the Government of Canada. I therefore assume that he has read the proposed bill. I therefore assume that he knows it very well and I appreciate that.

In return, I would like him to tell us what he has against the fact that the bill would clarify the roles and responsibilities of the Canadian government, as well as those of the airport authorities and operators. I would like him to tell us what he has against the updating and strengthening of the governance regime for airport authorities. I would like him to tell us what he has against the establishment of requirements for transparency and consultations between airport operators and interested parties.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary to the minister has prepared questions by bureaucrats and he is asking those questions, so his approach is naturally biased.

However let me put it like this. Bill C-27 overestimates or exaggerates problems which do not exist in the industry. We do not hear from the transport industry, the airport authorities or the stakeholders in the industry. It tries to solve those problems which do not exist and it does not do anything to solve those problems which already exist, like the problems I mentioned: the CARs 308 issue; the airport rent policy; the collecting of the airport improvement fee, which will be in trust and the bill does not do anything about that; the question of overly opulent terminals; the security issue; and the tax that smaller airports face in Canada.

How can the parliamentary secretary stand in the House and tell the House that the smaller airports can be governed and ruled by the same issues as the bigger airports? The smaller airports have different problems. One size fits all cannot be applied, regardless of the location or the size of the airport, it cannot be applied.

I urge the minister to look into those issues rather than having an arrogant approach to dealing with the airport authorities within Canada and having that tax grab which is a cash cow for the government continue.

At least the minister should look into the unanimous recommendations from the Standing Committee on Transport. which is a Liberal dominated committee. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary is aware of those recommendations and that he will look into them and apply them.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am surprised to hear those replies because Bill C-27 would establish principles for fees imposed by airport operators and my hon. colleague on the other side, along with his party, forever keeps criticizing the fees, whether they be high or low. The bill would look into the fees imposed by airport operators as defined in the legislation, including an appeal process to the Canadian Transportation Agency on future aeronautical and passenger fees that meet the past threshold.

I was under the impression that he had looked into this bill but from his comments, I feel that he has not looked at that part.

What about the creation of the adequate opportunity for users of airport facilities, including air carriers and the travelling public, to provide meaningful input into major airport decisions on charges--

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but there is only 50 seconds left. The hon. member for Surrey Central.

[Gurmant Grewal, Canadian Alliance, Surrey Central, BC]

Mr. Speaker, to that prepared question, my only answer would be that security is a very important issue with regard to smaller airports. When passengers transfer from smaller airports to bigger airports, they are left to go into the secure terminals where they are taking their connecting flights. That issue alone justifies what I am trying to say.

I have given a long list of issues which the bill ignores. I am sure that the parliamentary secretary will keep away from those prepared questions and focus on the real issues as well as the recommendations made by the transport committee. Those recommendations were unanimous by the Liberal dominated committee of the House.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join today's debate on Bill C-27, the Canada airports act, a piece of legislation which in my mind is remarkable for what it does not do rather than for what it does do.

The air transportation system is a vital component of the economy not just here in Canada but on a global scale. Let me give the House some figures. Airports produce more than $34 billion in total economic activity each year. They generate more than $4 billion in tax revenues. Construction at major airports has attracted more than $5 billion in private sector capital investment.

That said, our airline industry is in a crisis. The number of passengers has decreased. Service has been cut. The need for security has overridden our desire for convenience, and costs are skyrocketing.

When I said Bill C-27 is notable for what it does not address, these are the issues that come to mind. Outrageous airport rents are one of the costs passed on to airlines and subsequently to consumers.

Starting in 2005 Saskatoon's airport, which serves the people in my riding, is expected to pay more than $500,000 in rent annually. Saskatoon Airport Authority representatives have said this is unaffordable and have recommended that rental charges should be scrapped in an effort to reduce the volatility of the airline industry. Other facilities such as Winnipeg International Airport will be hit even harder in the next few years. Rent there is expected to jump to $7 million by 2007.

According to the Canadian Airports Council, the 26 airports in the national airports system paid $240 million in rent to the federal government. That figure is expected to rise another $20 million this year.

The situation is a major concern to Canada's airports and a problem for the aviation industry in general. Federal rent, the single largest uncontrollable cost for most airports, drives up the price of the services that airports provide to customers.

By raising the cost of travel, this situation threatens the many benefits that have been realized from the transfer of NAS airports to local control in the early 1990s. Not only has the airport devolution process relieved the federal government of the responsibility and financial burden of managing airports in terms of capital and operations, it has enabled local communities to operate airports in a manner consistent with local needs. Despite the heavy burden airport rents put on the industry, the issue is not addressed in Bill C-27.

