Eugène Bellemare

[Oc Transpo, December 6th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.

The residents of Canada's national capital region and surrounding areas will soon be suffering through a third week of a municipal bus strike. It is snowing and it is cold out there. People are trying to get to work. Students are trying to pursue their educations. Seniors are imprisoned in their homes and cannot get to medical appointments. Merchants are suffering and the unemployed cannot get around to find jobs.

Does the Minister of Labour intend to intervene in this bus strike in order to break the impasse between OC Transpo and the union?

[Constitution Amendment, December 2nd, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the speech by my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood.

It is both a duty and a pleasure for me to support the proposals by the member for Broadview-Greenwood, modifying the federal government motion to change term 17 of the agreement which brought about Newfoundland and Labrador's joining with Canada in 1949.

At that time, the Constitution had been modified to enable Newfoundland and Labrador to join Canada under certain conditions. Term 17 gave Newfoundland the right to have denominational schools.

Canada is made up of minorities, religious minorities, linguistic minorities, racial minorities. The Constitution protects the rights acquired by those minorities, and those acquired rights must not be changed without the minorities affected consenting to the constitutional changes, I repeat, they must not be changed without minority consent.

In the early 20th century in Ontario, we had an example of regulation 17 preventing French-language education. Such a thing should never be allowed to happen again. Acquired rights are acquired rights, and the federal government has a duty to defend the rights and freedoms of individuals and communities when those rights and freedoms come under attack by the provinces.

It is true that a referendum was held in Newfoundland; 50 per cent of the voters turned out. Just over 50 per cent of the number

that voted were in favour, which represents just barely over 25 per cent of the population who voted to change minority rights.

Referendums are a dangerous thing. They make it possible for majorities to crush minorities. We saw that when the province of Quebec wanted to separate, or at least certain Quebec politicians wanted to separate Quebec from Canada, and a referendum was held.

The members of the Reform Party would like to see a referendum held to abolish bilingualism and break the country apart. They have not yet, fortunately, succeeded in getting that referendum.

The minority denominations in Newfoundland are not in favour of the federal government motion, but they would be, if it were modified as proposed by the Senate on November 27, 1996.

My colleague has read the Senate proposals, and I am in agreement with them. I appreciate the fact that the federal government saw fit to allow a free vote on the first, second and third readings of this bill the first time around.

Now that the bill has come back to us from the Senate, I trust that the government will do the same again, and I feel obliged to say that I will, once again, vote against this proposal.

[L'Odyssée Elementary School, November 29th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, Wednesday we celebrated the official opening in Orléans of a new public elementary school for young Franco-Ontarians in the area.

The École L'Odyssée will start with nearly 450 pupils in classrooms that will let them use the environment as a learning tool. For instance, there is a glass wall that provides a view of water pipes and conduits, there are protractors on the doors, trees representative of the regional flora and hallways named after famous Franco-Ontarians.

The school's ultramodern equipment will help prepare young Franco-Ontarians for the world that will be theirs, the world of high tech, computers and science, as reflected in the booming technological sector in the national capital region.

The fact that École L'Odyssée has come to Carleton-Gloucester proves once again that francophones are capable of making their way in a country full of opportunity, by developing their potential in their own language and culture, of which they are so proud.

Bravo and many thanks to the principal of the school, Anne Quevillon, to the parents, the teachers and the Conseil scolaire public francophone d'Ottawa-Carleton.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, again, I would like to see a vote on this bill. If Bloc members are really convinced that my bill should not be passed, they should have the courage to rise in the House and vote before the public, before the voters, to indicate how they want to deal with this bill. They should tell their constituents that they do not stand behind the fact that a member should protect the rights and freedoms of his constituents.

The hon. member for Bellechasse told us that he took an oath of allegiance to the Queen, not to Canada or the Constitution. He went on to say that the case of the monarchy will be settled according to the position of the sovereignists. The hon. member for Bellechasse said a lot when he said that I rose in the House to challenge the monarchy through the back door. I am sure the hon. member for Bellechasse was not listening to my speech.

I would like to send him a copy of my speech so he will realize I said that in addition to the oath of allegiance to the Queen we also took an oath of allegiance to our constituents regarding their rights and freedoms.

