[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Thursday, November 2, 1995
.1101 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order please.
Mr. Bertrand, you chaired the Subcommittee on the consideration of the objections filed on the proposed electoral boundaries for Quebec. We welcome you today. Please tell us what the subcommittee did, and then the members will ask you some questions.
You have the floor.
Mr. Robert Bertrand (Chairman, Subcommittee on the consideration of the objections filed on the proposed electoral boundaries for Quebec): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. It is my pleasure to table our report this morning on the electoral boundaries for the province of Quebec.
The subcommittee met several members who objected to the various boundaries. I believe the second paragraph of our report is very important. If I may, I will read it:
- The Subcommittee is of the view that the Commission's report should be more
comprehensive. The reasons for adjusting the boundaries of the various electoral districts
should be clearly stated, and the report should contain a map of the present boundaries. This
information would be very useful to members wishing to file objections, as well as to future
parliamentary committees responsible for studying these objections.
The two parties represented, the Bloc Québécois and the Liberal Party, had difficulty understanding that the number of MPs in that area would be reduced from four to three, especially because the territory is so vast and because we do think the number of MPs would leave too much work and too much territory to cover for just three MPs. As for the other 20 objections, they are very clearly explained in the report.
That summarizes our report. We are now ready to entertain your questions.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Do you have any questions to ask the subcommittee? I see that all of the members of this subcommittee are present.
Mr. Bertrand: Mr. Crête is missing.
.1105
[English]
The Chairman: Are there any comments from members?
Mr. Boudria.
[Translation]
M. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Today we've received the last report. I think this would be a good time to thank and congratulate all of the members who sat on these four subcommittees.
The task of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs seemed almost insurmountable at times, but thanks to the help of the associate members of our committee, who helped me learn what I needed to know, and thanks to the leadership of the regional whips who helped us, and to the help provided by all of the other parliamentarians who sat on these sub-committees, we managed to accumulate the comments of members of Parliament and to hear their grievances as well as those of their electors, in order to prepare reports for the Commission. The hoped-for changes may not all be put into effect, but at least we know everyone's opinion and we will make as many as those changes as possible.
Without the co-operation of the members of those sub-committees, we would have been forced to sit 24 hours a day to get our work done. So, I must commend all of those people as well as the men and women who work for the Library of Parliament, the researchers, and those who managed to prepare the reports that were submitted to us quite quickly!
In a nutshell, that is what I wanted to say to you this morning, in light of the fact that this is our last report. I think that we are all quite indebted to these people.
The Chairman: Ms Parrish, please.
[English]
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): I'm keeping with the same comments I make on all these. Again, thank you. It was a difficult task, and it was laid out very clearly.
In your general comments there is a paragraph about the commission's report having more maps and a better descriptor. You're obviously familiar with the bill that's stuck in the Senate right now. It talks about providing members of the public with three maps and three alternatives of equal distribution so they can make an intelligent choice at the public meetings. I far prefer the public to make these choices than the politicians. You're consistent there, and again I hope when the report is written this is pointed out as being a consistent concern.
I have also been consistently concerned - and I understand and respect how difficult it is to cover a large riding, but I always believe fax machines and phones can do some of your work for you. When I have 250,000 people speaking 40 languages lined up into the parking lot, I don't know what mechanical device can help me with that.
I would not be disappointed - and it should not go on record but it will - if everybody in the country had 250,000 people. We'd only have 110 MPs, and that would suit me just fine.
I really get concerned when we constantly talk about losing the rural seats, because the urban seats follow the democratic principle of representation by population, and that's where the population is. I have to keep doing this with every report because I'm here to defend large ridings.
Thank you very much. I particularly like the paragraph that talks about giving alternate maps because that was in our bill. It would have made it a far more democratic process, and I agree with you.
[Translation]
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois, you were a member of this sub-committee.
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): It was a pleasure for me to be involved with this sub-committee, where we worked in a consensual rather than in a partisan fashion.
I believe, the particular circumstances of the Lower St. Lawrence and Gaspé peninsula should lead us to consider invoking the extraordinary circumstances clause, which means additional weight would be given to urban regions with a higher population density. However, I think the members of all parties have shown that it was necessary to invoke that clause.