With air security having become such a headline issue following the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States, one would think by now that Canada would have a secure air system. After all, Canadians have been paying heavily for security ever since the air travellers security tax was introduced to fund tighter controls. Reality however tells a different story. The fact is our airports have become slightly more secure than they were. That is not to say they are secure, or that all airports have the same level of security. They do not.

One of the most obvious holes in our security is that in most cases once passengers enter the system, they are in regardless of whether they were screened at a large airport where security is naturally tighter, or at a small local airport where security is lax or even non-existent. Unlike in Europe, passengers entering the system from small centres are usually not re-screened. It certainly is not mandatory, even though such a practice could offer better security. Bill C-27 does not address this point.

Talking about security reminds me of fees. When the air travellers security charge is collected, it is held in trust, which means it is protected. It is not so for airport improvement fees which tend to be included in ticket prices and therefore collected by the airlines before being turned over to the appropriate airport authority. If the airline collecting that money falls into financial peril, there is no guarantee that the airport authority could collect the money it rightfully deserves.

Again, if I might use the Saskatoon Airport Authority as an example, when Air Canada slid into bankruptcy, it owed the Saskatoon Airport Authority about $300,000 worth of airport improvement fees. Because the airport authority stands as an unsecured creditor and the money was not held in trust, the authority could lose the entire amount. There is some indication that part of the money will be repaid, but the potential for losses is what I and the airport authority find disturbing. Again, Bill C-27 does nothing to ensure that airport authorities will receive the money the bill itself allows them to collect.

That addresses some of the opportunities that are overlooked in the bill. Now I would like to talk about what is in the bill.

When I look around me today I see people who travelled here from across the country. Some arrived by car or train, but it is likely most came to Ottawa by air. To get here each person made his or her way through at least two different airports in different communities. I suspect there were noticeable differences at each of those facilities. That is because, like the communities and the people they serve, each airport has its own unique profile. Some are large international hubs while others cater solely to domestic clientele.

Bill C-27 does not recognize those differences. In this attempt to re-legislate the current management practices at Canadian airports, the government has chosen to adopt a blanket approach that forces some of our smallest airports to match the obligations of their larger, busier, metropolitan counterparts.

No one within the air industry has called for such measures and I question why the government has chosen this path. The real irony is that within this blanket system, Bill C-27 proposes a two tier approach that will hold former national airport system airports to one set of rules while non-NAS airports will have to abide by another.

For example, clause 57 of the bill limits a former Transport Canada airport authority's ability to invest in another corporation to 2% of gross revenues per year.

Clauses 62 to 64 deal with the corporate governance of airports but do not require the board to have an airline industry representative. Again, this applies only to certain airports.

The proposed Canada airports act is flawed. It essentially re-regulates airports without any obvious benefits and does so in a way that does not reflect the unique needs and characteristics of our airports.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I would make the observation to the member who just spoke that all legislation that appears in the House is flawed. One of the reasons we have debate is to try to identify those flaws and correct them. I like to think that the government is open to the suggestions of the opposition as much as the government is open to the suggestions of the backbenchers.

I wonder if she would comment. Is she disappointed with the standards of corporate governance that were defined in the legislation and that are to apply to all airport operators, the business of having financial statements that are open and audited financial statements? Surely it is reasonable to set one standard of corporate transparency and governance for all airports across the country, large and small.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I think that is one part of the legislation that in fact is welcome, which is anything that has transparency and accountability.

The one part of the corporate governance we are just a little concerned about is that the airport authority should have representatives from the air industry on the board. That is the part with which we are most disappointed.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity this past week to meet with the Atlantic provinces airport authority representatives who were here in Ottawa. They are very concerned about the bill. In fact they are saying that the bill will probably kill the airports in P.E.I. and many in Nova Scotia, Newfoundland, New Brunswick and in other smaller areas across the country. They have issues in so many areas that they wish to discuss.

The transport committee should be travelling across the nation. The bill should not be dealt with until the transport committee meets in all of those areas. Does the hon. member agree that the transport committee should go and listen to the many concerns of the airport authorities out there right now? If the committee does not, Bill C-27 will kill the airports in those smaller areas.

[Lynne Yelich, Canadian Alliance, Blackstrap, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly agree that we have to hear from the airport authorities across the country. Whenever I meet with representatives of the Saskatoon authority I am always surprised at what they tell me and they are very anxious to meet with me about the bill.