I want to ask the hon. member for Bellechasse and the other members of the Bloc Quebecois whether they are going against what was said by their own leader, Lucien Bouchard. When asked whether he took an oath of allegiance to the Queen as a person,Mr. Bouchard answered that he took an oath of allegiance to the community. What community was he talking about, since he had been elected to the Parliament of Canada, not to the Parliament of Quebec where he is now?

The hon. member for Bellechasse noted that my bill would require an amendment to the Constitution. I have great respect for his legal background, but I may point out that we are talking about an act of Parliament, not about the Constitution.

I wonder whether he would take an oath that he would defend the rights and freedoms of his constituents. That is the basis for my bill. He said that someday Quebec will be sovereign, which I very much doubt. I am convinced that Quebec will never separate from Canada.

During the last referendum, his colleagues in the Parti Quebecois as well as sovereignists and separatists in Quebec mentioned keeping the Canadian passport and the Canadian dollar. If they want to keep the Canadian passport, why do they not want to pledge

allegiance to Canada? What does the Canadian passport mean? They want to keep the Canadian dollar. Do they want to keep it so they can have the portrait of the Queen on their bills or the faces of various Conservative or Liberal Prime Ministers? I wonder.

And what an ambiguous question they asked in the October 1995 referendum. Quebecers did not realize it really meant they wanted to separate from Canada. That is the whole point today, and that is why the Bloc Quebecois obstructed my bill.

In conclusion, I would like to say to the member for Bellechasse and to all his colleagues in the Bloc Quebecois that when members of the Quebec National Assembly are elected, they swear an oath to the Constitution and to Quebec, to the Constitution of Quebec, and to Quebecers.

We are here in the Parliament of Canada, where all members, regardless of their political affiliation, may offer criticism whenever they wish in order to improve the lot of all Canadians and to improve the Constitution and our laws.

Why, when they are elected in Quebec, do they swear an oath to the Province of Quebec and to the citizens of the Province of Quebec, but when they are elected to the Parliament of Canada in Ottawa, they refuse to swear an oath to the Constitution and to Canada? That is the question, and it is still the key point in my bill.

My bill requires that a member respect his constituents, regardless of their political affiliation, their race, their language or their religious beliefs. We are here to protect the rights and freedoms of those who elected us.

If a member refuses to do that, what does that suggest about him as an MP? It suggests that he does not wish to respect the two principles I have mentioned, and I accuse Bloc Quebecois members of betraying their own constituents.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, November 27th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask two questions. First of all, I would like the consent of the House to ask questions or to comment on the speech by the member for Bellechasse.

[Parliament Of Canada Act, November 27th, 1996]

moved that Bill C-316, 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, like all my colleagues in the House from whichever political party, I was honoured and proud to be elected to the Parliament of Canada on October 25, 1993.

On November 9, 1993 at my swearing in ceremony, I had the honour as a re-elected member of the Canadian Parliament to pledge allegiance to the Queen of Canada, as required by the Parliament of Canada Act. This meant more to me than simply swearing allegiance to the Queen as a person; it meant swearing allegiance to everything the monarchy represents, which includes the Canadian Constitution, Canadian citizens, all our Canadian institutions, laws and customs.

Having been re-elected to Parliament by the electors of the Carleton-Gloucester riding by a record 46,800 votes in my favour, about 35,000 votes more than my nearest challenger, I felt proud and honoured but above all I felt duty bound not only to my electors but to all my constituents and all Canadians no matter what their political beliefs. I felt duty bound to protect and serve all of them. For this reason I wanted to clarify our parliamentary oath by adding to the present oath of office to the Queen a pledge of allegiance to Canada and its Constitution.

Since I first introduced this bill in 1993, I have had many conversations with Canadians and have received many letters from my constituents and from Canadians from various regions of the country as well as from my colleagues applauding this initiative.

The point was well made when someone close to me once asked: "Are we the only country in the world where politicians do not swear allegiance to the country?"

A local radio station recently held an open line show commenting on my private member's bill.

A Canada-wide citizens association launched a campaign supporting my bill. I would like to read a letter which I received recently from the association:

Dear Mr. Bellemare:

I can assure you that Canada First and its more than 1,500 members support you wholeheartedly in your attempt to make MPs swear an oath of allegiance to the country and the Constitution as well as the Queen of England.

For your information, we are immediately launching a Canada-wide campaign to obtain support for your proposal. You can expect anywhere from upwards of a thousand letters of support over the next few weeks from our members.

Yours truly,

Lowell Green, President, Canada First.