Bill C-69 will one day be implemented. Will it be in time for the 1996 census? Probably. Having taken part in the sub-committee's sessions, I wonder whether it was really wise to eliminate the part of the process that allowed members, as a last resort, to come and present the real characteristics of their electors and of their riding before a House sub-committee or committee in order to submit a final point of view which the Commission could take into account, or reject.
.1110
I know that with Bill C-69 the dynamics will be different but I hope that we'll be able to recover what was lost by publishing several drafts and by holding a second series of hearings if need be.
I thank my sub-committee colleagues for having made our work easy, pleasant and interesting.
The Chairman: Mr. McWhinney.
Mr. McWhinney (Vancouver Quadra): I want to congratulate the members of this sub-committee on their very effective co-operation. I was very impressed by the fact that members from all the parties representing Quebec had almost the same objections.
It is clear that the administration of those commissions created by the former Conservative government was so poor that it did not really serve the constitutional principles guaranteeing equal, effective and fair representation.
This seems to confirm the preliminary observations I had made when we began our work, after examining the recommendations of those various commissions; I said that Parliament erred, it seemed to me, in not passing a law that could have settled all of these matters in a way which was more in keeping with the constitutional principles established by the 1982 Constitutional Act.
At some appropriate time, I would like to raise the issue of the Senate again, because I'm not satisfied by the letter you distributed, the letter from that eminent constitutional expert Senator Gérald Beaudoin, who has been my dear friend for about 20 years. The principles he raised concerning the defence of our privileges as members elected to the House by the population are completely unacceptable. It is unacceptable that senators who are not mandated by the electorate, who hold no popular mandate whatsoever, can raise matters such as the ones mentioned by the great Professor Beaudoin.
I have nothing against Professor Beaudoin. I'm even under the impression that he is in complete agreement with me, but that is only my impression. However, we cannot accept the comments made by two of the senators he named. Those gentlemen made some pronouncements to journalists that were blunders, and could, in my opinion, undermine our privileges as members of the House. So I think we're going to have to take another look at the matter at some appropriate time.
However, for the time being, I want to congratulate the members of this committee. We have done good work, and we understand that we got nothing in exchange for that. Members have sacrificed some of their time and done good work. Thank you very much.
[English]
Mr. Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands): I would just like to go on record as echoing the congratulations to the subcommittees.
I think one common trend that has been brought forward from all the subcommittees we've heard from is that the commission perhaps didn't recognize the community of interest in the constituencies they examined. Perhaps it would be appropriate on the part of our committee to draw this to their attention and suggest they try to find some method of accommodating that requirement. It seems to be the overriding major complaint that was made in the objections to the boundaries.
With that, I would just like to repeat that I think all the subcommittees did a super job.
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe (Laurier - Sainte-Marie): I share the opinions that have just been expressed about Senator Beaudoin's comments, but the fact remains that if we want to think this thing through logically to its conclusion, we have to ask whether having the Senate is worthwhile. We wouldn't hear such comments if those people weren't paid to be there to distract us by making them. Is that clear?
.1115
The Chairman: Yes, it is very clear. A few other members asked the same question. What can we do about it?
Mr. Assad (Gatineau - La Lièvre): I'd like to answer Mr. Frazer, briefly. When we examined the various ridings, we chose community of interest as a criterion. I can assure you that most of our emphasis was put on what the members said before the sub-committee. Community of interest came first in our considerations.
So, I wanted to assure him that there was no objection when they raised the aspect we considered important, i.e. the community of interest.
Mr. Bertrand: Those interests were taken into account when we drafted our report. The people who were in charge of the redistribution did not consider the 22 objections that members submitted to our sub-committee. We were the ones who, after those members testified, took those factors into consideration - the community of interest, historical patterns, and the others.
[English]
Mr. Frazer: I hope my remarks weren't misunderstood.
The Chairman: I hope so, too. It was not the committee that was being criticized.
[Translation]
I'm referring to the commissions.
[English]
Mr. Bertrand: Exactly.
Mr. Frazer: I was commending the committees.
The Chairman: Exactly.
[Translation]
This is the end of the study devoted to this topic. I also want to thank the members of the sub-committee for their excellent work, as well as the members of the four sub-committees who worked very hard.
We were given some very thick reports so that we can adopt them for our next report to the commissions. We will do that next week.
[English]
For the benefit of all members, a draft report will probably be delivered to your offices on Monday. It will be a summary document of this committee, reflecting the views expressed by members in their comments on each of the subcommittee reports. I urge you to read it before the Tuesday meeting.
