John Bryden

[Supply, November 19th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I just wonder, having heard the member opposite, in his experience whether he has had people come into his office, even before he became a member of Parliament, who were receiving the disability tax credit but who, at least as far as he could see, were probably perfectly capable of working and making their own way?

I would suggest to him and ask him, does he not think at least the government's intention, which is to promote self-reliance and to promote people trying to do things for themselves even if they are disabled, is the correct thing to be doing? Even if we might see opportunities to amend the rules to make them a little bit more precisely targeted, would he not agree that the basic idea of trying to encourage people to be self-reliant rather than through money through the disability tax credit make them more dependent?

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, the member is pointing out something that is very relevant.

One of the reasons for putting in the commitment to uphold the rule of law and basic human rights is to ensure that legislation always reflects that. The committee must carefully consider the sections that she has alluded to. I am not convinced that they are the ultimate answer for national security. It is really a national security issue for which the government has brought in these changes. It is concerned that it will receive information from foreign security and espionage agencies and not be able to divulge it in open court.

I would suggest that if it becomes absolutely necessary to have those sections, then it becomes all the more important to stress in the oath that we do believe in upholding basic human rights and the rule of law. When judges come to consider those cases, they will have those principles of the charter uppermost in their minds. Whatever they decide and however they decide, they will strike the finest line between the need for national security and the need to respect human rights and the rule of law in the broadest sense.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, that is precisely what the wording says. It says that a Canadian has a “solemn trust to uphold”. A solemn trust to uphold is a responsibility. The responsibility is to defend democracy, the rule of law and basic human rights. It is to ensure equality of opportunity and to guarantee freedom of speech. These are the ultimate responsibilities of being Canadian. That is what being Canadian is all about and that is why we should spell it out in our oath of citizenship.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his question because it is important to clarify it.

Basically, what I am saying by these five principles is that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is the law above the laws of Parliament and, indeed, it is in our Constitution now. Theoretically, we should not be able to pass laws in this place that are contrary to the principles of the charter which are summarized in the five principles I gave.

The difficulty is that sometimes in this place, and the previous citizenship bill is a classic example, legislation goes through this House that is contrary to the charter simply because members of Parliament and the bureaucracy are perhaps not as sensitive to the principles of the charter as they should be because the charter is a document of some length.

I tried to capture in the five principles of the charter the ultimate law that governs being Canadian, and that ultimate law is expressed in the five principles: the commitment to uphold democracy, freedom of speech, equality of opportunity, basic human rights and the rule of law.

Madam Speaker, that is the ultimate law of being Canadian.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I am glad to have this opportunity to speak to this legislation. I will be confining my remarks almost entirely to the oath of citizenship that is proposed in this legislation.

I had before the House, up until last week, a private member's bill proposing changes to the oath of citizenship which would reflect the principles of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but that bill has become non-votable as the result of the introduction of this government bill which also has a new version of the oath of citizenship. I would like to deal with the government's version that is before the House, my version, and just discuss some of the other oaths around the Commonwealth.

The oath of citizenship that is in this bill 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 fulfill my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen.

Madam Speaker, you might be interested to hear the text of the current oath of allegiance of New Zealand, another former Commonwealth colony. It states:

I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, by the Grace of God Queen of New Zealand and Her Other Realms and Territories, Head of the Commonwealth, Defender of the Faith, and her heirs and successors according to law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfill my duties as a New Zealand citizen, so help me God.

You might note, Madam Speaker, that the words at the end of the New Zealand oath are exactly the same as those of the current Canadian oath, “to faithfully observe our laws and fulfill my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen” or “as a New Zealand citizen”. The wording is exactly the same. The wording is taken from pre-existing oaths of allegiance that had been established in the Commonwealth going back quite a long time.

It is also interesting to the hear the text of the Australian oath of allegiance. Australia is an important country vis-à-vis Canada because our histories are very alike. We are both parliamentary democracies based on the crown. Indeed Australia just very recently went through a debate about retaining the monarchy and it significantly chose to retain the monarch. The oath of Australia states:

From this time forward, under God, I pledge my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose democratic beliefs I share, whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I will uphold and obey.