I have also been interviewed by the media across Canada on the same subject. All of my colleagues in the Liberal Party are also supporting me in my initiative. It is with this support that I present it today.

Our allegiance to the Queen is in no way questioned in my private member's bill. She is the embodiment of our parliamentary system and part of our historical heritage.

There are those who think that the bill I am presenting is redundant, that the oath of allegiance to the Queen already implies an oath of allegiance to Canada and to Canadians, and that it would be pointless to add an oath of allegiance to Canada and to the Constitution.

I know from experience that things that are not spelled out are often interpreted differently by different people.

That is why I think it important to affirm what one believes when making an affirmation of loyalty, and in this case I proudly affirm my loyalty to Canada and to Canadians.

Canada is a country which is part of the Commonwealth and as a member country of the Commonwealth we are headed by the Queen. The existing oath made by members of Parliament is a swearing of allegiance to the Queen. However, the oath of allegiance pledged by all members of the House is almost identical to the oaths pledged in all the Commonwealth countries which may lead to confusion or discussion.

I would like to point out that we have all been elected by Canadians, by citizens of Canada, and I trust that we represent all Canadians, and not people living in other Commonwealth countries such a Australia, Bangladesh, Ghana, India, Pakistan or Nigeria.

As an elected representative, each member sitting in the House of Commons, including members of the opposition, represents not just those who voted for him or her, but also all the inhabitants of his or her riding, without exception and regardless of their political affiliation.

Members of the Bloc Quebecois, members of the official opposition, in accordance with the system of government established under the Canadian Constitution, say they represent Canadians living in Quebec. They even swore an oath of allegiance to the Queen when they were sworn in to the House of Commons. Why did they not want to support my bill the first time I tabled it, two years ago?

The official opposition has a duty to keep a careful eye on the government, on behalf of all Canadians, in order to ensure that the party in power does not take unfair advantage of that power, that the government fulfils its duties for the common good of all Canadians, as provided for in the Constitution.

The Constitution is what enables Bloc Quebecois members to present their views in the House of Commons, with all the freedom it gives them. It is a source of pride and a privilege to be able to take part in the creation of legislation, as we do in Parliament, under the Constitution. Bloc Quebecois members are, I trust, fully and sincerely involved in that process, I also trust that they respect the parliamentary system, the rights of the citizens of Canada, as well as their role as the official opposition on behalf of all of the people of Canada.

In all good conscience, do their votes on each bill, motion or amendment count for something? I wonder, are their votes in the House a deception? If not, let them admit that they respect the rules which allow them to express their opinions in this House, that is to say the rules set out in the Constitution.

If a member of Parliament takes an oath and considers it a mere formality, what credibility does that member, and the party he represents, have when performing his duties? Do Bloc Quebecois votes count for anything in the House of Commons?

If "a pledge to the Queen is a pledge to the collectivity, and that is still very important" as Lucien Bouchard noted in the Ottawa Citizen on September 24, 1993, then is Canada not that collectivity as embodied in our Constitution? If the present oath is an oath to the Canadian community, then let us say it outright.

The Constitution represents the rights, duties and freedoms of the people of this country. When we take an oath of allegiance to the Queen, we pledge allegiance to the British parliamentary system whose cornerstone is the Constitution. The Queen, the monarchy, represents all our democratic institutions.

I would like to point out that taking an oath of allegiance only to the Queen is rather ambiguous. To many people, she is a person who has very few connections with Canada.

In fact, every country in the Commonwealth has become independent. However, we must realize the Queen represents more than just herself. She represents institutions that guarantee respect for the fundamental rights of all Canadians. She personifies the rule of law under which we live.

This oath of allegiance is important for Canada as a nation. Members elected to the House of Commons must take this oath to affirm, loud and clear, their loyalty to the country and to the citizens they have a duty to represent.

The Constitution represents different things to different people. To a legal expert, it is the constitutional documents by which a nation is governed. To others, it is the ideology that presided over the creation of a country. To others again, it is a symbol of the rule of law, of fair and equitable government for all citizens.

In the spirit of the Constitution, it is entirely acceptable to want to criticize, change and improve it to make it reflect the new realities of life in Canada. But I hope we all agree that the Constitution is essential to the responsible governance of this country and that it is thanks to the Constitution that we are all here, on behalf of all Canadians, to promote their well-being in a free and democratic society.