There will also be an adaptation of the subcommittee reports to make them read like a report of our committee. Those documents will then be melded together. One document could be tabled in the House, if we wish to table. We're required by law to transmit to the Speaker, who then transmits to the chief electoral officer, and then to each of the ten commissions, so there will be ten separate reports. The words will be the same in each one, with the addition of the provincial material for each province. Actually, there will be only nine reports because P.E.I. isn't getting one. So that's the procedure we'll follow.
Mr. McWhinney: The report should present a synthesis of the various objections made - the common principal objection. Listening to a number of regional reports, I think it stands out a mile what the deficiencies are, and they spread from one province to another. It seems to me it affects both our response to the general issue as well as our response to the Senate, and we should seriously consider that.
The Chairman: The commissions have nothing to do with our dispute with the Senate.
Mr. McWhinney: No. I understand that.
The Chairman: There's not much use getting into that.
Mr. McWhinney: But they provide the raw material for us, the empirical evidence on which we can make a strong criticism of a non-elected body sitting in judgment of an elected body. It's unacceptable constitutionally today.
Mr. Frazer: Could you possibly run me through the hard dates required with regard to Bill C-69? We do have some dates beyond which the process changes, is that correct?
The Chairman: Bill C-69 hasn't been passed. We must have our report complete and to the Speaker by November 30. We have extended our time, by House resolution, to that date, so I anticipate we will meet it. I hope we'll finish this next Tuesday or Thursday. I hope we don't have to meet on Thursday. But if the report is in satisfactory form and we simply make modest changes on Tuesday, I expect we can complete it next week.
Mr. Frazer: I think we can do that, but how does the hold-up on Bill C-69 impact on this?
.1120
The Chairman: Of course, we're waiting to see if Bill C-69 passes.
Mr. Frazer: Exactly.
The Chairman: If it passes, the timeframe for new boundaries pursuant to Bill C-69 is approximately 23 months. If Bill C-69 passes, we will have a two-year hiatus. If Bill C-69 does not pass, these boundaries should come into force a year from January. The sooner we deliver, the sooner they come into force, because another time element starts running as soon as we deliver to the Speaker: approximately 35 days.
Mr. Frazer: So when you say ``these boundaries'', do you mean the ones with the recommended changes or the ones that came from the commission?
The Chairman: The ones that came from the commission, subject to any change they may make as a result of our reports. They have 30 days to study our report and publish their final map. From the date of that publication, after an elapsing of 5 days or something, there's a proclamation issued that comes into force 12 months after it is issued. If we finish this next week, the 35 days would run and somewhere between Christmas and New Year's we would have proclamation, which means that by the end of December 1996 we would have new boundaries under the existing law.
If Bill C-69 is passed in the meantime, it repeals that and we start over again.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: You replied in English to the questions I asked in French.
Mr. Duceppe: Try and see if it's the same thing!
The Chairman: The french reply will surely be predictable.
Mr. Langlois: No, but you are a bit more precise. The Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs decided to extend its hearings on Bill C-68, on firearms, and then on Bill C-69, to the third week of November. The same committee is studying both of them, if I'm not mistaken. So, it will not be examined before the end of this month.
The Chairman: Yes, but the government leader in the Senate has moved a motion to have this bill referred to the Senate committee in the near future. That motion will be debated this afternoon. I don't know the exact date being proposed, but it is close. If the bill is examined by the Senate committee, a vote will be held on it in the Senate, and the bill may be returned to the House of Commons with amendments.
The question which is now before the Senate is our motion to reject its amendments on two aspects, and to accept one.
Mr. Langlois: Let me see if I understand this correctly. If Bill C-69 receives Royal Assent before the process which has been undertaken is proclaimed, it is probable that in the next federal election, if it is held in four or four and a half years after the government began exercising its electoral mandate, the 1981 distribution will be used?
The Chairman: Yes, if the new boundaries are not accepted before that, pursuant to Bill C-69.
Mr. Langlois: The Senate cost us a 20-year delay. I think it's time those people were elected or, preferably, that the Senate was abolished.
The Chairman: I have nothing to say on that matter for the time being.
Ms Catterall.