Because not everyone can come to Ottawa, we do not get all the players at the table. I would recommend that the committee travel across the country. That is how we would reach every region and representatives from all sectors. I certainly agree with the member.

[Sarmite Bulte, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I too am very pleased to participate in the debate today on Bill C-27, the Canada airports act.

I will focus my remarks on part 6 of the bill. That part deals specifically with the main fees which are collected by airports. Part 6 establishes a brand new framework for amending existing fees or introducing new ones.

I am sure everyone will agree that one of the most significant concerns expressed by airlines and passengers alike has been the inability to consistently obtain a reasonable explanation of the fees being charged by airports across the country. Many times when I have travelled across the country, I have asked myself what certain fees were for. I am sure many other Canadians have experienced that same kind of feeling. I know that internationally other airports charge fees as well but we are always questioning the fees. We have paid for our tickets and in addition to that we have to pay another fee.

I am glad to announce that the new Canada airports act will actually address this shortcoming. It establishes a framework for fees that will provide users with the necessary information to understand each aeronautical and passenger fee. It also provides users an additional opportunity to influence the airport's decision making process each time these fees are amended or a new fee is being reconsidered. It is not that we just show up and the fee will be an additional $10 or $15. This framework will apply to all airports affected by the legislation and will deal only with two revenue sources on the airport.

First, there are the fees that are collected by airports from air carriers for the use of services and facilities and second, the fee collected directly from the passengers, which is usually called the airport improvement fee or the passenger facilitation fee. It is that fee which is annoying because we have to pull out our wallets to pay an additional fee as we are running to get on a plane. I think Canadians are most familiar with that fee.

There are four components to the framework and I would like to go through each one of them. First, it sets out charging principles to be followed in establishing these fees. Second, it has a charging methodology that the airport must develop to explain how each fee relates to the financial requirements of the airport. Third, it has a consultation process that is to be followed. Fourth, it gives an appeal process for users who claim that an airport operator has not complied with the charging principles or the prescribed consultation process.

The charging principles contained in the bill establish a minimum set of rules, and I underline minimum set of rules, that airport operators must follow with respect to fees.

These principles require airport operators to develop a charging methodology, to relate fees to costs so as to prevent overcharging users, to avoid discrimination in charging among users as required by Canada's international obligations, and to ensure that safety is in no way diminished by the fee structure.

With respect to the second component of the framework, each airport operator must develop and announce its charging methodology. This methodology must explain in detail the financial requirements of the airport that are to be met through fees and how each fee relates to these financial requirements.

Passenger fees attract specific reporting requirements under the legislation. Airport operators must identify the specific major capital program that the passenger fee is paying for and must also report how long the fee will be in place in relation to that program.

I have gone to certain airports which I have not been to in years and at that time there had been an airport improvement tax. I can understand when I see ongoing construction that there might be a need for this tax. However, it seems to me that years later when I have returned that same fee is still there and I cannot believe that they would have already started charging for a future improvement.

Passengers would finally have a feeling that there is some accountability here and that is very important. I should add that, for airports with fewer 400,000 passengers annually, revenues from passenger fees would be permitted to help pay for airport operations and maintenance costs as well.

It is important that we look at smaller airports and that a distinction is truly made. As in any type of industry, as a government, we must be careful that we take into account the fees or the operations of the smaller operators. As the former parliamentary secretary, I was involved with the Department of Canadian Heritage for the past two years. We always looked at the small broadcasters and the small cable operators because we had just finished a study at the Department of Canadian Heritage on the Broadcasting Act. We hope to table a report before the House recesses for the summer.

It is good to see that the government is establishing new policies, and that we are looking at ways to help the smaller businesses and smaller parts of our industry deal with the regulations. When we are speaking about regulations, one of the important things in the Speech from the Throne was our priority to ensure that we have smart regulations. The Prime Minister recently announced a special advisory board. It all fits into what we as a government are trying to accomplish under the act.

The third component of the framework provides airport operators with a minimum consultation process to be followed each time a fee is amended or a new fee introduced. That is so important. It is certainly something that we are constantly being badgered by the opposition. It says that we do not do enough consultation. It does not matter how much consultation we do, there never seems to be enough. It is important that we recognize that within this act we are requiring of airports the same kind of consultation process that we conduct and that we need as well in order to affect proper policy.