I would submit, at the very least, that the Australian oath has a much better ring to it than either the New Zealand oath or the Canadian oath that is being proposed in this legislation. Madam Speaker, I also draw your attention to the fact that in Australia there is, in my view, a correct distinction made in that an oath of citizenship should be to the country and it does not necessarily have to be to the monarch of that country in a parliamentary democracy. This is relevant too, because the oath of allegiance in Great Britain runs thusly:

I swear, by almighty God, that on becoming a British citizen I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, and her heirs and successors according to law.

Madam Speaker, you can see that the Canadian oath actually in the bill before us now is a combination of wording. The first half is the wording from the British oath and the second half is basically the wording from the Commonwealth oath that was used across the Commonwealth.

I should point out to you, Madam Speaker, that up until 1981, the British did not have an oath of citizenship whatsoever. The oath which I just read to the House is an oath of naturalization which was in response to the flood of immigrants that the United Kingdom has been experiencing.

I wish to provide a little history. The oaths of allegiance of New Zealand and Canada date their origins back to the 18th century when the British Crown felt obligated to require the people in its colonies, that it acquired by force of arms or by purchase because they were not British, to bear faithful and true allegiance to Her Majesty or His Majesty. The oath of citizenship that we have, that New Zealand has, and that Australia does not have, is wording that was derived from the United Kingdom as a colonial power.

The oath that I would like to put forward in the House--and I do so now--I would hope that people when they read Hansard can compare it to the previous oaths that I just read into the record. The oath that I offer the House for its deliberations would read:

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.

The important thing is not to have a citizenship oath that requires the new person to swear to obey the laws, because the laws of a nation can from time to time be wrong. There are many examples in Europe. In Germany, which was a democracy after the first world war, a government took power and changed the laws that deprived people of their civil liberties. It led, indeed, to the second world war.

Simply saying that one will faithfully uphold the laws of a country I do not believe is good enough. Indeed, I think it is very dangerous in this age when countries across the world are struggling to find balance between civil liberties and the new threats of terrorism that have been emerging across the world.

It is vitally important for Canada to send a message to the world, through its oath of citizenship, about what Canada really stands for in this world that has become such a dark and dangerous place. I would submit that what identifies a Canadian more than anything else and how Canadians are perceived around the world and why so many people around the world want to come to Canada is because of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This is not just a document that is part of our Parliament. This is the way Canadians live and act. This is what defines us as Canadians.

Whether we speak French, whether we are aboriginal, whether our history is from the Far East, the Middle East or central Europe, whether we are new Canadians or established Canadians, what identifies us as Canadians is the fact that all of us uphold the five principles of the charter: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law.

That is not just a commitment of newcomers to Canada. It is a commitment of the government, of Parliament, and of the people, that not just at this point in time but forever, as long as that oath of citizenship exists. And I hope that our oath of citizenship would exist as long as the country, it commits the country to uphold the rule of law, basic human rights, democracy and freedom of speech.

Another speaker was referring to the problems of revocation. He was very successful in changing the legislation because the previous bill, Bill C-16, actually created a second class citizen out of people who had their citizenship and who were accused of war crimes. A mechanism was inserted into that legislation that would have enabled the government to revoke citizenship without due process of law.

I submit that had we had an oath of citizenship that specifically committed the government to uphold the rule of law, then the government would not have been able to advance a bill that deprived a person of the due process of law, much less the basic human right of having that due process of law.

As times goes on I will be moving an amendment to the oath. The oath is here and I will be offering to the House the wording that I have just given. There will be two versions. One version will involve an invocation to God because the Charter of Rights and Freedoms begins with an invocation to God. I am sensitive to the fact that some people would prefer an affirmation and it is important to offer that opportunity to them.

There will be some debate about whether the Queen should be in our oath of citizenship. I do not believe she should be. I had so many opportunities as a member of the citizenship and immigration committee, as we developed policy for this very legislation in 1994-95, to hear representations from newcomers to Canada who could not understand why they had to swear allegiance to the Queen. People from around the world understand that the Queen is attached to the United Kingdom and it is a puzzle to them as to why they have to swear allegiance to her.

