HAFF Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication

37th PARLIAMENT, 2nd SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, October 9, 2003

1105

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance)

1110

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance)

1115

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.)

1120

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ)

1125

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.)

1130

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Jacques Saada

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)

1135

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.)

Mr. Grant Hill

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Grant Hill

1140

Ms. Marlene Catterall

Mr. Grant Hill

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance)

1145

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Grant McNally

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Grant McNally

1150

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance)

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

1155

Mr. Joe Jordan

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada

1200

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Yvon Godin

Mr. Grant Hill

Mr. Yvon Godin

The Chair

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.)

Mr. Grant Hill

1205

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Ms. Marlene Catterall

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

1210

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

Mr. Grant Hill

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Joe Jordan

The Chair

1215

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.)

The Chair

1220

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

1225

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

Mr. Dale Johnston

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Dale Johnston

1230

The Chair

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau

The Chair

Mr. Yvon Godin

1235

The Chair

Mr. Eugène Bellemare

The Chair

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

NUMBER 061

2nd SESSION

37th PARLIAMENT

EVIDENCE

Thursday, October 9, 2003

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á (1105)

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): If we can begin, you'll see that we have three items of business. I'll come back to the first one because we were dealing with it first. I notice that our colleague, Eugène Bellemare, is here for the second item. Eugène, you understand we're going to be dealing with Grant Hill first and with you second. Is that okay with you? Yes.

Colleagues, you'll notice there is a third item, in camera, to discuss a letter we have received from the Senate. I don't think we'll need a great deal of time for that, but I think it's very important and I hope we can take five or ten minutes at the end of our regular meeting time to fit that item in. The regular members of the committee know it's something we have been discussing in camera in the past, and I think we should try to do something now so that when we come back after the break we can do something more substantial about the matter we're discussing with the Senate.

Our first item of business, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a), matters relating to private members' business, concerns our subcommittee report on private members' business--they report to us and we refer to the House--which includes the matter of whether items are votable or not votable.

I'd like to invite our colleague Grant Hill to come forward. The subcommittee has reported that Grant's bill is not votable. Under the standing orders, Grant has the right to come before this committee, which he is now doing. He served appropriate written notice of that.

Grant, we're pleased to see you here, and we're in your hands.

Mr. Grant Hill (Macleod, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

We are entering uncharted territory here, as I think you realize, since this is the first time a private member's bill has been deemed non-votable under the new rules we've been presented with. So in that uncharted territory, let me take you through Bill C-447 and why I believe it should be votable.

This private member's bill would, if passed, provide for a legislated definition of marriage for Canada. Currently, court decisions in Ontario and British Columbia have resulted in different definitions for this important institution across Canada. I've reviewed the reasons why a private member's bill can be voted down, and I feel that Bill C-447 clearly meets all of the requirements to be votable. Let me go through them.

Section 91 of the Constitution provides that marriage falls under the federal jurisdiction. So the proposed government legislation, which has been sent to the Supreme Court of Canada, also seeks to define marriage; however, in quite a different manner from mine.

Á (1110)

The Chair: I apologize for interrupting you, but we have the list of criteria in both languages. You have them before you.

Please continue.

Mr. Grant Hill: It is clear then that this bill falls within the federal jurisdiction.

Secondly, there has been no inconsistency shown between my bill and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The courts have ruled specifically on the common law definition of marriage. This bill would provide for a legislated definition of marriage, and there has been no ruling that would prevent such a legislative action. It would be for future courts to decide whether this legislation violated the charter.

Further, this is an ongoing case, not a settled issue. As you know, there's an application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada, which has not been resolved. It is therefore yet to be determined if even the common law definition of marriage violates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Translation]

Lastly, the decision of the Ontario and British Columbia Courts of Appeal are valid only in Ontario and British Columbia. The definition of marriage we suggest in this bill is the same as the definition that applies in the other eight provinces and two territories.

[English]

This private member's bill and my party's votable supply day motion are two very different votes. I want to stress that, because it is essential to this issue. Our votable supply day motion was for Parliament to simply affirm the traditional definition of marriage. Although that has political weight, it has no binding effect whatever. The affirmation only reflects parliamentarians' views on the definition of marriage as they see it. Until now this definition has only been set out in common law.

This private member's bill, if passed, would actually provide for a new legislated definition of marriage. Parliament has not, and I stress not, voted on this question in this session. As a matter of fact, although legislation like Bill C-447 would have been appropriate before this time to reinforce the common law definition of marriage with legislation, it was not necessary until courts decided to change the definition of marriage.

I ask this committee to consider the spirit of the new rules on private member's business. By denying parliamentarians the opportunity to vote on my bill, we are subverting the limited democratic gains we have made in this House. It is of course my understanding that since the new rules came into place no private member's bill has been deemed non-votable in this manner. I ask that you give parliamentarians a chance to have their say on this important issue, and not set the undemocratic precedent that whenever a bill some parties do not like comes forward, it is rejected.

Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Grant.

Diane Ablonczy.

Mrs. Diane Ablonczy (Calgary—Nose Hill, Canadian Alliance): It seems to me there are larger issues at stake here, in addition to one member's bill. We have been very encouraged in recent weeks and months by talk of democratic renewal here in Parliament--measures that would address the so-called democratic deficit. That has been of concern to all members of Parliament from all parties. We are very hopeful and very positive about some of the proposals and anticipated moves to restore more autonomy, responsibility, and independence to members of Parliament.

It strikes me that by this committee or our House taking a move to block the democratic consideration of a piece of legislation proposed by a member, we are sending a very clear signal to the public that we're not serious about democratic reform; we're not serious about addressing the democratic deficit. As soon as we block a private member's bill, brought in under some very welcome reform to private members' business, we are essentially invoking the notwithstanding clause on private members' business. I think it would be a very dangerous precedent.

I'm aware that to many people this is an unwelcome subject for consideration by elected officials, because our voters are very divided, to a large degree, on this issue. However, we must show some courage in dealing with substantive public issues and being willing to grapple with these issues on behalf of the public and our constituents.

I believe that by blocking Dr. Hill's bill we would send messages that would harm us and harm our democracy in ways that would far outweigh the inconvenience we would be subjected to by having to deal with this matter. I strongly urge this committee to look at the bigger picture and not fight a small battle and in effect concede a war that really has only just begun--the war for democratic reform.

I wonder if Dr. Hill could comment for us on whether he has considered his private member's bill in the context of this wider democratic reform consideration.

Á (1115)

The Chair: Grant, you have roughly two minutes, because on this committee we do about five-minute exchanges and then change parties.

Mr. Grant Hill: I think the comments are valid comments, and although I hate to be the individual in the hot seat on this precedent-setting case, I accept that responsibility. Private members' bills, of course, are subject to amendment. A supply day motion is not subject to amendment; it can only be amended with the permission of the mover.