It is important for passengers to participate. I should note that the public will have the opportunity to review and comment on the justification for every fee proposal. The minimum review period of 60 days is similar to what is required today of the airport authorities pursuant to their leases with the federal government. There is indeed a precedent for those consultations and I welcome them. It is so important for consumers to know what it is they are paying for and how long they will be paying this as well. I commend the government on how it has reacted to the consultations that we have had to ensure that there continue to be consultations as the fees are collected.

Finally, I want to speak to the fourth component of the framework. The Canada airports act would permit users and passengers to appeal the decisions made by airport operators. The appeal process would be limited to appeals regarding compliance with the charging principles and with the consultation process. If passengers are not satisfied with the consultation process or how the charging principles have been involved, they have the opportunity to appeal. That is very important. If they feel they have been left out of the consultation process or it has not been done properly, there is that ability to appeal and that is important as well.

The Canadian Transportation Agency would hear these appeals and would be empowered to order airport operators to cancel a fee, but more importantly, they would have the opportunity to issue refunds to users if an appeal is successful. That is a wonderful opportunity. Canadians should know that they can be part of the process and actually get a refund if they find that the consultation process or the charging principles were not taken into account as required under the act.

To sum up, the act would establish for the first time a common set of rules that would guide airport operators in their management of fees and it would do so without being unduly prescriptive. Airport operators would still have the freedom to decide what their financial requirements are and how they would generate revenues to collect them. It is important that airports continue to have this freedom since many have borrowed where lenders have based their decisions on their knowledge of this freedom.

Finally, the focus of the legislation in this area of fees would promote transparency and provide a more consultative process for users. We believe that it would contribute to the efficient and effective management of Canada's critical airport infrastructure.

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

I wish to inform the hon. member that she still has 10 minutes in her speech and she will be entitled to a 10 minute question and comment period when debate resumes on Bill C-27.

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.

Parliament of Canada Act

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

moved that Bill C-408, 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, I rise today as a proud Canadian member of Parliament. I have the pleasure to present Bill C-408 which aims to modify the swearing of allegiance by members of Parliament.

As we all know, when elected to the House of Commons, members must swear an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty the Queen. The present oath reads:

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

I propose that henceforth newly elected members of Parliament be asked to add to the swearing of allegiance to the Queen the following affirmation:

I, ..., 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 am proud to say that I myself have made this added affirmation the last three times I was re-elected to the House of Commons in 1993, 1997 and 2000. I encouraged my colleagues from various parties to do the same. To my pride and joy a great number of newly elected members from various parties followed suit, and I wish to applaud and thank them today.

I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration in declaring that the new proposed oath of citizenship in Bill C-18 would include a pledge of allegiance by new Canadians, not only to Her Majesty the Queen, but also a pledge of allegiance to Canada. I find this to be an addition that depicts a more realistic view of Canadian values.

We as members of Parliament have an obligation to our constituents and to all Canadians to affirm our loyalty to Canada and, I would add, perhaps even to its Constitution. It is not just a principle of patriotism, it is a principle of accountability. I know of no members in the House who would deny their sense of obligation and accountability to the community they represent.

It is a matter of patriotism, pride, and accountability. We live in a country we are all proud to call home, one which, ever since its early days, has distinguished itself by an impressive series of achievements, both internationally and nationally. This is a great country in which to live, a country where hundreds of thousands of people looking for a new life settle every year.

I do not think it is necessary to point out the merits of Canada or the respect we owe to our country. I am sure that my hon. colleagues in this House share my sense of pride in being representatives of the people in the House of Commons.

The Canadian public itself certainly seems to feel this national pride. According to Statistics Canada's 2001 census, when asked to identify their ethnic origin, more than 11 million citizens indicated Canadian; that is more than any other possible nationality, and this of a total population of approximately 31 million.

This tendency on the part of citizens to identify themselves as Canadians has increased since the 1996 census, when 8 million citizens indicated Canadian. This is happening across Canada.

Until then, citizens were more likely to refer to their English or French, Irish or Italian origins, to give just a few examples. Clearly, the population of Canada is undergoing change and continuing to grow.

We must lead the way in reconciling modern and historical Canada. I insist that my bill in no way diminishes the importance of Her Majesty the Queen. To swear allegiance to Canada and its Constitution is consistent with today's reality and the current wishes of Canadians, without losing sight of our history and traditions. The new oath would simply 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 Her Majesty the Queen. Our parliamentary monarchy is part of our Canadian Constitution, our Canadian history, and our Canadian heritage. Even if I intended to remove the Queen from our swearing of allegiance, which is not the case, we in the House know that the Constitution cannot be amended by Parliament alone without the consent of the provinces and the territories.

