John Bryden

[Petitions, December 13th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I too have a petition in which the petitioners express concern about private member's Bill C-250, an act that would add sexual orientation to certain clauses of the Criminal Code.

[Committees of the House, December 11th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I too sit on the public accounts committee. I certainly support the Auditor General in almost all the recommendations that she comes down with.

The government needs to re-examine and regularize the way in which employment insurance is collected. I would take issue with the member opposite that this is a payroll tax that is having a negative effect on the economy. I would remind the member opposite that employment insurance is a shared charge. It is not just the workers who contribute to employment insurance, it is also the employers themselves.

In a very strong sense those who contribute to employment insurance are the very large manufacturing corporations, the automakers, the steel industry and so on. When we talk about reducing EI premiums we must remember that in doing so we are reducing the expenses of the corporation. It is not just the organized workers.

I would also observe that many of the people who pay into employment insurance are the unionized workers for the very large corporations who make, in the case of General Motors and some of the large automakers, the base rate. The base rate for unskilled labour is I think about $69,000.

I think one has to bear in mind that the payroll tax that we are talking about, and I suppose we could call it a payroll tax, I have no problem with that, is a tax that benefits the economy. The $40 billion I point out is a notional amount of money. We can debate how real it is. The point about the $40 billion is that it is not much less than the debt.

We do know that anything that the government can do to reduce the debt has a net positive effect on the economy. It creates jobs. I point out to the member for Prince Albert that Canada is leading the United States in economic prosperity and job creation right now.

How did that occur? The fact is that the government had its priorities straight. It looks to debt reduction. It is true that in the employment insurance procedures that are being undertaken right now I think that the government should revise how employment insurance is collected.

I would like to see a two scale system, where the large manufacturing companies and those sectors of industry in which the salaries are very high pay perhaps a higher employment insurance premium than those people who are in the less affluent and less safe sectors, the small businesses.

The message that we get from the Auditor General is that it is time for the government to again review employment insurance. It is time to structure it in a way that it does not simply benefit the large corporations and protect the large unions that have such benefits from their corporations that even when they are unemployed they have the opportunity of receiving 95% of their income.

We must take this message from the Auditor General that the way employment insurance is managed now is not satisfactory and turn it into an opportunity to give a break to those small businesses that have one, two or three employees and are forced to contribute to employment insurance and give the kind of protection that we need to give to the small entrepreneurs and the people who are in marginal income categories and for whom an employment insurance premium is a significant deduction from their payroll.

I must say that when we are in that category of worker where the base rate for unskilled labour is around $70,000, then I am not so sure that the employment premium of $2.10 is so terribly unfair.

I always support the member for St. Albert when he says laudatory things about the Auditor General because she has been doing excellent work now, but a government must always remember that its job is to govern and to find a way to manage the government's finances and the country's finances that benefit not just the best off in society, not just the best paid workers, not just the large corporations, but benefit small businesses and employees who have less opportunity.

I think a two tier employment insurance system is a great idea and I would love to hear the thoughts of the member for St. Albert.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I would just observe, it is not about legacy for the Prime Minister. It is about legacy for future generations on the planet. The member opposite made reference to the flares and that people could tolerate the flares in the third world, that is the flares burning off natural gas into the atmosphere, in those countries where these flares occur because this is a way of keeping food on the table.

I would point out to the member opposite that these flares are the result of international oil consortiums drilling for oil and burning the gas off with the agreement of the countries in whose territories they are operating. These are governments that have made these decisions, the government of Saudi Arabia and the government of Nigeria. These are the countries that somehow the developed world has to persuade to find that they would take other solutions that gain less for them in the short run and provide more for all of us in the long run. In other words, this is really not about carbon dioxide.

I could concede many of the things the speaker opposite says but the reality is that this is all about Canada showing the leadership because our ally to the south, who should have been in this place on this issue, has not showed the leadership.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Elk Island really has demonstrated that he does not have a grasp of chemistry beyond early high school. None of those arguments have any bearing on what I said.

The point is simply that we have to lead the way in struggling to create environmental technologies that combat all forms of air pollution. There is no doubt. If he had listened to my speech I would have acknowledged that carbon dioxide is not the ultimate problem. It is the problem of leadership. We have to get out there and show the undeveloped world that the developed world is willing to lead the way in reducing air pollution of every kind. It is a matter of the future of the world, the future of the planet, not a matter of a chemistry lesson that obviously the member opposite did not learn very well.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, the definition of leadership is to be willing to lead when the way ahead is unsure. Anyone can go forward when the future is full of certainty, but few are prepared to go forward to show true leadership when the future is uncertain. I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is the case with the Kyoto accord.

As with countries, as with prime ministers, as with heads of corporations and businesses and as with ordinary people, when the time comes to lead, it has to be when one realizes it is necessary, one is called upon to lead, and the way ahead is unsure.