[English]
Ms Catterall (Ottawa West): I too wanted to ask for a bit of precision on how our report is being drafted throughout the reports. The committees have generally reported the recommendations of the members of Parliament in a region, and in most cases they are in agreement; there's no conflict between one member of Parliament and another, even across parties. In our report, will we be specifically pulling out the recommendations and endorsing those recommendations or simply letting the commission sift through the reports to find them?
.1125
The Chairman: Each commission only gets the report in respect of that province, which they have to sift through. Subject to what the members see on Monday, the commissions will get a report from us that will describe the interventions of the members of this committee in the course of our deliberations on each of the four. Attached to it will be the words from the report of the subcommittee, reworded to make it sound as though they're the views of this committee and altered where the views of the committee have differed from the subcommittee. There aren't many of those, but there's the odd place where there will be some filling in. Attached to that will be the transcripts of the subcommittee's proceedings and any documents filed with the subcommittee by the members when the presentations were made.
That whole bundle of evidence is forwarded to the commissions as a bundle, and they're expected to go through it and make any changes they decide are proper or fit after that.
Ms Catterall: Will we be making any specific recommendations? Do you contemplate that?
The Chairman: That's up to us. We're free to make changes in the wording where we want to. That's why we were having the discussion, to give members a chance to express a view, and my guess is we will make some changes to the documents when we're reviewing. That's the purpose of the review.
Ms Catterall: Okay.
Mr. McWhinney: I would, if I may, though, stress again, Mr. Chairman, what in the United Nations they call the chapeaux, and you provide that. That's to say, a colleague rightly referred to the principle of the community and the common thread having principle continuity. You have the capacity as the chairman - the role, the power - to make the synthesis. It doesn't involve a judgmental position, but simply drawing together the strands.
In regard to the four district reports, members from the different committees didn't meet with each other, but I was struck by how the common threads were there, and I hope you will do that, even if it's only one or two pages. It absolutely sets the tone and it will be read by everybody; the detailed reports may not be.
Mrs. Parrish: I have to be really careful how I word this, because I am an absolute believer in our bill that was stopped in the Senate and I am absolutely resentful of the fact that there is a body that can do that. But I'm also very concerned that if by some miracle it was released this week, we're going to go through 24 months and $6 million to do this all over again, and I would be willing to predict the changes will be minuscule in the final boundaries.
So I'd like to know at what point do we as a group say let's abandon it, they have us, they stopped it, they did it? Six million dollars of taxpayers' money would be almost ludicrous.
The Chairman: I don't think it's for us to say that at this point. The Senate has its job to do. I don't think it would be appropriate for us as a group to tell the Senate not to pass a bill that we've put forward.
Mrs. Parrish: No, I'm not saying that. Please, don't misconstrue.
If they were to pass it, will it come back here for further debate as to what goes -
The Chairman: Not here.
Mrs. Parrish: Will it go to the House?
The Chairman: It could. If they accept the motion that the House has already passed, it would immediately get royal assent.
Mrs. Parrish: Okay. Thank you.
The Chairman: Does that conclude the business on redistribution? We can move to the second item on today's agenda, which is the national anthem.
I'm pleased to see that Miss Grey, Beaver River, is with us today to discuss this issue, since she had raised it with the committee some time ago. I see that she is siting as a member now, as of this moment.
Perhaps, Miss Grey, it would be appropriate to hear from you first, since you and your party raised this issue in the House.
Miss Grey (Beaver River): Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I raised this on April 20, 1994, exactly a year and a half ago during National Citizenship Week. I was asking that Standing Order 30 be amended by adding the following words:
- ...and shall cause Canada's national anthem to be played or sung in the House every Wednesday
immediately preceding oral questions.
When my leader brought this up on Monday and introduced the very same motion, with the very same words, I was then told later that afternoon that this committee was supposed to strike a subcommittee to come to speak with me about it and then bring a report back to the main committee here. I guess that was never done.
The Chairman: Yes, it was done. We read the minute out at the Tuesday meeting. It was done in June 1994, I believe, where there was an informal subcommittee struck to meet. We didn't think it needed to have hearings on the issue, but it was to meet, and there were three members put on it:Mrs. Ablonczy, Mr. Langlois and Mr. Patry.
Miss Grey: Which is fine, but nobody met with me, or came and asked to meet with me.
The Chairman: We never heard back from them, and maybe it was our fault for not following up with them in May 1994.
Miss Grey: That's fine. I'm just saying that nothing happened.
.1130
The Chairman: Maybe it was our fault for not following up with it in May 1994, but we did strike a subcommittee.
