Benoît Sauvageau

[Parliament of Canada Act, May 7th, 2003]

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?

[Official Languages, May 5th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, last Friday, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration was shirking his responsibilities with regard to the language instruction for new Canadians program, in congratulating the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs on his official languages action plan and leaving out Quebec.

However, I told him that, out of a $94 million budget, $93.5 million was allocated to English language courses and only $333,000 to French language training for newcomers.

This disproportionate budget allocation for English and French language courses is another shocking example of the inconsistency of this government, particularly when it comes to the official languages.

This government has proven, once again, that its official languages policy is just about propaganda, policy statements and image.

I would remind the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration that there are words, propaganda and policy statements, but there are also facts.

[Immigration, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Canadian government says it is putting in place measures to foster francophone immigration to minority communities. But if we look at the amounts provided for language training, we notice that only $300,000, or 0.4% of the program's $94 million budget, is allocated to French language training, with a mere $9,000 for the Maritimes, and nothing for Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan and the Northwest Territories.

Is this deplorable situation not likely to turn prospective immigrants into prospects for assimilation?

[Parliament of Canada Act, May 2nd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak today on Bill C-34, concerning the appointment of ethics commissioners, and on the possibility of referring the bill to committee before second reading. Bill C-34 seeks to amend the Parliament of Canada Act and to create two distinct positions.

I am going to describe this bill briefly, for the people listening now and those who, we hope, will be reading these debates in the future.

These are the two positions. There is an ethics commissioner, responsible for administering a House of Commons code of conflict of interest—which does not yet exist, but which is being discussed and studied in committee—and for assisting the Prime Minister in administering the code of conduct for public office holders with respect to post-term conflicts of interest. There will also be a separate Senate ethics officer to administer the code of ethical conduct for the Senate.

As I was saying, the Senate code of ethical conduct and the House of Commons code of conduct governing conflicts of interest are now being developed within the two appropriate committees.

The Senate ethics officer will be appointed for a seven-year renewable term. The House ethics commissioner will be appointed for a five-year renewable term. This follows the pattern for the appointment of other officials, such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, or the Auditor General, or those who act as independent representatives before Parliament.

However, the unanimous report of a House of Commons committee, presented early in April, recommended that both these terms be renewable in order to reduce the loss of institutional memory. If it appears necessary to renew the term of someone in such a position, it is important to be able to do so, in order to preserve institutional memory.

The ethics commissioner will be appointed by the governor in council, after consultation with the leaders of recognized parties in the House. My colleague from the Canadian Alliance was wondering whether the appointment would be subject to consultation or to approval. That remains to be defined, but in this we recognize the wording of a promise from the 1993 red book. Ten years later, an old Liberal promise has almost been fulfilled. In fact, during second reading or in the committee stage, the top priority should be to make this point clear.

The draft bill tabled in the fall did not contain any provisions guaranteeing that the party leaders would be consulted. This is already a step forward. The government has committed to doing this, and we recognize this today.

Nor did the draft bill provide for a resolution by the House of Commons. Today, there is a possibility for a resolution in the House of Commons before these two commissioners are appointed.

We are also pleased that the bill will be sent to committee before second reading. This bill must undergo very serious analysis, which can only be done by concurrently considering the House of Common's conflict of interest code being drafted as we speak by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

It is impossible to discuss the appointment of an ethics commissioner, either separately or concurrently, without knowing all the ramifications of this code for members, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. Only by comparing the two documents will we be able to evaluate the overall process, in terms of whether there are possible ethics loopholes for elected representatives in the House of Commons. A serious analysis must be undertaken to understand what rules apply to public office holders, ministers and parliamentary secretaries. We intend to consider these issues very carefully, and we will continue this consideration in committee.

However, it is clear already that several aspects of the bill are very intriguing. We now have the assurance that the leaders of recognized parties in the House of Commons will be consulted about the appointment of the ethics commissioner since this will be a legislative requirement from now on. This obligation, which the Prime Minister committed to, was not included in the draft legislation introduced in the House of Commons on October 23.

Furthermore, the House will also be asked to approve the appointment of the ethics commissioner through a resolution. This is also a new provision in this bill. In its most recent report, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs had recommended that these provisions be included.

We also are pleased that a complaints process for parliamentarians concerning ministers, ministers of state and parliamentary secretaries will be formally in place from now on.

As well, the commissioner will be required to provide an activity report to the House of Commons, and not just the Prime Minister. These provisions were included in the draft bill and are being maintained, and we are pleased with this.

As the member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell has pointed out, this is not a new bill, or not the first time this important matter has been raised in the House of Commons.

Pleased as we are to have this opportunity to discuss this bill and this matter in the House today, we are somewhat disappointed that it has taken 10 years to be able to do so. We might say it is high time the Liberal government decided to keep its 1993 red book promise to appoint an independent ethics commissioner.