It is not my intention to embark on such a course. 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. This affirmation comes as an addition to swearing allegiance to the Queen and is in no way an attempt to diminish Her Majesty's role in Canada.

The Canada of today has become a multicultural society, depicting citizens from all over the world and not just from Commonwealth countries. Amid this impressive mosaic, Canada, as a word, as a symbol, applies to everyone in the country regardless of geographic region, race or background. This is in large measure because Canadians feel an overriding sense of patriotic pride and a sense of belonging to this country of theirs.

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 suggest to my hon. colleagues of the House of Commons that it is desirable that we go ahead, 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 added affirmation that I am proposing today is not just a series of words or a patriotic cheer. It is a recognition of democracy and accountability. 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 elect us and who we represent. This is in accordance with democratic principles around the world.

Democratically elected officials in countries around the world swear allegiance to their countries and to the people they represent. Some will state that we are part of the British Commonwealth and that we should not include our sense of patriotism or accountability to our constituents when swearing allegiance. I would inform them that Jamaica, South Africa and India are but three examples of British Commonwealth countries that amended their oath to include their country. Many other British Commonwealth countries are also debating similar measures, such as Australia for example.

As members of Parliament, we have to recognize that we were elected by the people to represent their interests, their well-being and their concerns. We answer to Canadians at election time. We are accountable to the Canadians who elect us and who we represent. Let us make it official and further enhance the trust that Canadians have in their parliamentarians. As members of Parliament we owe our allegiance to Canada.

Vive le Canada.

[John Bryden, Liberal, Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I commend the member for his excellent initiative. I think he is going to strike a chord with all Canadians. I am sure his bill will be passed in the House without any difficulty at all.

I would like to ask him a question. I have before me the Quebec oath that members of the provincial legislature in Quebec swear. I will read it in English and perhaps he would like to comment on it. It states, “I swear that I will be loyal toward the people of Quebec and I will exercise my functions as a member of the provincial parliament with honesty and justice and with respect to the constitution of Quebec”.

Perhaps the member could comment on that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question. I have presented this bill at least two or three times. On those occasions it was not votable and the Bloc Quebecois members rose to object to my bill.

I have trouble understanding why the hon. members of the Bloc would oppose the idea of being accountable to the communities they represent. The hon. members of the Bloc are members of the House of Commons and not of the National Assembly. They represent their communities. And together with the rest of us, they represent all of Canada.

Members elected to Quebec's National Assembly take an oath of their own. In addition to swearing allegiance to the Queen, they also say, “I swear that I will be loyal towards the people of Quebec and I will exercise my functions as a member of provincial Parliament with honesty and justice with respect to the Constitution of Quebec.

The members of the National Assembly recognize that they are accountable to their people. Thus, I imagine that the federal members of the Bloc Quebecois, who have always objected to my bill each time I have presented it, are surely accountable to their communities, their constituents, as are we all.

That being said, if such an oath is good for the provincial members in Quebec, then surely the bill I am presenting, which we are debating at second reading today, stating our accountability to Canada and the Canadians we represent, is based on the same principle. The Bloc members should acknowledge their accountability to the communities they represent. As I was saying, they are all members of one community, the House of Commons, where we all represent the entire community of Canada.

That is my reply to the hon. member's excellent question.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief question for the member.

On the question of Bloc Quebecois members and people who regard themselves as belonging to a separate collectivity, that is of being loyal to what they hope will eventually become an independent Quebec and their ability to swear, in good conscience, an oath like this, does the hon. member think there would be any kind of crisis of conscience or difficulty for them in swearing such an oath?

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has asked an excellent question. Would they have a crisis of conscience? I see no reason for that.

There should not be a crisis of conscience in this case. If one lives in Quebec one lives in Canada. If one lives in Ontario one lives in Canada. If one lives in British Columbia one lives in Canada.

Therefore everyone in Quebec is a Canadian and a Quebecois, just as in Ontario, the member, myself and other members who are from Ontario are Ontarians and Canadians. The same applies to all the other provinces. There should be no concern.

If the members of the Bloc, as they keep repeating every time I present my bill, are against it, they should remind themselves that they are accountable to the community they represent. It is a question of accountability. If they dislike the Constitution they should propose amendments to the Constitution.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to speak to the bill. I must say that of all the private members' legislations to come before the House under the new rules, this strikes me as being one of the two or three that is the most likely to make it through the process and find its way toward becoming the law of the land. Therefore I take the bill very seriously.