I have been following the debate on Kyoto. I actually have on my desk a very thick file of all the speeches in Hansard . There is no doubt that there is a lot of uncertainty surrounding what we are proposing to do about ratifying the Kyoto accord.

There is no doubt in my mind that there is a huge political element in the lead-up to the Kyoto accord, that indeed there are some countries in the world that hope to see countries like Canada and the United States indeed sign on to the commitments involved in Kyoto to make them less competitive, so that these countries in the third world, or even in the second world, if we will, in Europe, can compete better with the products that are produced especially in North America.

There also is no doubt that there is dispute on the scientific evidence. It is true that finally, after many years of debate, the consensus among scientists is that the climate is changing. But there is not consensus that the climate is changing because of world contributions of greenhouse gas emissions. That is not proven. However, what is known, what is established, is that the world is under threat of pollution caused by human activity and that populations around the world are growing. What is happening, and we saw it so well with the former east bloc countries, is that when the desire is to produce, to manufacture at any cost, there is a tremendous cost to the environment, an unacceptable price paid on the loss of environmental integrity.

All we have to do is to go to today's East Germany or Taiwan, for example, or many of the cities in the countries in the Far East and eastern Europe and see the effects of unregulated pollution, where the rivers are poisoned and the air is poisoned. Visitors from Taiwan will comment when they have been here in Ottawa for 24 hours or 48 hours that they do not have to change their shirts because they do not have a black ring around the neck. The air pollution in Singapore, Mexico City and so many places around the world is very severe.

I would suggest that the Kyoto accord is not really about carbon dioxide, because again we acknowledge that carbon dioxide is something that plants use and it is a non-poisonous gas that is part of the natural environment. But the reason why one focuses on the question of carbon dioxide is that it is an indicator of other human-produced pollutants.

The reason why it is so important, in my view, that despite the uncertainty Canada stands up at the plate on Kyoto is that the leading developed nations have to lead on this, because the third world looks to us with great envy and sees us as the ones who have it all our way. They want to catch up and they want to compete with us in any way they can, and if that any way involves contributing to world pollution then that any way is what they will do. So the developed nations have to lead the way on air pollution control is what it really amounts to, on cutting back on the pollutants in the atmosphere.

There is no doubt that whatever we do here in Canada is not going to account for that much difference in climate change. If we want to see where the real problems in air pollution are coming from, all we have to do is get on the Internet and get into those satellites that are looking down into the Middle East or Africa and see those natural gas flares that are blowing into the air in Saudi Arabia or Nigeria, or see the plumes of smoke from the forest fires and the clear-cutting in western Africa, in the Amazon and in Malaysia. This is serious pollution. The only way that the western world, the developed countries, can get any kind of moral authority to persuade these other countries not to do this is to lead the way in cutting back on the emissions that we ourselves create.

It is important to lead. One of my great disappointments in this whole Kyoto process is the fact that the United States did not take the lead. I believe that there is a tremendous will in the United States to lead in this particular way because Americans and Canadians, North Americans, are renowned worldwide for the ability to innovate. If there were any two countries in the entire world that could face this challenge and employ high technology and creativity to develop new strategies to control pollution, be it carbon dioxide, methane, nitrous oxide, or any of these things, it is Americans and Canadians.

It is sad that the American leadership has decided not to go down this avenue that the rest of the world is calling upon it to do. Therefore Canada has to take the lead. We are the only G-7 nation that is prepared to take this kind of leadership.

I really believe that when we made this commitment, and we are going into a world of uncertainty, I think we will show that we can meet the challenges. I would suggest that within a few years of going down that road, that road of uncertainty, I believe that the Americans will follow the Canadians.

[Kyoto Protocol, December 6th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, when we talk about the possibility of creating new jobs and new technologies as a result of the need to meet this challenge of the environment, surely having a target is precisely what we want to have to stimulate this kind of activity. To not have a target, I would suggest, would not give the kind of incentive to developing these new technologies that we know on which Canada is capable of leading the world.

[Criminal Code, December 4th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am very glad to take part in this because I have great sympathy for the member's bill. I think we should use the Criminal Code to sock it to the people who trade in the body parts of animals.

This is an issue that goes back to the very soul of western Canadian history. We will recall that the buffalo were hunted first for their meat, then they were hunted for their hides, then they were hunted for their tongues and finally they were hunted merely for their bones, which were to be dried on the prairie and used as fertilizer. So more than 100 years ago we will recall that this ghastly thing of destroying a species, which was common at the time, merely for one part of that animal, basically destroyed the buffalo of the prairie and the way of life of the aboriginals of the prairie.

In spirit I really do support the member's bill. I think she was very right to have brought it before the House because this is a practice that has occurred in other parts of the world that has led to the extirpation of animals that were common.