The red book made the following commitment:

A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor--

This was expressed in the future tense. There are various kinds of futures, and this is a very distant future.

The Ethics Counsellor will be appointed after consultation with the leaders of all the parties in the House of Commons and will report directly to Parliament.

That was, I might again point out, back in 1993.

Strangely enough, today we are accepting the appointment of an ethics commissioner after consultation, whereas the Canadian Alliance had, on an official opposition day, tabled a motion with exactly the same wording, if I recall correctly. It had had the finesse to copy the red book promise word for word, which was, I repeat:

A Liberal Government will appoint an independent Ethics Counsellor ...appointed after consultation with the leaders of all the parties ...and will report directly to Parliament.

At that time, the Liberals voted against it. Today, however, they are presenting a bill to keep that promise, for which we are grateful, particularly having seen the ineffectuality of the present ethics commissioner, who answers only to the Prime Minister, reports only to the Prime Minister, is appointed only by the Prime Minister, and whose only friend, I believe, is the Prime Minister. That alone is a clear indication that there is a problem.

What happened during those 10 years to convince the Liberals to change their mind and honour their promises? I will tell you what. There were scandals at the Auberge Grand-Mère. There were scandals at HRDC. There was a scandal in the sponsorship program. There was a scandal in the firearms program. There were scandals in many departments, National Defence being one I happen to be thinking about. During all that time, we had an ethics counsellor reporting to the prime minister, accountable to the prime minister and dealing only with the prime minister.

We think it important that this ethics commissioner will have a code to enforce and to abide by for members, ministers, parliamentary secretaries and everybody else, and that he will report to the House of Commons and not to the Prime Minister.

Although we agree entirely with the bill or with the principles of a code of ethics, we think that we should not be sending out the message that we are regulating ourselves in this way because we are dishonest.

If improper actions have been taken, we have to correct the perception. Unfortunately, in our society, politicians are not perceived as being very good at respecting rules. I fear that if things are not made properly in the design process of this study - and not in the application - and if we play politics, then all the politicians in the House will suffer from an even worse perception in the eyes of our fellow citizens.

I urge us all to proceed with the utmost caution in our study at second reading stage of this bill dealing with the position of ethics counsellor and the ethical guidelines in general.

[Iraq, May 1st, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, recently the world witnessed the throes of war in Iraq. In all our communities, no one remained unmoved in the face of such a tragedy.

Marc-André Turcot, the president of the student council at Paul-Arsenault high school, together with Gaëtanne Garneau and Cathy Thibeault, initiated a petition which was signed by more than 500 students and staff, opposing the action in Iraq and calling on the Prime Minister of Canada not to take part in this conflict.

I want to acknowledge this show of solidarity which reflects our students' concern for and commitment to peace. With young people like then, the future will hopefully be more peaceful.

Also, I wish to thank the teachers for their cooperation and I commend their initiative.

[Iraq, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, as regards the conflict in Iraq, Canada's position has characterized by a very convenient vagueness and principles have varied depending on the events that were taking place.

Can we now get the assurance that principles will prevail to preserve the UN's fundamental role in the reconstruction of Iraq?

[Iraq, April 11th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, this week, during a scrum, the Prime Minister justified Canada's non-participation in the war in Iraq by saying that it was a matter of principle, since this operation had not been approved by the UN.

Can the government assure us that it will also make this a matter of principle?

[Laurent Migué, April 10th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the Governor General's Caring Canadian Award was recently presented to Laurent Migué, a resident of Repentigny.

In 1983, Laurent Migué founded the Association de Repentigny pour l'avancement de la musique, or ARAM, to foster greater interest in classical music and the arts, particularly among young people.

As president, he organized the association's fundraising activities, staging numerous events such as benefit nights.

Mr. Migué is the heart of the association, to which he has dedicated himself body and soul for nearly 20 years. The Association currently presents more than 450 artistic events per year, involving over 10,000 participants.

Through his tremendous dedication, Mr. Migué has helped local musicians develop their skills and enriched the lives of music lovers.

Bravo and thank you, Mr. Migué.

[Foreign Affairs, April 9th, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, Cuban dissidents have been taken before the courts and sentenced to lengthy prison terms following trials that some people have described as a farce. We know that the Minister of Foreign Affairs has already expressed Canada's great concern regarding this to the Cuban ambassador.

Will the minister tell us what he intends to do to follow up on this troubling situation?

[Official Languages, April 3rd, 2003]

Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board promised us that March 31 was the deadline, that no delays would be accepted in applying the Official Languages Act and that all senior public officials would be required to comply.

How can the President of the Treasury Board justify that the President of Canada Post came and told the committee yesterday that of the five cases that do not comply with the act at Canada Post, two of the individuals would be retiring in the next few years—so he was not doing anything about them—and the other three individuals in question would soon be registering for French courses? Is this the President of the Treasury Board's solution?