Here is another issue that I think we can consider. If this private member's bill, which is a very short and specific bill.... It talks about the provinces having the ability to look after other “coupling” arrangements, but says that marriage, with its long-standing definition, is the one that traditionally we have accepted. I think it is a precedent-setting issue that is before us, and an important one.

The Chair: I have Joe Jordan, then Benoît Sauvageau, Jacques Saada, and then Yvon Godin on the list.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Not surprisingly, I have a little different perspective from my Alliance colleague's. As somebody who has been engaged in the private members process since I was elected and involved in what has been characterized as “small democratic steps to reform”, I think it's important to point out that we are in uncharted waters. We had gone around the issues of what the pros and cons were for expanding the size of the pipe for private members' bills, and what the role is of a private member's bill in a parliamentary system based on parties. We had, I thought, a fairly spirited and informed debate over the course of years at this committee.

My concern with this particular issue here—and again, as was predicted in terms of the cons.... I don't know what other members have had, but I probably had 600 e-mails in my office last night from Canadians who are concerned about this issue and who plan to hold me accountable on my vote here today, when really the substance of the bill is not the issue we're here to discuss.

We're here to discuss whether this bill meets the criteria that were laid out when we embarked on this process, and I don't think.... When I look at your motion and at the supply day motion, there's no doubt in my mind—this is one man's opinion—the debate is going to be identical in the House. Keep in mind that the criteria, I think, went from 13 or 14 issues to eight issues to four issues. I think we need to respect those four issues.

If this isn't disqualified under the third of the criteria, which is that bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same—not identical, but substantially the same—as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.... If this criterion, which was saved through the various cullings of criteria, doesn't serve to block this bill—and I would disagree: it's not the committee blocking it; it's the criteria blocking it.... Any reasonable reading of the criteria going in would have suggested that it was not votable.

That's what we're talking about here. We're talking about setting precedents based on this criterion. I'm of the view that on these two, the supply day motion and this particular bill, with the central focus on the definition of marriage, the debate is going to be virtually identical. That's why that criterion is there. I think we need to respect that criterion.

Á (1120)

The Chair: I'm going to allow you about the same time, two and a half minutes, Grant.

Mr. Grant Hill: Thanks, indeed.

This, of course, is the obvious central position here. Might I take you to page 898 of Marleau and Montpetit? Here, it references a ruling from Speaker Fraser in regard to similar items of private members' business and says: “...for two or more items to be substantially the same, they must have the same purpose and they have to achieve their same purpose by the same means.”

Here we have a supply day motion on the one hand, and Joe has said—and accurately said—that it deals with the same subject, and it does; that the wording is very similar, and it is. But the mechanism for achieving the purpose is absolutely different. On the one hand we have a request to Parliament to affirm by a vote the definition, and in this private member's bill we have an attempt to now legislate something most Canadians never thought would be necessary. How could we think of changing something so traditional?

That comment, made in a procedural sense, is the central issue for you to consider. Are these two issues trying to reach the same end? They are. Are they trying to achieve it with a different means? I state categorically, they are.

The Chair: Benoît Sauvageau, unless...Joe, you have a few seconds.

Mr. Joe Jordan: I don't agree with your interpretation. Having been involved in this process from start to finish, from my reading of that criterion, I think this absolutely doesn't meet that criterion. So we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

The Chair: Benoît Sauvageau, and then Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau (Repentigny, BQ): Mr. Hill, it is a pleasure to welcome you here today. I listened carefully to your presentation, and I agree that Bill C-447 meets the first and the second criteria used to determine which items of private members' business are to be votable or non-votable.

However, I believe that we run into some difficulty with the third criterion.

Bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.

Here, we are not talking about procedure, we are not talking about process. This is clear in the criteria established by the committee:

Bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.

I believe that the House of Commons has made its position clear in a committee report, a report prepared after the committee held extensive hearings and traveled for over six months, for almost a year. The Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights published a report on this, and the House of Commons concurred in that report. We also had the Canadian Alliance's opposition day, and the House voted on their motions. The House has perhaps not made its position entirely clear; however, issues relating to this topic are currently before the Supreme Court.

In my opinion, if the committee were to grant your request to make this bill votable, it would create a rather dangerous precedent. It would mean that, even when an issue has been debated and voted on the House, procedure can be raised as an argument and the issue brought back. The House of Commons has voted, by concurring in a committee report, but it did not vote when a bill was introduced. We will have to exhaust all the instruments we have available to determine whether a bill or a motion is votable or non-votable.

The criteria established state only that questions must not be substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House. It makes no mention of procedures that are substantially different; it mentions only questions that are substantially the same. Is your bill substantially different from the decision or motion put forward during the official opposition day? No, it is not. Is the subject of your bill substantially different from the subject of the report which the committee of the House has studied? It is not substantially different.

Á (1125)

The Chair: You only have two minutes left.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Very well.

Thus, I believe that the committee should not support your request to make your bill votable.

Please go ahead.

Mr. Grant Hill: Mr. Sauvageau, it is not quite accurate to say that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights prepared a report on the committee process; this is not true. There have been no votes in the House of Commons on this question.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is it true that the committee held meetings and travelled?

Mr. Grant Hill: There were no votes, and no report.

[English]

Most important, though, when you said this could not be voted upon positively by this committee because it has the same reason for being, I take you back to Marleau and Montpetit, who say that if you define something as having the same purpose, there is a mechanism to do that. They do not have the same purpose if they're coming to the same point by different means. It's a technical point, but it's the basis upon which I believe those criteria were set out.

I can only say to you, please consider this very carefully. The clerk has given you the reference, and that reference is so clear, so plain, and so specific.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think that the arguments you make are essentially the same as those we have already heard. I think this is a roundabout way of attempting to interpret a standing order of the House or a precedent of the House, not to make use of the precedent per se, but to achieve a very clear political end, as everyone can see.

I am not a lawyer and I will leave it to lawyers to determine votability with regard to criterion 2. It seems to me that the Ontario and B.C. courts have said that the current definition of marriage violates the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that other options like civil union do not necessarily solve the problem. And there would still be discrimination.

Until such time as another court, a higher court, rules that the current definition of marriage does not violate the Charter, I must assume that it does. If it is not in compliance with the Charter, then this bill is not in compliance with the Charter either, and in my opinion, the second criterion is not met.

Let us now look at the third criterion, dealt with so clearly and eloquently by many who have spoken before me. Obviously, above and beyond the precedents and technical interpretations of our Standing Orders, the spirit in which the Standing Orders were drafted is essential to the issue at hand. That spirit is very straightforward. The House of Commons cannot consider bills that are substantially the same one after another, even if those bills have been twisted, rearranged and massaged. This bill is an attempt to use the House for political ends which have no bearing on the interests of the House, and which bring nothing to the debate. Nothing new has been brought in to enrich the debate since the House voted. Regardless of whether the vote was on a motion or a bill, the spirit of the vote remains. I do not see why we would agree to debate this bill again, and vote again on a subject that is substantially the same as a subject on which we have already voted.