I note that Australia, our near cousin as a Commonwealth country, took the Queen out of its oath a very long time ago. It had precisely the same oath as New Zealand and has gone to an oath that at the very least is better than the Canadian one before the House now.

We can improve the oath of allegiance. I would like to see us committed as Canadians to the five principles of the charter: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights, and the rule of law. That is who we are as Canadians and we should say so.

[Citizenship of Canada Act, November 7th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for her excellent speech which was very sensitive to some of the issues about citizenship. I was particularly attracted to the fact that she focused her remarks on the oath of citizenship. I will be speaking very shortly on that very subject.

She said something that to me was very important. She said that in the oath of citizenship she regretted that there was not something that actually made newcomers to Canada commit themselves to some of the basic principles of being Canadian. She regretted that it did not say that.

I would ask the member how she feels about a change in the oath that I will be proposing by amendment later. I would change these words that are in the oath that is before us now which are “to faithfully observe our laws and fulfill my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen”. I would like to change those words to “promise to uphold these five principles: equality of opportunity, freedom of speech, democracy, basic human rights and the rule of law”.

By specifying these concepts that are straight from the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, do we not do more to give newcomers to Canada an appreciation of their true obligations of being Canadian?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Mr. Speaker, I am especially happy to rise in this particular debate because the subject matter is so sensitive. It is dealing with the juxtaposition of the need for security versus the need to protect our basic civil liberties.

Why I am particularly glad to be participating in this debate in this place is because the debate is televised and this place is open. I think it is very important for parliamentarians when they address these very difficult issues that they be seen by Canadians to be facing those issues. That is one reason why I voted against the motion that was recently before the House. I think it is very important for Canadians always to see us in the open and transparent, as the previous speaker for the Canadian Alliance said. It is most important for MPs to not only stand to be counted, but to be seen to be taking positions on difficult subjects, whether it is in committee or in the House.

I have to say I found it very difficult to see that particular motion that I just alluded to pass. It endorses a form of secrecy that I cannot condone.

The portion of the bill that is before the House that I wish to address is the portion dealing with the collection of data from airline passenger manifests.There have been a lot of comments regarding the bill in the House. The member for Churchill spoke and said she was afraid that this was establishing a pattern whereby the rights of citizens would be compromised. She said the data would be collected and widely distributed.

I actually challenged the member for Churchill in the questions and comments period. I pointed out that in this particular piece of legislation that we have before us, the Minister of Transport has the right to collect a wide variety of data from the passenger manifests, where people are coming from, the number on their ticket, what travel agency they used. The list is in the schedule. I think there are about 40 items that are pointed out that the bill gives the authority to collect in the interests of screening for national security purposes.

The member for Churchill failed to note that the legislation makes it very clear that this information is to be collected only for the purposes of national security and it is not to be distributed. Indeed, the bill goes on to say that the information after being collected is to be destroyed.

On the one hand it would appear that the bill has decent safeguards to make sure that this information that is collected on people travelling in this country is not distributed widely for reasons other than on account of terrorism.

However, what most people have failed to note in the debate is that there is a law already on the books that indeed was given royal assent in October 2001. It allows the customs officials to collect precisely this kind of information from the passenger manifests and there is no limitation on its distribution. This is a very curious thing. This particular clause began in Bill S-23 which passed the Senate. For those who are watching, a bill with an “S” refers to a bill that originates in the Senate.

Bill S-23 amended the Canada Customs Act and permitted customs officials not just to collect data pertaining to import and export, but to collect data for the first time ever from passenger manifests. It is section 108.7 in the current customs legislation. The section specifically allowed the government to collect advance booking information, as a matter of fact, all the information that is contained in the legislation before us, plus some.

It is an interesting coincidence because this amendment to the Canada Customs Act was proposed before September 11 and was passed after September 11. We have the peculiar situation where the legislation before us right now does not go anywhere near the hazard, shall we say, to civil liberties that already exists.

I would urge the legislative committee that reviews this legislation to pay careful heed to the fact that clause 107.1 in the Customs Act gives this right of sharing of this kind of information with the other police and intelligence organizations. We should consider at this time whether this is such a good idea.