Miss Grey: Well, that's good. That's a start, but it never got finished.
The Chairman: Yes, it was a good start.
Miss Grey: Be that as it may, the situation now is that we still want that to happen. I appreciate the research that's been done here that in fact our legislatures do not see this as a regular occurrence, and several countries were researched. I'm not sure if all were, but there are three or four here that are referred to.
I think the point is let's worry about us and what situation we're in right now. This is not something radical I am proposing; it is something that I think in this day certainly would be good. We are talking about trying to find things that unify us. Surely this would be something that would do that. This isn't something shocking that we are proposing.
Of course, when you think about it, it's important to note that the music for O Canada was written by a francophone, Calixa Lavallée, in 1880. The French words were written by Sir Adolphe-Basile Routhier in 1880 and the English version by R. Stanley Weir in 1908. It was originally in French. So it's unfair for anyone on either side of the House to say this is unCanadian or we don't think this should be sung. Let's step out in faith. Let's do something radical. Let's be trend-setters. Let's sing our national anthem in the House of Parliament, for goodness' sake.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: I simply wanted to add that in the course of an official meeting withMs Ablonczy and Dr. Patry, we decided that we should do things in a less formal way, for instance perhaps by having coffee with our colleague from Beaver River. Perhaps we should be thinking about the brand of coffee, or of decaffeinated coffee, we want to use! I think, however, that the matter is not urgent, if one looks at the example provided by all the Canadian legislatures as well as by many foreign countries.
Anyone who wants to can sing the national anthem mentally, just as people do for prayers when they meditate in silence and pray according to their own beliefs. Why, the new legislature even brought us the Milliken prayer!
It would also seem a bit strange to me to have the Standing Orders of the House of Commons state that singing the national anthem will unite the members, when from time to time, and rather often these days, certain parties, certain members seem to derive some enjoyment from hurling insults at each other. I think we shouldn't use doublespeak in the House. If we are to sing the national anthem, I would first like to see certain members change their behaviour in the House, and then I would be happy to support this initiative. But I don't think I'll live long enough to see that.
For the time being, it seems premature, to say the least, to want to put the icing on the cake when we don't even have a cake yet.
The Chairman: Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: I don't know if I agree with what Mr. Langlois has just said, even thought I am often in agreement with him, especially about procedure. This tendency we sometimes have to be less than kind to each other may be an additional reason to make gestures that would encourage us to be more polite to each other.
It is possible during the debate to be firm without being unpleasant. That is the way things should be, in any case. I sometimes like to tease people a bit, but I don't think anyone holds a grudge against me because of that, because I never intend to hurt anyone. That is why, over the years, I have been able to ask hard questions without making a lot of enemies.
But the question we must debate is not whether we can manage to be nicer to each other, but whether we should sing the national anthem. I would like to know more about exactly how we propose to do this. If I refer to the motion introduced by Mr. Manning the other day, he advocated that we sing the national anthem on Wednesday.
.1135
I would like some more specifics. Should we sing the national anthem during the periods set aside for statements pursuant to Standing Order 31? That might be an appropriate time. Perhaps we could use the time set aside for the last statement pursuant to Standing Order 31, for instance, when most members are in the House.
Another possibility might be to sing it during the time set aside for prayer, but silently, asMr. Langlois was suggesting. We have to ask ourselves whether the national anthem should be dealt with in the same way as the prayer. Currently, only members of the House are present when this takes place. The television cameras are not turned on, and there are no spectators.
We might also chose to sing the anthem as Ms Ringuette-Maltais did spontaneously the other day. She made a statement congratulating the composer and took that opportunity to break into song.
Whatever the method we adopt to sing the anthem, we will have to know how to proceed. Will the Speaker designate one person to begin it, and have the rest of us join in? That would be one way of doing it.
There's also the matter of CPAC. The national anthem is broadcast on CPAC on every day at 7 o'clock. If we are to change our procedure, why not have CPAC broadcast the national anthem while we are saying the prayer? At least it would be heard somewhere. And if CPAC broadcasts the anthem at that moment, shouldn't we play it in the House as well?
Those are questions we must ask ourselves. I agree with those who think we should sing the national anthem. But we have to determine how.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. McWhinney.
Miss Grey: I'd like to refer to my motion, sir, which -
The Chairman: You can come back to your motion in due course, Miss Grey.