Á (1130)

[English]

The Chair: Grant Hill.

[Translation]

Mr. Grant Hill: Thank you, Mr. Saada. I must say I do not agree with you.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I was aware of that.

Mr. Grant Hill: There are two reasons why I disagree with you. First, because of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Two provincial superior courts have said that the definition of marriage violated the Charter, but in the rest of Canada—and specifically in Quebec—that definition is still valid. This is clear, and the process is not complete. At present, the Supreme Court is considering a request for leave to appeal. I said clearly that this was not the same thing, because there are two possible mechanisms. Passing a bill is a completely different mechanism. These are very important points.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques, you have two minutes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I'll just take 20 seconds.

[Translation]

Through you, Mr. Chairman, I would like to ask my colleague a question. Can my colleague mention anything new, anything new whatsoever, that he may have learned since the House voted on this issue, and that could move the debate forward?

Mr. Grant Hill: Yes. At present, it is the court that is making decisions on this issue. If a bill is put forward, it will be the Parliament of Canada that makes these decisions. There is a substantial difference there.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I will interrupt you, if I may, because we have very little time and I want to be sure of a specific answer to my question, which I hope will be specific as well. Since the House voted on the issue, has any new factor emerged, a new factor that could affect the debate in some fashion?

Mr. Grant Hill: Yes.

Mr. Jacques Saada: What is that new factor?

The Chair: I am still the chair.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Of course, Mr. Chairman. That is why I began my remarks with the words “through you, Mr. Chairman”. That was intended to apply to all my remarks.

Mr. Grant Hill: There is one very clear difference—this is a bill, not a motion.

Mr. Jacques Saada: I asked you whether there was some new factor that could affect the debate.

Mr. Grant Hill: Legislative power constitutes a very substantial difference.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, do I have a few seconds left?

The Chair: Just a few seconds.

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you. I consider that there has been no new factor that can in any way enrich the decision already made in the House of Commons. Therefore, I consider that this bill is superfluous from the standpoint of votability.

[English]

The Chair: Yvon Godin, and then Marlene Catterall and Diane Ablonczy.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, I would like to say how disappointed I was when you agreed with your Canadian Alliance colleague's statement that making this bill non-votable would be undemocratic. We should bear in mind that your party was part of the group that decided on the process. If we look at the proceedings, we will see that you were the ones saying we needed a process to stop a bill if it had already been introduced in the House, or if its content was substantially the same as another bill already introduced in the House. We can look at the proceedings; your party was part of the process to set criteria for private members' bills. I want it on the record that members of the Canadian Alliance were involved in the process. If they had not been in agreement, I can assure you we would not even have this bill before us, neither would we have the new procedures, because all parties had to agree and the Canadian Alliance was part of the process. I wanted to be on the record that the Canadian Alliance agreed on this democratic process we are applying today, and that this does not end here. There are other procedures you can turn to if you do not agree with this committee's decision.

Let us return to the motion before us today. If we compare it to the motion put forward by the Canadian Alliance in the House of Commons, I can say that, if we think about it carefully, it is easier to vote on a motion than on a bill. A motion provides only an indication of something; it is not a bill. This means it would have been much easier for members to say yes to the Canadian Alliance motion. But people voted against the Canadian Alliance motion, and I cannot see any difference, except that yesterday I received 600 e-mail messages saying that people want the issue debated again. Maybe people are just trying to overload my new fax machine—but in any case, we are seeing reactions among Canadians. Canadians do not know where to turn, and the Canadian Alliance is enjoying the situation. I do not know if that is what is going on—all I can say, Mr. Chairman, is that what we have here is a legal process which we approve, and which the Canadian Alliance approved along with us. So when we look at the criteria we established, we see that bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same as the ones already voted on by the House. But here, Mr. Chairman, we are talking about questions that are essentially the same. We do not have two bills that are the same, or two motions that are the same, but two questions that are substantially the same. What we have before us is clear—it is a bill on a question that is substantially the same as one voted on by the House. This is why I cannot support making the bill votable. Yet, I see the Canadian Alliance claiming that failing to put this up for debate before Parliament and making it non-votable is undemocratic. I object to that statement. The Canadian Alliance was a part of the procedure and House affairs committee, and its members agreed on this process. Forgive me for putting it in this way, but it is somewhat dishonest to call the process undemocratic, since you were involved in approving it.

Á (1135)

The Chair: Grant, you have two minutes.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: Of course, the party was not only party to these negotiations but really, quite frankly, the leaders in these negotiations, and I will be bound by the decision within this group. But I refer again to the issue of these items being substantially the same. They must reach their conclusion in the same way to be substantially the same. This bill does not reach the same conclusion in the same way.

Might I remind my colleagues that when the Speaker ruled on this on September 16, 2003, he broke a tie. Why did he break that tie?

I'm hoping to have the attention of all my colleagues, if I can.

The Chair: Colleagues.

Grant, please continue.

Mr. Grant Hill: The Speaker broke the tie so that this issue could be revisited by the House.

Let me remind you of his quote:

Therefore, since the House has been unable to take a decision tonight, I will vote so that members may be given another opportunity to pronounce themselves on the issue at some future time and, accordingly, I cast my vote in the negative.

There we have the tiebreaker so that we could have this item come before the House of Commons, the supreme court in this land, the court that I believe should make this decision. That, I believe, is why we should reflect on this carefully.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: I would like a clarification, Mr. Chairman. When the Speaker of the House broke the tie and made his decision, was he voting on the amendment or on the main motion?

Mr. Grant Hill: He was voting on the amendment.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you.

Marlene Catterall, Diane Ablonczy, Joe Jordan, and Benoît Sauvageau.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): We are here to deal with whether this is substantially the same as a motion that's already been before the House. I think it's important to put on the record what the legal definition of marriage is now.

Mr. Grant Hill: The legal definition under common law today is a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Do you know the source of that definition?

Mr. Grant Hill: I do. It is common law, English law that came through the ages.

Á (1140)

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Those words were in a court decision from the 1800s, actually. We now have a legal definition of marriage, because common law and legislative law have essentially the same status in the British parliamentary system.

I want to make it clear, Mr. Chair, both to the people here and to the people who might be reading about this debate later, that we are not here to debate the bill, whether we agree with it or don't agree with it. We are simply here to debate whether, according to the rules of the House, it should be votable.

Our subcommittee, which looks at all private member's bills, has decided it shouldn't, because it contravenes the rules Parliament agreed to. The rule says bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same—not technically, not in terms of method, but substantially, dealing with the substance of the issue.