The title of the bill is “an act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (oath or solemn affirmation)”. The essence of the bill is summed up in clause 3, which states that no person may sit in the House unless he or she has sworn an oath or solemn affirmation in addition to the one which we now swear.

All members, including myself, swear the following oath, which is stipulated in section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and is laid out in schedule 5 of that act:

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

The proposed new law would not remove that oath but would add the following:

I, ..., 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 think it is pretty hard to object in principle to this. Certainly nobody, including members of the Bloc Quebecois, could object to the second part of that statement, “I will perform the duties of a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly”.

Therefore the question then becomes one of the first part of the statement, “I will be loyal to Canada”. This is the reason that earlier I asked the hon. member the question whether a person who is a separatist, who would like to see his or her province removed from Canada, could in good conscience swear this oath.

My inclination is to think that there should not be a problem, that being loyal to Canada means, in part, as the hon. member said in his comments, being loyal to the community, to the spirit of the community.

As well, there is a question of being loyal to the Constitution. While I do not support in any way, at any point in Canada's future, one province leaving the country, there is a constitutional mechanism by which this could occur. One could be loyal to the Constitution and work toward the sovereignty of one province. That was laid out in a Supreme Court reference decision two years ago. I do not think there is a logical reason, even if one were not loyal to the idea of Canada remaining a united country permanently, that one would not swear an oath to this effect.

Being loyal to Canada in the sense that the hon. member, the proposer of this bill, described in his initial remarks, is just another way of saying what is in the second part of the act, “I will perform the duties of a member of the House of Commons honestly and justly”.

The obligation on us to follow our oath, because these oaths are very general, is, in a sense, a moral obligation rather than a legal obligation. I think it would be very difficult to prosecute anybody sitting in the House, or anybody who has sat in the House in recent decades, for failing to fulfil the oath that currently exists, and it would probably be very difficult to prosecute anybody or to deprive them of their seat in the House based upon a failure to perform the proposed oath. Therefore the statement that is being made here is a moral statement.

I thought it was interesting that the hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans referred to the oath that he voluntarily took, in addition to his oath to the Queen, when he was sworn in. It is a version of an oath that a number of us took, myself included, when we were sworn in. We understood when we took the oath that we could not be bound to that oath. It was something that we took on voluntarily because we thought it was a way of showing our commitment to the community, of which we are part, our own constituents and to the country as a whole.

It seems to me that this kind of oath is a reaffirmation of the general reason for which we were sent here. Now there is a specific reason why each of us were sent here. I was sent here because a larger number of people in my riding voted for me than voted for any other candidate. We all have a similar tale to tell. However when we get here it is our obligation to represent, not just the people who voted for us-and many people who come to this place have been voted for by less than half of the potential votes in their constituency--but to represent all of them.

It seems to me that the expression of community and of community interest as stated in the proposed oath reflects that sense of community as a whole. For that reason, I would be supportive of this oath and of including it in the oath that we swear. This would be a real step forward for us. All members could swear in good conscience. Those who feel the necessity to express their reservations could do so separately from the oath itself.

In 1976 when the first Parti Québécois government was sworn in, a number of the members of the party said that they had sworn the oath with their fingers crossed behind their backs. I guess they felt it was important to express a certain sentiment but nonetheless they swore the oath. Bloc Québécois members who sit in the House have sworn an oath to the Queen despite the fact that I suspect very few of them are actually monarchists. It is possible to do that sort of thing without suffering a great crisis of conscience.

I think all Canadians recognize the value of Canada as a whole, as a concept, as an idea, and not merely as a constitutional status quo. That is what the bill proposes to recognize. For that reason, I encourage all members of the House of Commons to vote for it.

[Elsie Wayne, Progressive Conservative, Saint John, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I rise because I represent Canada's first incorporated city by royal charter, Saint John, New Brunswick. We date back to 1783. We are not a republic. The head of state for Canada, and Saint John, is Her Majesty the Queen.

I have great respect for the hon. member who has put forward the motion. However when we take our oath, we refer to Queen Elizabeth II who is Canada's head of state. Therefore we are taking our oath to Canada.

On October 12, 2002, my colleague from Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough, when speaking against Bill C-219 at that time, stated his personal view that we should embrace our link to Great Britain, to our very origins and embrace the oath to the Queen. He said that we should embrace the fact that the Queen had continued in a very diligent and forthright way the lineage and connection to our country. As a Canadian, I feel very proud to continue this. When I take the oath and refer to Her Majesty, I definitely feel I am taking the oath to Canada, and I am proud to do it.