Miss Grey: Am I a witness here, so that I can respond to each question?
The Chairman: No, you're a member of the committee.
Mr. McWhinney.
Mr. McWhinney: I've no objection to you intervening at this stage.
The Chairman: I do. I have a long list of people who want to speak, so go ahead and make your comments, Mr. McWhinney. Miss Grey can save up notes and will get a chance to speak later.
Mr. McWhinney: By the way, as a point of correction, it perhaps should be said, as all opera lovers will know, that the music of O Canada is highly derivative. If you go and hear the German Austrian composers' works, you do hear it somewhere in the third act. But that often happens; writers and everybody borrow from each other.
Coming back to the large issue, I think it should be stressed that the reaction in the House to the position of the leader of the party was related to procedural issues. I don't think it was intended to be understood as derogating from the discussion of the substantive point.
I think the member from Beaver River and certainly Mr. Frazer and Mr. Ringma and I share a common tradition in which acts of patriotism or commitment to a country are matters of the heart and the soul rather than of public demonstration. In essence, the tradition I was brought up with was that one didn't need the displays. I think that's true of the United Kingdom Parliament and the United States, strangely enough. People think the Americans are over-nationalist, but in fact they're not, and there is a series of very interesting Supreme Court decisions that rule out ceremonies of this sort.
.1140
I mention this simply as preliminary to discussion of the general point. If we followed the rules of the parliamentary precedents under which we've operated, the common-law tradition, I think we would clearly rule against acting on your suggestion. However, precedents should be viewed in a revolutionary way.
I am struck by the fact of the singularity of our country. We have become a community of communities, peacefully, easily, and I am very well aware that for many people the gestures become very important. It's on that basis that I think I can support the proposal. I'd suggest that it be reconciled with our traditions in the ways Mr. Boudria hinted at. We don't want any of what I would call unusual ostentation or anything else. We should do it as spontaneously as we do in assemblies and town halls, public meetings and the like. I think if it's approached in that spirit I would be supportive.
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker (Lethbridge): Mr. Chairman, I think what we have to do here today is deal with the principle. The principle is should the national anthem be sung or played in the House of Commons or not? Once we agree on the principle, then I think we can work on the detail. I'm quite flexible on the detail as to when and whether it's background, or how it is done. I think that certainly could be accommodated.
Mr. McWhinney made the point with regard to this list here. Certainly it should not be a reason not to do it. There are hundreds and hundreds of things we as politicians have done first in our province or first in Parliament, and this should be treated no differently. If the idea is good, then we should do it, not discount it on precedent and such.
There was some reflection on prayer. Prayer is certainly different from loyalty to the flag or loyalty to the national anthem. Prayer should be different in the House. There should be a different environment because we all have different religious points of view. Those should be accommodated in our nation, and they are; that's our tolerance. For example, to have only a Christian prayer in our Parliament reflects on tolerance as such; that's well understood. So how prayer is dealt with should not be the precedent for either the use of the flag or the national anthem in the assembly.
After a new flag was accepted by Canada, it took a number of years before it was presented in a prominent place in our House of Commons. Parliamentarians at that time rejected it for a number of years in the House of Commons for some reason or other, and then it was accepted. It was recognized as a symbol of our loyalty to the country and then more prominently displayed in the House of Commons. So I think we have to be careful.
The national anthem is a common denominator for all Canadians. When we are born as a Canadian we accept the national anthem as one of those symbols of our loyalty to the country. If we adopt Canada as our country, the very same thing happens when we pledge our allegiance to this nation. So why not have the national anthem sung? I see no reason that we shouldn't do that in our House of Commons. It is common to all of us.
[Translation]
Mr. Laurin (Joliette): Mr. Chairman, I think we have to look for the intention which underlies the principle we are trying to have recognized at this time. It seems to me we should have considered the appropriateness of singing O Canada in the House of Commons long before today. Confederation has been in existence for 125 years. But why is this question being raised today? Why try to put this into practice now? The obvious intention, it seems to me, is to force people who are less proud of being Canadian at this time to sing the national anthem.
Is this any way to improve things? I don't think so.
.1145
If you do things when they have no particular meaning, or at a time when it might be risky to rush things, rather than having a unifying effect, you may provoke people. If you sing the national anthem at insignificant moments, you trivialize it and make it meaningless.