To me, there is no question that Mr. Hill's bill deals with the substance of a motion that Parliament dealt with not two weeks ago. The whole purpose of this rule, which all parties agreed to, was that we would not continually redebate the same issues, taking time in the House so that other members of Parliament would then be deprived of bringing other issues forward. If the same issue could be debated 10 times in Parliament, then other members would lose 10 opportunities to debate other issues of interest to them. It was a good rule, and I think it's up to us, frankly, as the committee that recommended these rules to the House of Commons, to sustain those rules, unless we agree to review them and Parliament agrees to change them. We can't say these are the rules, and then, because we like or don't like one bill or the other, decide to abandon the rules.

I have heard nothing today to convince me that there is anything substantially different between this and the motion the House has already dealt with.

Mr. Grant Hill: This now will be the third time that I've done exactly the same thing. The member asked me for a definition. I would like her to go to page 898 of Marleau and Montpetit, and go to the comment that gives us the definition of “substantially the same”. This whole thing turns on that phrase:

...for two or more items to be substantially the same, they must

--I would ask the member to read the rest of it--

have the same purpose

--and I admit they have the same purpose--

and they have to achieve their same purpose by the same means.

It is absolutely clear that a motion in the House affirming the definition and legislating it are not the same means.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I would most respectfully, in one sentence, disagree that, whether it was a motion in the House or in the bill now being proposed by Mr. Hill, we are talking about the legal definition of marriage. There is no substantial difference between the common law definition in the British parliamentary system and a law passed by Parliament. They're both law.

I simply have to come to the same conclusion as I did before.

The Chair: Colleagues, if I can remind you, we're essentially debating with the motion of concurrence in a subcommittee report. That's what we're doing. The subcommittee report is based on the list of criteria that this committee developed. I know we can go back into Marleau and Montpetit, and there are other interpretations of it, but I would simply point out to you that is exactly what we're doing now.

Can I go to Grant McNally, I believe it is, and then Joe Jordan and Benoît Sauvageau.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I would say that all we have talked about this morning hinges on criterion three and an interpretation of what that means. I would suggest to the committee that there is some uncertainty in interpretation with criterion three. What does that mean? When there is uncertainty, it is wise for us to seek further advice, to seek further rulings on this question, because obviously this question has come before the House in previous times--I mean the question of whether two things are similar or not, not this particular item.

I have not heard any rebuttals to Speaker Fraser's ruling. Mr. Hill has agreed that, yes, the purpose may be the same--he's admitted that--but the means are very different, and that is a very strong argument. In fact, that has so much weight in this decision that we must consider those words in Speaker Fraser's ruling very carefully, and this bill is very different in its means as to how this particular item is dealt with.

Also in Dr. Hill's bill is a clause suggesting to the provinces how they should deal with other relationship arrangements, which is also substantively different from the motion that came before us in the House. On that point alone, I don't see how we can possibly just agree to disagree or have a different opinion about the ruling of a previous Speaker, whose intent was to give further clarification when there was this disagreement in terms of interpretation. That helps to guide us in future decisions, and I would say that I have not heard any rebuttals to that point. That is the crux of the issue, and in saying that your bill is very different from the motion that came before the House because it attempts to achieve maybe something that is the same but by very different means....

I would just ask you once again, Dr. Hill, have you heard any rebuttals? I haven't, apart from people saying they want to agree to disagree with you.

Á (1145)

The Chair: Grant Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: I do thank you for that summing up, in fact. Maybe I'm not articulate enough to sum it up in that way, but that is what I've been trying to say.

In the preamble of the bill there is a component that does reflect on and suggest that provinces do have the ability--I mentioned that in my preamble--to recognize relationships other than marriage as it has been traditionally defined--or modified, if that is society's wish. But ultimately that decision, I believe, should be taken by Parliament, and what a perfect opportunity this is for those colleagues who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage. What an opportunity to have Parliament speak on this openly, publicly, and vote upon it, because surely that's what we're here for.

Mr. Grant McNally: Could I just add one thing, Dr. Hill?

Other members have suggested we follow the rules of the House in terms of the criteria that have been laid out by the subcommittee or other arrangements that have been made. Marleau and Montpetit is in fact a very weighty interpretation of the rules of the House; we should give that a great deal of weight in this argument, and that is central. If we're going to follow the rules of the House, those rules are further defined by Marleau and Montpetit for when there are differences of opinion.

The Chair: Mr. Saada has a point of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know when this interpretation was made in Marleau-Montpetit and when these standing orders were adopted.

[English]

The Chair: It was 1989.

Grant Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: We are talking in a very scholarly, legalistic way here. I don't think that's what the criteria were set up for us to do, but when you have a disagreement, surely you have to go back to precedents. You go back to explanatory conditions. If someone has another mechanism of saying substantially the same thing or has another definition, I'd like to hear it, but I think this one is parliamentary and is directed towards the very deliberations we have here today--different means, even though the purpose may be the same.

The Chair: Grant McNally, you still have about a minute to go.

Mr. Grant McNally: I'd just restate that there are going to be differences of opinion on criterion three and what that means, and that if there is a difference of opinion, we should go to an arbitrator. An arbitrator in our system is the precedents that have been set before us by rulings of previous Speakers on questions that have come up that are similar.

I have not heard in this committee, with all due respect to my colleagues, any rebuttal to the second portion of the Marleau and Montpetit argument you make, that this wants to achieve something by a very different means from the means for something that has already come before the House. I don't think there is a rebuttal to that. At least, I haven't heard it to this point.

Á (1150)

The Chair: Colleagues, I'm in your hands, but we do have another colleague waiting for his other item on the agenda.

I have Joe Jordan, Benoît Sauvageau, Jacques Saada, Yvon Godin, and Nancy Karetak-Lindell as well.

I look to the Canadian Alliance, though, and if you would like another kick at the can, I'd be glad to do it. But my intention would be, colleagues, to move this along if we can. I think it would help and it would be a courtesy to our colleague.

Joe Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My reading of Marleau and Montpetit is that it deals with notice of bill. That deals with whether or not procedurally those items can go on the Order Paper, because there's a long-held history and precedent of this House that you don't deal with similar issues in a same session. That binds the government in that case, too. That was 1989. It doesn't specifically deal with votability of private members' business in this process, because as you pointed out, we're breaking new ground here. So I don't feel bound by that, because I think it's a misinterpretation of that clause in this case, having gone through these discussions.

In terms of the Speaker's ruling, I don't think the Speaker meant to imply or give the impression that the House was to circumvent the normal rules to bring this back. I think he was just following the precedent.

What I want to point out, though, is that, Dr. Hill, you said you're bound by the decision of the committee. In fact, you're not. If the committee were to concur in the subcommittee's report, the next stage of this is that the House will vote in a secret ballot. So when you say you're in uncharted territories, potentially we're really going to go down into uncharted territories.

This is something that was added by the modernization committee. This isn't something that was discussed at this committee at all--which is a separate issue--but depending on how this vote goes, if this committee chooses to override the decision made by its subcommittee, then the issue is votable. If this committee chooses to uphold the decision made after a meeting of the subcommittee, my reading is that we're going to go into the House and have a--

Mr. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin, Canadian Alliance): I'd just like to correct the speaker, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, it's not automatic. He's implying that it's automatic. First, Mr. Hill would have to get the signatures of four out of the five parties in order to do this. Mr. Jordan is implying that this is automatic, and he shouldn't be doing that.