I know the hon. member is saying that he wants to add more to it. He is not saying that he wants to take that portion of the oath out. However now we are dividing it because she is our head of state.

I have met Prince Charles, Princess Diana, Her Majesty, Prince Philip, Prince Andrew, all of the royal family. I have been in their company. They love Canada. I will never forget the hurtful comments by the Deputy Prime Minister on the Queen's visit to Canada. I was so very much ashamed. I felt so saddened when he made them.

I am sure all of us will remember Queen Elizabeth II's state visit to Canada last fall and the response of Canadians to her and to Prince Philip as well. The Duke of Edinburgh was truly amazing. Whether it was in the north, the west, central Canada or the east, the response was the same, welcoming communities, warm hearts, joyful crowds and thankful Canadians.

Queen Elizabeth II, who has served in her capacity as Queen of the commonwealth for over 50 years, has served us and served us well. We all know, with her diligence, steadfastness and unwaivering hand, we are a very special country in this world. Our Queen has been a role model for Canadians and the whole world. As such, we as a nation are blessed for her leadership and guidance.

I stated earlier that I had great respect for the hon. member who has put forth this private member's bill. However I want the hon. member to know that when we take our oath, we take our oath to Canada through the head of state of Canada.

One major concern I have is that just recently we took reference to Her Majesty out of the oath for the public servants. Public servants no longer take the oath to Her Majesty. Not that the hon. member is saying this, but before we know it, we will not be taking our oath either. Some tried before in the House of Commons to take out the oath to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II. I worry about that.

There are two parts of the oath, one that has existed since 1867 and the one that is being proposed today. They seem to be part of almost the same package, reaffirming essentially 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 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. The important thing is we must always remember the substance of our oath of office.

As I said earlier, I represent Canada's first incorporated city, Saint John, New Brunswick and I am truly proud of that. Who worked to build this wonderful country? It was our francophone people, our anglophone people, our aboriginal people, we all built it.

It is an honour and a privilege to be a member of Parliament and sit in the House of Commons. When I look at the top of your chair, Mr. Speaker, and its insignia, some of it represents Her Majesty and some of it represents Quebec. We should be very proud to stand in the House of Commons and take our oath.

I also belong to the Monarchist League of Canada, a group which tries to ensure that Her Majesty receives the respect that she deserves.

When I read Bill C-408, I asked myself what she would say. She was just here in October. She did not receive the respect that she should have, not only from the Deputy Prime Minister but from some others. If we were to divide the oath, it would say to her that we felt she was no longer the head of state of Canada. When we take our oath, we swear allegiance to the Queen: “Faithful and bear Allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth”.

I cannot believe we would get into this kind of debate in the House of Commons of Canada once again. We are here to work for all our people no matter in which province they live. We have the Governor General, who represents Her Majesty. We have Lieutenant-Governors in every province in Canada who also represents Her Majesty, and they do it with dignity.

If we pass this bill, the next thing we know we will not have a Governor General representing Her Majesty. We will be looking at a different organization altogether down the road.

The hon. member who proposed the motion is an honourable member. He used to sit right across from me. He always encouraged me. In fact both those members who sit side by side always encouraged me, and I have such great respect for both of them. However I am very worried because we have some members who do not want to take an oath of allegiance to Her Majesty. That oath of allegiance must be there. When we take that oath, we take an oath of allegiance to Canada as a whole, through Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II.

[Benoît Sauvageau, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak on the bill introduced by one of my hon. colleagues, who is a great defender of the official languages in Canada and of French in his province.

He would make a major change in the oath of allegiance so that it read:

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 was listening and I see that it was very much inspired by the oath of allegiance that is now used in Quebec. But I believe it is worthwhile to look at the origin, the meaning and need to have an oath of allegiance.

I had prepared some notes, but first, I feel I must comment on the previous speeches, to which I was listening carefully. Before this debate, I thought that Canada truly had two solitudes and two realities. But after listening to some of these speeches, I feel that we are living on another planet or in another galaxy.

I have a great deal of respect for my hon. Progressive Conservative colleague who spoke before me, but seeing the passion and emotion with which she was defending the archaic system of Canadian political dependence on Great Britain leaves me completely at a loss.