I only slightly disagree with some of the other speakers. This is not an issue of endangered species. This is an issue of common species that face destruction.

However I do have problems with the bill. I have to be absolutely candid with the member who has moved the legislation. I have two fundamental problems. I cannot say that I have gone into the legislation in such great depth that I can be seen as any great authority on it, but I did find, in examining the bill, that the concept of body parts of animals is not very well defined. I would be fearful, as the bill is currently framed, that it might reach too far and might indeed reach out to animal pelts, muskrat pelts and those types of things that are collected. I am sure that could be repaired. It could go to committee where I am sure it could be fixed up if it is genuinely a problem in the legislation.

However, oddly enough, the thing that I find most difficult with the legislation is the section that reads:

For greater certainty, nothing in this section shall be construed so as to abrogate or derogate from any existing aboriginal or treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada under section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

I would be fearful that that particular section would be an invitation to some Canadians to abuse their right to collect the animals. What we would be doing is giving to one group of Canadians an opportunity to carry out the very abuses that the member is trying to prevent.

I think it is a great effort and I wish I could support it but, unfortunately, I do not think I can.

[Petitions, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I too have a petition calling on Parliament to take steps to prevent the distribution of materials involving pedophilia and sado-masochistic activities.

I note that in my riding these lists are forming the basis of a direct mail and telemarketing solicitation. I have had complaints in my riding that people who have signed these lists that are distributed all across the land and appear in Parliament suddenly find themselves receiving mail solicitations for donations. We should treat this type of material with our usual good caution in the House.

[Citizenship Act, December 2nd, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I may say that a one hour debate on a subject such as this is so little. There were many other members who wanted to speak.

I would like to make one very important point in answer to the member for Mercier.

The most important point of all is in response to the hon. member for Mercier, to whom I would say that the key words of the oath that I propose are that we are united as Canadians by the five great principles of the charter, which are as follows, and I quote:

—equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

Whether you are a Canadian from Quebec, an Acadian, someone living in Alberta, or are of Greek, English or French ancestry, we are all Canadians; we are a people united by the five principles contained in the charter. We are Canadians.

As Canadians, we believe in the principles contained in the charter. It is that simple. Therein lies our strength, therein lies our tolerance, and therein lies our pride. All the world understands this.

[Citizenship Act, December 2nd, 2002]

moved that Bill C-203, an act to amend the Citizenship Act (Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this private member's bill that would, at long last I would hope, change the Canadian oath of citizenship to better reflect who Canadians are. It would change the wording of the oath to reflect the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that, more than anything else, what defines Canadians is: our respect for the rule of law, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity, democracy and basic human rights.

I would like to begin, however, by reviewing, if I may, the current oath of allegiance. When new Canadians come to this country seeking citizenship they are required to say the following words. They are:

I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Everyone will be interested to know that the New Zealand oath of citizenship states as follows:

I... swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors according to the law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God.

Members will note that there is a direct similarity between the two oaths. Indeed, they are almost exactly the same. I should say that only New Zealand and Canada have this oath which basically is derived from the British colonial period of the 18th century. The British at that time had many colonies across the world. Britain was an empire very much like the United States in the sense that it was a mercantile empire that was acquiring colonies around the world in order to develop a vast commercial enterprise, a vast world commerce.

In the middle of the 18th century, as we know, Britain went to war with New France. France at that time controlled all of what we know as Quebec and much of what we know as Nova Scotia. When Britain went to war, it was the umpteenth war. Britain had been at war with France in a struggle for the continent for many years. A terrible tragedy occurred with the Acadians at that particular time. Because the power was in Quebec and the British conquered Acadia--Nova Scotia--taking some of the forts there and establishing a presence, the British government authorities required the Acadians, who were all French speaking, just as they were in Quebec, as Quebec had been a colony of France, to take an oath of allegiance to the king. That oath of allegiance was essentially the same oath that I just recited. When the Acadians were reluctant to take that oath, one of the great tragedies of Canadian history occurred, and that was what is known as the Acadian expulsion, which actually occurred on a Sunday. The British fleet happened to be in port and it seized all the Acadian males at their churches attending mass, put them on board ship and dispersed them down the entire coastline of the United States, as well as to Louisiana. It took many years for a few of them to return. It was a terrible tragedy and, of course, it changed the complexion of Nova Scotia. I am proud to say that we still have an Acadian presence but had the British not done that, Nova Scotia today would probably be a French speaking province, very much like Quebec and much of New Brunswick.

It was that oath of allegiance that I recited earlier that was used for the dispersal of the Acadians because the Acadians could not bear to swear allegiance to the king.