The Chair: Can we pause there?

Jamie, would you--

Mr. Joe Jordan: I can address that.

The hurdles are not insurmountable. So we see where this is headed. It's a situation where this committee today is not slamming the door on this. We are trying to follow a process that we painstakingly debated over the course of at least a year and see this as clearly a violation of the few criteria.... We were very careful to minimize the criteria, because that was always the criticism. To somehow argue that these things are not similar... we might as well just throw criterion three on the floor and ignore it. It was put there for very good reason, as was articulated by my colleagues from the Bloc and the NDP. We didn't want this to turn into a revolving door on issues like this.

That's where I'll leave it, other than to say the issue itself Parliament dealt with two weeks ago. There may be some reason to want to bring it back, but independent of that, I don't see how it clears the third hurdle. I have heard nothing today that changes my mind on that particular point.

The Chair: Grant Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: With all respect, I think my colleague is completely missing the two criteria here. One is purpose; one is means of achieving that purpose.

Let me just say, on the other issue of this being available to Parliament as a whole, that we do need to have the signatures of four of the parties. I have already been told by one party that no signature will be coming from that party. Effectively, then, this committee will be the arbiter of this issue, because I am certain that there will be no signature coming from two of the parties.

Á (1155)

Mr. Joe Jordan: I can give you the names, if that's what you need. I don't think you're going to have a problem with that.

Mr. Grant Hill: When the whip comes out and says, “No one from my party will sign an appeal,” which I have already been told, I more than respectfully disagree; I vigorously disagree.

The Chair: Again, colleagues, I would urge that we move it along.

Benoît Sauvageau, Jacques Saada, Yvon Godin, and Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Then we will reinvent the criteria to make them more potable.

First, let me say that I agree with the comments made by my friend and colleague Yvon Godin to the effect that the Canadian Alliance voted in favour of these criteria, and with respect to the third criterion, had they wanted to say that these are not essentially the same items, but essentially the same procedures, the same process and the same... Who knows what else they will come up with? This could have been suggested as part of the third criterion.

You are basing your argument for making a bill votable mainly on Marleau-Montpetit; but as Mr. Saada has pointed out, according to Marleau-Montpetit, the decision was made in 1989. I don't think that the four criteria that were put forward by the committee on December 11, 2002 were considered in 1989. We have to move with the times, and the procedure was the subject of a democratic agreement. Your argument in favour of making the bill votable is based on a decision that was made before the new standing orders came into effect, before the changes were made to private members' business.

I think it would be wrong to use a document that no longer applies in order to support a decision, since the process and the criteria have changed. You say that because the criteria have been amended, because we agreed to them and since they don't suit you, we should simply ignore them and rely upon a previous decision. That sounds a little half-baked to me, don't you think?

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: My colleagues come back to the fact that somehow I do not accept the criteria. That is not accurate; I do accept the criteria.

My point is very straightforward. We do disagree here on whether or not the interpretation of this criterion is acceptable for this private member's bill. I say it is, and I'm using a very specific parliamentary precedent for you to consider. That's all I ask my colleagues to do. Please consider that when you make your decision, and if you decide that this is not the way it will go, so be it.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Is the question essentially the same? I mean the issue, the subject matter, not the procedure. Is the subject essentially the same?

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: The purpose of the question is essentially the same. The mechanism to reach that purpose is entirely different.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But the purpose is the same.

Mr. Grant Hill: The purpose is the same.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Thank you.

Mr. Grant Hill: But, colleagues, I'm using the words of Montpetit.

This isn't particularly funny. I'm using Montpetit words: the purpose may be the same, but they cannot be considered substantially the same if the mechanism is different. If you can't read that, I'm surprised and distressed.

[Translation]

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Chairman, could I ask Mr. Hill where he sees the following terms, either in English or in French: “The mechanisms are not the same”? There might be a mistake on my sheet, for criterion 3, and I would like him to tell me where he sees, on his sheet, the expression “the mechanisms are not the same”, in English or in French.

Mr. Grant Hill: It is in Marleau-Montpetit.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: No, here.

Mr. Grant Hill: That is the definition of the process.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You don't see it in the four criteria.

Mr. Grant Hill: It's obvious.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. I have no other questions.

[English]

The Chair: Jacques Saada, then Yvon Godin and Nancy Karetak-Lindell.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We will not revisit the chronology nor the 1989 interpretation in Marleau-Montpetit since the standing orders were made in 2002. I don't see how, in 1989, there could have been an interpretation made of standing orders that would come into force in 2002, unless one had an extraordinary gift of foresight. But let's take this even further. There is another point that appears obvious to me, and with respect, I differ with my colleague Mr. McNally.

Â (1200)

[English]

Mr. McNally alludes to the fact that we never rebutted the arguments of the interpretation. I beg to differ. In the interpretations referred to in Marleau and Montpetit, there is a very substantial difference between motions and bills, and that refers to the difference of processes or means, whatever you want to call them.

In our regulations, which have been passed by this House in December 2002, we have put both bills and motions in the same boat. We are not saying we aren't making any difference between bills and motions; we're saying bills and motions--I'm just putting it in English; I could do it in French--must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.

[Translation]

Apparently there is no difference in the Standing Order that we have before us, i.e., the one that we are using, and the one that was applied by the subcommittee. To my mind, it is inappropriate and irrelevant to revert to an interpretation where a distinction is made between motions and bills. Therefore, I feel that the question is crystal clear : motions and bills go together. If either a motion or a bill deals with the same issue twice, there will be no vote the second time. That is absolutely explicit, and has never been covered in Marleau-Montpetit.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: I think it's obvious, Mr. Chair, that just repeating the same things over and over again is not productive. I let my argument rest.

The Chair: Colleagues, it's not for me to stop, but we have another colleague who is waiting, and my list keeps growing here. I have Yvon Godin, Nancy Karetak-Lindell, Dale or a representative of the Canadian Alliance, and then Joe Jordan.

It will take five seconds, I hear from him. I'll believe that when I see it.

Yvon Godin, then Nancy.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have a comment and perhaps an answer as well. As my colleague Mr. McNally said, since there is a difference of opinion, we should ask for advice; I wonder if this committee has the authority to interpret the paragraph and make a decision. If we have a document like this one before us, and if we have criteria, then, if someone seeks to appeal, there is a difference of opinion on the matter. Now if we have to run to an arbitrator whenever positions differ, then we may as well just hire a bunch of them and we can all go home.