The primary function of a Constitution is to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of citizens against possible abuse by their government. A country where there is no respect for the

Constitution is a country where citizens are exposed to severe abuse by their politicians.

A member of Parliament who would refuse to swear solemnly to respect and defend the constitutional laws which are the essence of our society would be a member we could not trust to defend his or her constituents against abuses of power and despotism.

If the official opposition takes its role seriously as the watchdog of the government, as it says it does, its members should therefore be the first to applaud and support this addition to the oath of allegiance.

This oath to Canada and the Constitution should be the first essential commitment taken by a member of Parliament on behalf of his constituents if democracy and the respect of human rights are indeed valuable to this person.

That some may not agree with all the clauses of the Constitution is perhaps understandable. However, it would be immoral and reprehensible if politicians refused to uphold the constitutional clauses that protect the fundamental rights and liberties of Canadian citizens.

If human rights and democracy have evolved and progressed through history, it is in great part due to the fact that we have realized our leaders need to be reined in by the rules of law as specified in the Constitution in order to hinder any abuses of power they may feel the urge to commit.

The most developed countries, with the highest quality of life, are those whose constitutional rules are taken seriously and really respected by those in government so as to protect those most vulnerable and to ensure that those in power govern for the good of the people.

Simple laws may be amended. Here and elsewhere the Constitution is amended, but one thing must remain sacrosanct: the primacy of the constitutional rules protecting the fundamental rights of our society.

Of course the matter of the distribution of powers among various governments is important. However, politicians' quarrels must not overshadow the matter of priority-our commitment to the people and the protection of their fundamental rights.

One thing is clear: in the history of the most democratic countries, one factor vital to their progress was respect for the constitutional rules ensuring everyone equal representation and fair government. These rules enable dissenters to speak out freely in our society and Canadians to express their approval or disapproval of government action.

Canada differs from the other members of the Commonwealth. The oath, which I changed and which I made with respect to my constituents, indicates clearly that I represent Canadians and not the people of the Commonwealth as a whole.

The change to the oath of allegiance is part of a series of other measures Canada has taken since the second world war as an expression of its national identity and its maturity.

Unfortunately, the bill I put before the House today is not a votable item. Therefore my colleagues will not have an opportunity to decide on this expression of attachment to our country and our Constitution.

I would hope that each of my colleagues sitting in the House today would like a chance to go on record and officially tell their constituents that they are not only proud to represent them but they would swear in the House of Commons to uphold their rights and defend their liberties.

[Ontario Legislature, November 19th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the House of a deplorable situation in the Ontario legislature.

A Conservative backbencher apparently demanded an opposition colleague speaking French speak English.

According to a report in the media, this is the third time the Conservatives have made such remarks in the legislature since their election last year.

It is unacceptable that Premier Harris does not intervene in this abusive situation toward the francophone community. And that, under his very nose, in his own legislature.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing is the point of view of the Reform Party, a party that wants to shut down government and government operations altogether. It does not care about people who want to invest. In order to invest they need to borrow money. They have to roll money around. For these same people for whom Reformers say they want to protect the interest rates, they seem to suggest that the interest rate should go high.

The Reform members are looking at their buddies who have lots of money and they do not care about anybody else. Perhaps on Sunday morning they give a donation to the odd person. They only care about people with money. They do not care about promoting the economy and those who want it developed.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the member from Toronto for his kind words.

In my riding, business is doing well. The private sector is getting contracts. There is a movement in high technology in my community. This afternoon, I will go to the opening of AMITA, a high technology group of about 50 employees that are starting a business in my community.

Almost every second week, a new business is starting, always in high tech. Because of globalization, we have to do things very differently. It is time for high technology.

We are very lucky that the national capital region a few years ago started in high tech. Now we are becoming the high tech capital above the American border. There is high tech in the United States and the other place is right here in the national capital region.

Private industry is developing. Both universities and the two colleges are producing specialists in high tech. Jobs are being developed to the point where, at this moment, we are told that thousands of jobs are available in high tech in the national capital region that have not been filled yet.

The universities and colleges are trying to produce as quickly as possible graduates to fill these jobs. This is a very big plus for our community. Things are going better and better all the time.

People feel secure. People feel a sense of hope. People feel that there is growth. By gosh, the national capital region is a heck of a nice place to grow and to have a family.

[Speech From The Throne, November 7th, 1996]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate this opportunity to say a few words on the government's throne speech, which I find most appropriate at this time.