What one must understand is that the British crown in those days did not have an oath of allegiance in England. In fact it did not have an oath of allegiance, of citizenship or of naturalization until the 1980s. In England the people were all British subjects but for the colonies they had to devise this oath of allegiance to the king. People had to pledge fealty to the king as a way of guaranteeing that the people who were not British subjects, who were perhaps French speaking or perhaps living in the colonies in the Caribbean or in Australia, for example, who were all convicts, would bow to the power of the crown. It ordered them to take an oath of allegiance, which is the oath we have today.

When new Canadians come to this country and swear that oath many people have difficulty with it because some of them come from Commonwealth countries where, in their own colonial history, pledging allegiance to the Crown meant slavery. Therefore it is perhaps an oath that needs to be changed.

In the citizenship bill that is now before the House, Bill C-18, the government has revised the oath. The government did this without any consultation with Parliament. It was done following hearings by the citizenship and immigration committee in 1994-95, which universally said that Canada needed an oath that reflected Canadian values. What we have now before the House is this oath which states:

From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

I suggest that this new oath is not much of an improvement over the oath that is currently being used by people taking out Canadian citizenship. There are a number of things about this. Most of it is taken from the Australian oath of citizenship, which revised its oath in 1993, and it is an echo of the oath I just read.

The oath has some very obvious flaws in it. There is the redundancy of, “I pledge my loyalty and allegiance”. These are the same things. I think, more important, it is not enough simply to ask the people who are taking out Canadian citizenship to faithfully observe our laws and fulfill their duties as citizens of Canada.

I observe for members that world history is replete with examples where governments change laws so that they do not reflect basic human rights, do not respect the rule of law and deprive people of freedom of speech and equality of opportunity.

I refer members to the numerous European examples where citizens were obligated to obey laws that were unjust. The classic example of course is what happened in the interwar years with Germany and Italy, where people were forced to obey laws that were brought in by totalitarian governments. It is not enough to ask people to obey the laws of the land. We must tell them what the laws are that they must obey, that really do define who they are, and define the rights and freedoms of the people who are joining.

I would like to propose to the House another version of the oath. This is the version of an oath I crafted after consultation with many Canadians and as a result of many hours interviewing new Canadians on the citizenship and immigration committee. The oath I would propose states:

In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by their solemn trust to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

I would suggest that is the ultimate definition of who we are as Canadians and how we are seen as Canadians around the world. People do not see us as British. They do not see us as people who perhaps have come from Greece. They do not see us as anglophones or aboriginals. They see us as a people who are renowned for upholding those five principles.

We had a charter of rights when there was no charter of rights in the United Kingdom. There was no charter of rights in Great Britain. We invented it. We brought it forward and it defines us as Canadians. I also have another version that properly reflects the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it reads:

In pledging allegiance to Canada, I take my place among Canadians, a people united by God, whose sacred trust is to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

Now the reason that we have to have a version that makes reference to God is because it is in the charter, it is in O Canada, but also because there are those who have strong religious beliefs and do not feel that they can make a real pledge unless there is a reference to God.

On the other hand, we have many people coming from other lands who have come from places where there has been oppression in the name of religion and they want a version in which they do not have to make reference to God. Therefore, I offer in Bill C-203 the two choices.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, you will note that in the version that I present to you, there is no reference to the Queen. I would suggest that is hardly novel. In 1993 Australia revised its oath of citizenship which was very much like our current oath and the oath of New Zealand. Australia changed it. The Australian oath of citizenship is quite nice, it says:

As an Australian citizen, I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share,whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I uphold and obey.

I think that is very nice and actually is an attempt at poetry. And when the Australians brought if forward--and it is important to remember that Australia, like Canada, is a parliamentary monarchy--they had an extensive debate about whether they should retain the monarchy. Australians said overwhelmingly that they wanted to retain the monarchy as the head of state just as we have here.

However, in 1993 Australians appreciated that they needed an oath of citizenship that reflected Australian values. It is interesting when Australian Senator Nick Bolkus spoke at that time to the Australian citizenship pledge. He said:

Citizenship proclaims and defines our Australian identity and it is appropriate that new citizens pledge loyalty first and foremost to Australia and its people. Some Australian residents have been reluctant to apply for citizenship because they found it difficult to relate to the current Oath of Allegiance.

We heard that repeatedly during our citizenship and immigration committee hearings in 1994-95. We heard that from people who came from all over the world to Canada. Approximately 160,000 people a year pledge allegiance to Canada. People say, “Why is it the Queen? Why is it not Canada and Canadian values?”

The Australians, almost 10 years in advance of us, changed the oath to reflect Australian values. I think Canada is a greater country. Senator Bolkus also said:

As a truly multicultural society, it is proper that the Pledge of commitment be one which will be equally meaningful to all people.

I suggest that the current oath and the oath that has been proposed by the government in Bill C-18 is not meaningful to all people. We need to change it to an oath that when people say it they know that they are becoming Canadian and they are sharing our values.