I would like to hear what Mr. Hill has to say about that, about whether or not he thinks that our committee should decide, or if he agrees with Mr. McNally that we should ask an arbitrator for an interpretation.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: Once again, I think we're spinning wheels, Mr. Chair. Certainly we are aware of what “substantially the same” means, and in terms of this process here I will stand upon “substantially the same” as defined by parliamentary precedent. We cannot ignore that precedent, or we ignore it at our risk.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to know if he thinks that this committee should decide or should we seek the help of an arbitrator. I think my question is clear. It does not deal with the definition itself, but rather, with who should be the one to decide. I would like to know what Mr. Hill thinks about it.

[English]

Mr. Grant Hill: This committee, of course, will make the decision.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: I have Nancy Karetak-Lindell, then I think it's Dale Johnston, and then Joe Jordan. Nancy.

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell (Nunavut, Lib.): I have a very simple question regarding criterion number three. When it says “bills and motions must not concern questions...” I go back and ask, what is the question? Then I look at these two and say to myself, what is the question? The question is, “what is the definition of marriage?” for September 16, and “what is the definition of marriage?” seems to be the question for Bill C-447. I'm wondering why we don't just deal with what the question is instead of all the process that I think I'm hearing now.

That's all I have.

Mr. Grant Hill: When we put a motion before the House, there is a question being asked, Mr. Chair. When we put a bill to the House, it is not a question; it is a statement.

Â (1205)

Ms. Nancy Karetak-Lindell: No, I mean for us. If you're looking at number three of the four criteria, I think you have to ask what the question was that was being put forth, because you have to look at the question to see if it's substantially the same as another question. I'm just trying to go back to find out what the question is that we're trying to deal with. Don't you have to know what the question is in order to rule on the question?

The Chair: Yes. Excuse me, Grant. Colleagues, each member of the committee has a chart, which has the two cases, the motion and the private member's bill, for comparison. I hope members have read that.

Grant, please continue.

Mr. Grant Hill: The motion was a question for Parliament to affirm something. The private member's bill is asking Parliament for a law, a legislative action. To be considered substantially the same, they must have the same mechanism of reaching the goal, and—I will conclude—they do not.

The Chair: Thank you. That's it.

Dale Johnston.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Some aspects of this don't surprise me at all. It certainly doesn't surprise me that there's great opposition to Mr. Hill's bill being votable. I'm very suspicious that it has more to do with the nature of the bill than it does the technicalities. What really surprises me is that I hear so much argument against what's written in Marleau and Montpetit.

In this criterion number three, nowhere do I read a definition of what “substantially the same” means; therefore I have to conclude that the committee Joe talks about spending so much time on didn't simply pull that phrase out of the air. I have to reason that they went somewhere for the definition of “substantially the same”. I think it would only be logical to conclude that they would get that definition out of Marleau and Montpetit. Yet this committee sits around here and says, yes, but Marleau and Montpetit—that's 1989.

We have rulings made in the House that are based on decisions taken by Speakers in the last century and the century before that, Mr. Chairman. For us to say that because this was written 13 years ago it is stale-dated or somehow not applicable today is to me just asinine. I really have trouble believing I'm hearing all of this idiotic argument from such learned people.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We have the same problem.

The Chair: I've been sitting here listening very carefully and I've heard other unkind remarks this morning.

Grant Hill.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'm not finished.

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry. Excuse me, Dale. Please, it's your time.

Mr. Dale Johnston: If we are going to completely disregard what's written in Marleau and Montpetit, then.... I don't think it's for this committee to do that, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry if I got a little bit emotional and insulting. I don't mean to do that.

The Chair: Grant Hill.

Mr. Grant Hill: Let me just respond again that Parliament has not voted on this issue in this Parliament using the means by which this bill is trying to define traditional marriage.

The Chair: Thank you.

Joe Jordan; then I'm going to wrap it up.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I hope I'm not bound by my five seconds.

To my colleague Dale Johnston, when I get emotional, I get teary-eyed; I don't start attacking my colleagues personally—

Â (1210)

The Chair: Come on, let's get on with it.

Mr. Joe Jordan: —and I think that had more to do with the content than the bill's process.

Dr. Hill, you have said, and I think correctly, that we are down to interpretation of M and M—Marleau and Montpetit. Whether or not this phraseology binds us is a matter of debate. You always have recourse to the Speaker if you think the processes and procedures and rules of the House are not followed. I would suggest that if things don't go the way you want today, you take advantage of that option.

The Speaker may be able to decide whether.... These transcripts are on the public record; they're part of the parliamentary process. I think someone could take a look at that. I would suggest that you maybe consider that option, depending on how this goes today.

The Chair: Grant, you're essentially wrapping up, so feel free to take the time.

Mr. Grant Hill: Well, my colleagues, let me wrap up then by saying it's been a privilege and an honour to present my case before you. As colleagues, I of course recognize that when we do not agree, we disagree respectfully with one another.

This is an important issue. It's one I think you know the Canadian public are divided upon, as I know. I believe, and firmly believe, that Parliament should be the body that decides such an important social question. If Parliament cannot rule on something that is as important in our society as the definition of marriage, what are we doing here? For the courts to rule and not allow parliamentarians to rule is, I think, a grave mistake.

This is an opportunity—and to my colleagues who disagree with the traditional definition of marriage, what a choice opportunity—to let the vote take place.

I rest my case.

The Chair: Thank you very much, Grant. We do appreciate the time you've taken, your patience, and obviously the research you've put into this matter.

Colleagues, we have, moved by Lynn Myers, that the following report be concurred in, and I'm going to call the vote on that. The report is this:

In accordance with provisional Standing Order 92(1), the Subcommittee has agreed that the following item of Private Members' Business originating in the House of Commons should be designated as non-votable:

Bill C-447, An Act to protect the institution of Marriage (Mr. Hill - Macleod).

A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 4) is tabled.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I'd like a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 10; nays 3)

The Chair: The report is concurred in and it will be reported to the House.

Colleagues, could we proceed to the second agenda item. It is that of Eugène Bellemare, our colleague from Ottawa--Orléans.

While we're getting organized, I would like to recognize that Senator Lavigne is here in the room. We do appreciate his presence.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask something on a point of clarification. This is just to contrast and compare. What we're doing today is the beginning of looking at this issue in some detail, and we're not going to decide anything today. Is that right?

The Chair: That is correct. We're here for Eugène to present his case and for us to ask him questions. Already at least one of the parties here has suggested how we might proceed in the future on this. For example, we can call witnesses, we can discuss among ourselves again, and so on. We're here to hear Eugène and to clarify in our own minds what his purpose is and that kind of thing. There'll be no vote on this today or anything of that sort.

Eugène, we're in your hands.

Â (1215)

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare (Ottawa—Orléans, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman, for allowing me to appear to discuss the oath to Canada and the Queen. My bill

[English]

aims at adding to what we already do presently, which is swear allegiance to the Queen of Canada. We would now swear also allegiance to Canada, meaning le peuple canadien.