When the Liberal Party formed the government in 1993, the country was, in my opinion, headed toward disaster. We were dreadfully in debt. Before our time, the whole idea had been to spend, spend, spend. The mortgage on the country, in other words the national debt, was increasing madly. Every year we had a deficit which was getting up near $50 billion.

Suddenly, in 1993, the new Liberal government was faced with a situation calling for an economic program that held out some hope for Canadians, some hope for young people, some hope for their future and for the future of Canadian workers, and in particular some reassurance for seniors about government programs.

Yes, the government did want to make cuts.

The bond market had a very negative outlook for Canada in 1993. The interest rates were going up and one wondered if the international bond markets would keep on giving us a triple A rating. We were near collapse, going in the other direction, and not even getting requests for the purchase of bonds.

A program had to be instituted to put our house in order. That is exactly what has happened. The deficit has kept going down, down, down.

The government does not create jobs. It did that in the past and it is only short term when it occurs. What we have to do is establish a climate for jobs and that climate has to be the proper economic climate.

Our program was disciplined in cutting some programs. We are downsizing government, not shutting down government. That is the difference between us and some members of the opposition. We do not want to shut down government.

We have to stop giving to everyone who thinks that all they have to do is write to the government requesting a grant. We have to do this in a reasonable fashion.

This morning the interest rates decreased again. We have not seen interest rates like these in 40 years. People can now borrow to buy a home or to invest in some other fashion. That will create jobs. That is good. People can now spend money. It is affordable to borrow money in order to invest it. It is not to borrow money to have fun, to be wasteful. It is for investment, for example, in a home. Equity will build in that home and when it is sold in the future the owner will be able to live on that equity or they will be able to leave it to their children. We have to think of leaving something to our children.

We had to downsize government. Government programs had to be cut. I had some concerns about that because my constituency is comprised of many public servants and people who have contracts with the federal government. As vice-chair of the government operations committee I was very diligent in ensuring there would be no abuse on anyone's part.

The program review was to cut programs in an effort to downsize the federal government. There was a question of a lump sum of money that was to be cut. Obviously some jobs had to be annihilated. We had to let go and make way for a better system. We had to improve the way in which we were working. This meant we had to abandon those activities that did not need to keep going.

We privatized in areas where the private sector could do better. For example, we privatized many activities that were once under Transport Canada. We developed Nav Canada and a great number of public servants who once worked for Transport Canada were transferred to this new private sector organization.

The media interpretation was that 45,000 jobs would be lost. I did not appreciate the fact that 45,000 employees would be laid off. Lately one newspaper reported that with the new calculations the

number could be more like 55,000. Obviously this has a very negative impact on the community. This made people in the national capital region business community very insecure and the economy slowed down quite a bit.

However, in the downsizing process the government made sure it did not maltreat its employees. We had programs like early retirement. The early retirement program was oversubscribed to. Many public servants, those who were getting close to retirement age, thought this was a wonderful opportunity to retire.

Others accepted the early departure incentive. They were mostly public servants, managers or middle managers who were interested in going into private business. They are now the people in the national capital region who are working for the government, doing some projects, working on contracts. They are now the private contractors in the region.

We have saved a great deal of money but I do have concerns. I want to make sure the government does not save money by downsizing on the one hand while on the other hand increasing by a phenomenal amount the money spent on contracting out. This is something I am watching for very diligently at the committee on government operations.

In September 1995 the unemployment rate in the national capital region was 10.1 per cent. That percentage has now gone down to 7.4 per cent, an improvement. People in the national capital region are starting to feel secure again.

They are at ease, can see that there is some future, and the Canadian government decided that the National Capital Region would not be a "one horse town", that it would have a mixture of private industry and public industry.

As well, organizations such as Systemhouse have sprung up, where former public servants have started up in high tech, and now the National Capital Region has a burgeoning high tech industry.

The National Capital Region has, in fact, now become the major North American centre for high technology.

There is a balance between the private sector and the public sector now. I am happy to report that the public service is improving constantly in its effectiveness and efficiency. I am asking the government to make sure, though, that there is a renewal, that there is an opportunity for the young to be able to enter our reputable public service.

We have to make sure that there is an entry situation where young graduates can come to work with the federal government and, if not the federal government, work on contracts for the federal government. That is very essential. I appreciate the opportunity to address the House on the question of the throne speech.