I will note that Bill C-17, the bill before us, does take the information collected from the passenger manifests. It also has a clause that amends the Privacy Act that would allow that information to be distributed to foreign powers. What it boils down to is that between this bill and the Customs Act, individuals arriving in Canada or leaving Canada, not only by aircraft but by any kind of conveyance or public transport, the pertinent data to their travel plans can be collected and distributed among the police authorities. Indeed this would allow the information to be distributed among foreign countries as well.

Mr. Speaker, there is a fundamental principle and this is why we have these debates on these delicate topics. The foreign minister would appreciate many of the things I am saying because of course he is right in the vice, shall we say, of trying to balance civil liberties against national security considerations while there is pressure from our allies, notably the United States, who want to see Canada have in place monitoring and screening regimes that can identify threats to not only our security but to the security of the nations around us that may be receiving people from our country.

The question becomes an ethical question that we must examine very carefully. Here it is; it is quite simple. Is there a different right of privacy for citizens or people in Canada to their personal information while they remain in Canada, and in the interests of national security and the threat of foreign terrorism should there be another level of privacy on personal information for people who are leaving Canada or coming into Canada?

The border may be the place in which the privacy considerations that the privacy commissioner is so concerned about should apply, but perhaps because of the new world threat we must consider that personal information, once it leaves our border, once it is beyond the 200 mile limit, becomes available and accessible to the various authorities. I am not talking about just our civil authorities but international authorities as well.

This is the kind of issue that more and more Parliament must debate because we walk such a fine line under the pressure of national security, the foreign terrorism threat, and even more than that, the pressure from our ally to the south who is still hurting from the wound of September 11, and is still lashing out, sometimes in very inappropriate ways, to ensure that the borders of the United States are secure.

We must pay serious attention to that. It is in our interest to pay serious attention to that. However on the other hand we have a wonderful tradition of protecting civil liberties in this country that goes back to Confederation. There is no country in the world, I am sure, that is more admired for the desire to uphold personal liberties than Canada, so we walk a very delicate line and it is important to have this kind of debate in the House on this kind of legislation.

I will conclude by returning to my original point. When we discuss issues this sensitive, it is so important for all Canadians to be able to hear us speak of these issues and see us struggle with the choices. We try to find a balance and we may be wrong in the end, because what we are in this place are the people who are trusted by all Canadians to make these hard choices. We are only human.

We might make wrong choices. It is terribly important for all Canadians, through the cameras that are in the House, to see us at work, whether we are at work here and struggling with these decisions in the House or in committee. Mr. Speaker, as you know, one positive reform to the committee process is that television is going to come into all the committee processes. Canadians will not only be able to see all the debates in the House, but they will be able to see the debates in committee when we consider legislation clause by clause.

I would make a final appeal to at least this MP, whether we are in the House or whether we are in committee, whether we are voting or only speaking, we should be there for Canadians to see.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, one of my concerns is that the bill before us will go to the legislative committee at the end of this debate, which will be very brief. I am not sure if we will have the opportunity for an indepth debate for the entire House of Commons as a result of the procedures that we are taking in handling the bill.

I would like to ask the member opposite a hypothetical question if he does not mind. He was speaking about the civil liberties issue, the privacy issues and the security issues, and he is absolutely right that this is extremely sensitive. In his mind does he think the information of persons who are in transit to this country or who have left this country's shores should be treated differently than the information that the authorities hold on people in this country?

I note, for his assistance in deliberating on this question, that there is amendment in this bill to the electronic Privacy Act which would permit the passenger manifest information gathered under the bill to be shared with foreign countries. Could he give the House the benefit of his views on this?

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, I would like to draw to the hon. member's attention to subclause 4.81(2) which says the Department of Transport cannot disclose any of the information to other departments, except for the purposes of transportation security. Her thesis that this is information which is going to be gathered and distributed everywhere seems to me a little out of whack.

[Public Safety Act, 2002, November 5th, 2002]

Madam Speaker, in response to my earlier question, the member for Churchill said that instead of reviewing all the passengers on the airlines coming in to Canada, the security authorities should just check the lists of terrorists. There is a loss of logic here. How can the security authorities check for lists of terrorists without examining the identities of every passenger on the manifests on the airplanes coming into the country? It does not make any sense to me.