Already in the Commonwealth you have some countries, such as India, Jamaica, and at least two other countries, that have adopted this double prong or double sentence, where they swear allegiance to the Queen and to their country. My research has shown that we must be, as parliamentarians, among the only parliamentarians in the world who don't swear allegiance to their country. A very few countries don't do it yet, and those are in the Commonwealth. But the process is getting to the point where even England, for example, has addressed the question of la Loi sur la citoyenneté.

It is doing something similar exactly to what we are doing in the House of Commons of Canada, where we are adding that our new citizens would be swearing allegiance to the Queen, obviously, and also swearing allegiance to the country.

My bill does not address the Constitution of Canada. Swearing allegiance to the Queen is part of the Constitution. Mon projet de loi is addressed to the Parliament Act—solely the Parliament Act—and it is legally permissible to create this addition to our oath-swearing.

There is a question of pride of country out there.

[Translation]

In the 1996 census, eight million Canadians said that they were neither French, English, Irish nor Polish, but, rather, Canadian. During the 2001 census, I believe, 11 million Canadians said the same thing. So there is a demand, a need, a willingness to identify with our country.

I have a colleague, Senator Lavigne, who would like to introduce the same bill in the Senate. It would be a shame if the Senate were to spearhead this bill. He is here this morning to support me, and I imagine he will also be a witness. After my discussions with him, I understand that he conducted surveys about his bill in Quebec, as well as in the rest of Canada, and he found that the Royal Canadian Legion as well as many Quebec organizations were in agreement to add this to the regulation or the act that covers members of Parliament.

I don't want to prolong the debate. I am ready to answer any and all of your questions.

[English]

The Chair: Merci beaucoup, Eugène.

I wonder if I could ask a first question, colleagues, because I have Dale and then I have Benoît.

Could you explain for me the difference in your two-pronged approach? For example, some people don't like swearing allegiance to the Queen. They take comfort in the fact that it doesn't really mean swearing allegiance to the Queen; it means swearing allegiance to Canada.

By the way, that is an explanation that's been given to many people. Is it not true that when we swear allegiance to the Queen we actually are swearing allegiance to Canada? Can you just explain that for me personally?

Â (1220)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: There is a tradition where swearing allegiance to the Queen or the King, whichever male or female we may have, is swearing allegiance to the ruler, to the authority. My interpretation here is that we need to swear allegiance to authority, and those who are strict monarchists will say the monarchy, or the Queen in this case, represents all the institutions and all the laws of Canada—in other words, represents Canada. You have, though, a feeling of pride that comes into play, where Canadians—especially new Canadians, I would suggest—want to be part of the country; they want to be respectful to the Queen; they want to be respectful towards the law, which is the Constitution. But this is an add-on.

My personal interpretation is that we owe our allegiance to the Queen because of the Constitution, because of tradition and history, but in my mind, we also owe allegiance to the community that elected us and to the country to which this community belongs.

[Translation]

We are accountable when we are elected.

[English]

It is not like being appointed to a position and then swearing allegiance to the person, to the ruler, the director—the boss, as it were. In this case we were elected not by the Queen but by the communities; therefore, we have an obligation.

[Translation]

We have obligations to the citizens who voted for us.

[English]

It would be a two-pronged affair, where we recognize that we belong to a monarchy and continue this fine tradition of swearing allegiance to the ruler, but also recognize that there is an electorate out there; that there are citizens towards whom we have an obligation.

The Chair: Je te remercie beaucoup.

I have Dale, then I have Benoît Sauvageau, and then I have Yvon Godin.

Mr. Dale Johnston: First of all, Mr. Chairman, thank you.

To the witness, I say page 2 of the Library of Parliament notes says: “The oath would also challenge the then Reform Party, which, according to Mr. Bellemare, had made attempts to disassociate itself from Canada's two official languages.”

I'm having a problem with a statement like that, but I won't dwell on it, because I'm sure.... Unless Mr. Bellemare wants to remark on it, that's all I'm going to say on it, that I'm very much—

The Chair: Dale, could you just wait a minute?

Eugène, did you get that?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: No.

The Chair: No, he didn't. I'm sorry.

Dale, can you wait a moment? Dale, I'm sorry, but he missed it; he didn't hear what you said.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Is that coming off my time?

The Chair: No, I think mechanical breakdowns go to the chair's time.

Eugène, est-ce que ça marche, maintenant?

[Translation]

Eugène, is it working now?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Dale will say it again, and you now have the item in question.

Please, Dale, go ahead.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I just want to draw to Mr. Bellemare's attention the statement attributed to him, saying that the then Reform Party had made attempts to disassociate itself from Canada's two official languages. I take exception to that statement. A lot of our members have studied the other official language since they've come here. You may not like our policy on official bilingualism, but it's supported by a lot of Canadians, and I think it shouldn't be made short shrift of in this way.

The question I particularly wanted to ask of the witness, Mr. Chairman, is this. Although this bill deals specifically with members of the House of Commons, I'm wondering how it will affect the oath taken.

Also, I heard the witness talk about new Canadians. I'm wondering if he's implying—and it doesn't say this in the bill—that people who receive their citizenship will also take this same oath.

Â (1225)

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: First, the statement that's written here is a quote from newspapers. I think parliamentarians know better. In the morning I read or glance through three newspapers. Sometimes I wonder if they're talking about the same item that occurred in Parliament, because I may have a fourth opinion as to what exactly was said. The twist that newspapers or the media give to comments that members of Parliament, the Prime Minister, or cabinet members make is often--the word “twisted” would be rude--presented in such a manner that it's very provocative.

What I read here is very provocative. I do not recall saying things like this. I do recall saying that there may be some difficulty with the Bloc Québécois accepting this, because in those days I had the word “Constitution” in my bill, which I've removed since then. At that point I said, since la province de Québec did not sign on to the Constitution in 1981-82, it could become objectionable, even though, in my mind.... Does everyone agree with 100% of the content of the Constitution?

We are here to change the Constitution where we believe it should be improved. We've done that in the last two or three years on amendments to the Constitution regarding the educational system in Newfoundland and in Quebec, for example.

Because this would be offensive to some people in la province de Québec, I decided to remove it, and I mentioned that.

The Chair: I do not mean to interrupt, and we appreciate your discussing that, but I think the question had to do with new immigrants and whether you envisage the oath applying to new citizens as well as to members of Parliament.

Mr. Dale Johnston: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

But specifically, how do you see the passage of your bill, which would apply to members of Parliament, affecting the oath that's taken by new citizens when they get their citizenship?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: It is my understanding that it's presently in front of the House. I'm not sure which stage it is at, at the moment. The citizenship bill indicates that henceforth new Canadians applying for citizenship and those who are accepted for citizenship would swear allegiance to the Queen, as is done now, and would also swear allegiance to Canada.

The Chair: I'm advised that the bill is still with the committee.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: All right.

Also, I would like to point out that a similar bill has been presented in England, where people would continue, as they come into the country of England, to swear allegiance to the Queen, and there's an addition being made.