I am completely amazed by the fact that, in 2003, when it comes to the issue of sovereignty, Canadian sovereignty anyway, there is still such a passionate desire to remain a colony dependent on Great Britain. Someday someone will have to explain to me—and it will take some time I think—why I must remain a faithful and loyal subject of someone else, when I live in one country and hope to have my own someday. I have great difficulty in understanding, and it would take a great deal of explaining, this interest and this primacy that some would confer to a head of state.

When we travel around our ridings and ask constituents why the Queen's image is on our dollar and what the role of the Governor General is, and that of the Lieutenants Governor in the provinces, and we explain what their role really is in our democracy, I would say that in 99.9% of the cases, people are dumbfounded and say, “Come on, we do not still have that kind of system”.

We need to look at where this system came from and how we can live with it and improve it, not go back in time, like the film Back to the Future . I think that that is what our friend wants us to do by introducing this bill.

First, the oath of allegiance goes back a long time, but here in Canada, it goes back to 1867. Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867 reads as follows—Mr. Speaker, please tell your colleague to let me know if I am interrupting his conversation and I will wait for him to finish—and I quote:

Every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Governor General or some Person authorized by him, and every Member of a Legislative Council or Legislative Assembly of any Province shall before taking his Seat therein take and subscribe before the Lieutenant Governor of the Province or some Person authorized by him, the Oath of Allegiance contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act;

And, this fifth schedule of the act reads:

I (name of the person) do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to Her Majesty—

At the time of the Act, this was Queen Victoria, but they have modified it with the current Queen, so it now reads Queen Elizabeth II.

However, where does it come from, this oath of allegiance that we have copied, like the British system, like the British parliamentary system?

I would like to give you some information that I got from a document in the library entitled Oaths of Allegiance and the Canadian House of Commons . It says and I quote:

“The Canadian oath of allegiance derives from that used in the British Parliament”, which is only natural, “where the requirement for such an oath arose from the political and religious conflicts of the sixteenth century”.

So, in order to resolve religious and political conflicts, the oath of allegiance was adopted sometime during the 1500s. Further on, it reads:

The original purpose of the oath was to assert the primacy of the British sovereign over all matters, both ecclesiastical and temporal; as such, it was primarily directed at preventing Catholics from holding public office. (Other religious denominations were also affected incidentally, until the reforms of the nineteenth century.)

The oath of allegiance taken by members of the House of Commons upon their election has its roots in an oath of allegiance adopted in the sixteenth century to prevent Catholics from getting into the British Parliament. The member is proposing this oath not to improve it but to amend it, in the same spirit as prior to the reform in the nineteenth century.

I respect protocol. I respect traditions. I know that there is a distinction between folklore and traditions. But, on the other hand, when it comes to amending texts from the sixteenth century, such as this one, I do not think that we are changing with the times.

This reminds me of something our guests and visitors are always surprised to learn. I have a few examples. Visitors are told that the green carpet in the House of Commons represents the lawn on which the Commons held its meetings in the Middle Ages. The distance separating the opposition party and the government party is represented by an outstretched arm holding a sword on each side of the House; the swords must not touch to avoid fratricidal battles.

I am reciting facts you already know, Mr. Speaker, since you are very learned when it comes to the British parliamentary system. We are still living in that era.

As hon. members may know, and I am going back in time here, the expression “It's in the bag” is also a legacy of the British system. When it came to dealing with a private member's business or bill, the Speaker of the House at Westminster would literally take the piece of paper on which the business in question was described and put it in a bag behind his chair. Whenever the member of Parliament returned to his riding and constituents asked him where their bill or motion was at, he could answer, “It is in the bag”.

Such expressions date back to the fifteenth and sixteenth centuries. Today, in Canada, we are once again debating their relevance. I do respect institutions and traditions, but once in a while we must wonder about the folklore and the true meaning of amendments or changes proposed by members of the government party. I do not think that it is a priority for Canadians citizens to discuss whether we should take this oath or that one.

I would also ask my hon. colleague why he feels the need to remain under the British monarchy. While the primary purpose of this bill is clearly to interfere in the duties and functions of the members of the Bloc Quebecois, does he not think that he should at least support his country's sovereignty, if he does not support ours?

Having been recognized by the Statute of Westminster, Canada has the authority to make its own foreign policies, and since it collects its own taxes why does the hon. member sponsoring this bill not join the Deputy Prime Minister of Canada and leadership candidate in saying that there should no longer be a monarchy system in Canada?

[The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair)]

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Ottawa—Orléans, who introduced the motion, has the floor.