The Chair: It's to Britain. If you're from Scotland, Northern Ireland, or Wales, you have great concern about these things.

Mr. Dale Johnston: I think I have the answer, because it is a fact, Mr. Chairman, that the affirmation we take now is identical to the one that is taken when you get your citizenship to Canada.

I think the witness has said the ultimate goal is to have the two affirmations exactly the same, in time. Is that correct?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

Mr. Dale Johnston: All right, thank you.

Â (1230)

The Chair: Mr. Benoît Sauvageau, and then Yvon.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You won't have any problem if I speak in French, Mr. Bellemare?

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That depends on how well you speak it.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Mr. Bellemare, here is my first question: it says, on page 2 of the document provided by the Library of Parliament:

In 1993, Mr. Bellemare was quoted in the media as believing that swearing loyalty to Canada would be a way to counter the rise of the Bloc Québécois.

I would like to know your intentions when you introduce a bill to amend the oath of allegiance. Are they honourable, do you want to update the oath of allegiance or are they less honourable in that you are attempting to counter the rise of the Bloc Québécois? I could put the question another way and ask you if you are using the parliamentary process to prevent the expression of democracy in one of Canada's provinces?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: That's a good question, and I'd like to thank you for asking it. First of all, Mr. Chairman, I object to the use of such unflattering comments by the Research Branch of the Library of Parliament without advising the person about whom the comment has been made, particularly if this person is...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: I only want to know if that is what you said.

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I object because that was not my intention. It was reported by the media. We don't know where it came from, since the source is not quoted. Was it in the Citizen, the Globe and Mail, or La Presse? The document doesn't say.

In answer to Mr. Sauvageau's question, I will begin by saying that the Bloc Québécois has contributed and continues to help in moving bills forward in Canada. I firmly believe that, and since this question relates specifically to the Bloc Québécois, I would say that every day in committee I see Bloc members actively participating and doing a wonderful job.

My ambition is a purely noble one. It is a matter of national pride first and foremost, but also a matter of accountability to my fellow citizens and particularly to my constituents.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: Fine. Could you tell us what the source is? You say that you disagree because the source was not quoted. In what newspaper did you say that you wanted to counter the Bloc Québécois?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: I have no idea where that was said, because I don't remember ever saying that kind of thing. First of all, I am not from Quebec, but from Ontario. How could I fight against a fellow from the Bloc Québécois? It would have to be during an election, or a one-on-one situation. That is really taking it too far, when you go and look...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: But if we were to find the quote, and let us say that you did state that your aim was to combat the rise of the Bloc Québécois, then would you be prepared to withdraw your bill?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: No. I would say that I was misquoted in the newspaper, just as you or many of my colleagues probably are from time to time. We are all exposed to...

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: You probably never said it. You might have said it, but if you said it, you were misquoted. Is that it?

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Yes.

Mr. Benoît Sauvageau: That's fine, then. I have no other questions.

[English]

The Chair: Just for the record--because we have read the notes, but people reading the transcript of this meeting have not--it does say clearly in the notes that it's from the media. Mr. Bellemare is right. It doesn't say exactly which media, but it does say clearly that these are quotations from the media.

Yvon Godin is next, and then I'm going to wind this up.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I have some comments to make and I would like to hear Mr. Bellemare's opinion. I have a problem with this. I do not yet know how I would vote if this bill were before the House of Commons, but I have a problem with it. I have a feeling that, with this type of thing, we are banking on the sincerity of people. It is like when you go to court and put your hand on the Bible and say that you will tell the whole truth when there are two people standing before the judge and you know that one of the two will not be telling the truth, but they still have to put their hand on the Bible.

In this case, we are going before the people, democratically, we are standing before the people, the majority of whom have said that we can go to Ottawa to represent our country. Now there has to be some criterion to allow us to have the funding that we need from Parliament in order to do our job. That is the part that bothers me. I can come here, to Ottawa, and swear an oath to the Queen when, honestly, I could not really care less. What does that mean? I think that if the bill were to say “on a voluntary basis” the members going ahead with it would be sincere in their approach. I do not like the idea of having to do something even if you do not believe in it. That is what I have a hard time with, that is to say, the lack of sincerity. If you are just going through the motions, then it is like belonging to a boy scout troop where you recite the pledge at the meeting without really understanding why. That is what this looks like to me.

I think this type of thing tends to divide rather than to bring people together. This is divisive and leads people to believe that those who do not go along with it are bad, or do not love their country. That is not true; I love Canada and I am not from Quebec. I love my country, but in forcing me to raise my hand and take an oath, you are more or less saying that you do not trust me. The people from Acadie--Bathurst know who I am, they voted for me, and if I do not want to make a public statement because I think the people already know who I am, they will have an opportunity to turf me out eventually.

I think this type of thing only leads to arguments. To me, this is something rather frivolous, and I have a hard time with that. Honestly, even though I would vote in favour of same-sex marriage, I am still a good Catholic. But I think we are misusing the Bible and God—that is my comment—when we stand before a court and put our hand on the Bible when we know that someone will be lying and the judge will still have to decide. Then people will say that even though he swore an oath on the Bible, he is a liar. That is not the way one should use these tools or these objects.

This is a problem for me. I simply wanted to express my opinion. I still do not know how I will vote, but I wanted you to know how I feel about the subject, as a member. These are things, Mr. Chairman—and I would like to know how Mr. Bellemare feels about this—that are imposed upon people who may or may not believe in them. They will be doing it because they have been elected to represent their constituents, but they may not take it seriously. I do not think it is right to force people to do this type of thing.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Â (1235)

[English]

The Chair: Merci, Yvon.

Eugène, if you care to respond, please wrap up, because we're going to conclude now.

[Translation]

Mr. Eugène Bellemare: Very well, Mr. Chairman.

With respect to penalties, I was surprised when the law clerk and House of Commons parliamentary advisor added that, but I was told that penalties must be included when an oath is taken. Otherwise, one is not recognized as a member of Parliament, and without that recognition, naturally, the member would not be paid for his work.

As to what Mr. Godin has said, I think it is a matter of keeping one's word and making it official. If Mr. Godin or others did not want to take the oath and stated that what they said during the election campaign is what should count, then they would be creating a second problem: should we abolish the oath of allegiance to the Queen? We can continue to pledge allegiance to the Queen because we already have the oath, but there would be no oath of allegiance to the country. Personally, I would have a hard time speaking to my electors and asking them to take me at my word, that I will be pledging an oath of allegiance to the Queen, but that I will be accountable to them, and that they will just have to trust me on this.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: We thank you very much again, Eugène. We know you have been very persistent with this bill.

Colleagues, we were glad to see Senator Raymond Lavigne here with us. We appreciate that.

We will consider how we will proceed with this at another meeting after the break.

Je vous remercie beaucoup.

[Proceedings continue in camera]