As far as I can see, people don't put much fervour into singing O Canada before a Canadians hockey game or an Expos baseball game. Everyone is chatting with his neighbour while sipping a beer. Some spectators remain seated, while others stand. That is not how I want to sing a national anthem I would identify with. I'd rather sing it in circumstances where I feel like singing it.
I travelled to Holland in May for the commemoration of the 50th anniversary of D-Day. I accompanied veterans to foreign countries, to places where they had actually fought, and where several of their fellow soldiers had died. Whenever we visited a cemetery, we sang O Canada. I sang it with them, not because of what it means to me, at this time, in the context of my personal experience, but because of what it meant to them, and out of respect for those who had died for freedom. I was moved to sing it, and I sang with a great deal of feeling.
But when our national anthem is served up at random moments in the course of an ordinary day, perhaps when you don't feel like singing it because you're not too happy about the way things are going, that's overdoing it. I am a teacher by profession; I taught for a long time. When two students were quarrelling, sometimes the school principal would say: "Now, you two shake hands and make amends." The little boys would shake hands because they were forced to. They did it without conviction, with no feeling behind the gesture.
It's as though today, if we were to sing the national anthem every Wednesday in the House, this would cause us to shake hands with those on the other side of the House and come to an agreement on our personal and patriotic convictions. That's false - it's artificial, Mr. Chairman. It would be putting on a facade of national unity while that unity,in reality, is hotly contested at the moment.
If English Canada and French Canada were to agree tomorrow morning on some kind of unity, on a distribution of powers they would be happy to live with, then every one would be proud to sing the same national anthem, the same O Canada, because then it would be the expression of something we would have achieved together.
It's sort of like when a student is punished at school. If that student were asked at that very moment to sing the praises of his school, I don't think he would feel much like it. This doesn't mean he doesn't believe in his school, simply that he doesn't feel much like saying so on the very day he has been punished.
It's somewhat the same thing when we are dealing with a country. When there are a number of major irritants to contend with, it is unnatural to force citizens to express sentiments that they do not truly feel.
It's a little like the saying: You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink. I find it unnatural. In my opinion, people should be able to sing the national anthem at any time, under any circumstance, provided it reflects some genuine feelings. However, to sing the national anthem any old time - and the same would go for Quebec's national anthem - would be to make a mockery of an important symbol, to show disrespect and to strip the occasion of its significance.
In my view, the singing of the national anthem is a laudable act, but to force a group of members to sing it or to listen to it being played... Moreover, I'm not sure that it would be music to our ears because I doubt all members have the voice to sing it in a dignified, respectful and appropriate manner. Perhaps it would be better to play an instrumental version of the anthem. I don't think that we should be playing it for no good reason at time when living together is somewhat difficult.
.1150
Singing the national anthem is not going to bring us together. We have to start talking and if we ever manage to agree on a way to live in harmony, that will be an opportunity to celebrate, by some symbolic means, the victory of all Canadians and Quebeckers. However, for the time being,Mr. Chairman, I don't think that we should impose on anyone a symbol at a critical moment in our history.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Laurin. Mr. Duceppe.
Mr. Duceppe: I think that this suggestion illustrates quite clearly the gulf between Quebec and Canada. Back when Quebeckers identified proudly with the national anthem O Canada, Canadians would object and sing God Save the Queen. I recall those days. However, it's not because we were once proud to sing it that the same holds true today. Quebec has gone beyond that point.
I think it's a shame that a mere 48 hours after a referendum that has divided Quebec, when Quebec has yet to sign the 1982 Constitution to which even Quebec federalists were opposed, the outpouring of affection from the rest of Canada has abated and the Premier of New Brunswick is suggesting Quebec's businesses move to his province. In the meantime, we are wasting a day here in the Canadian Parliament discussing whether to designate a Canadian horse and whether it would be a good idea to sing the national anthem on Wednesdays. We would be better off, Mr. Chairman, singing Take me out to the Ball Game after the seventh question, while we're at it...
The Chairman: Mr. Duceppe,...
Mr. Duceppe: I won't be making any suggestions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: ...I must say that God Save the Queen is virtually never sung in the rest of Canada, except in Kingston and that's because it's the site of Queen's University. Moreover, I have heard visitors to Kingston say that the only reason they were there was to sing God Save the Queen because it was the only place in Canada where that was still possible.
The Province of Quebec led the way in demonstrating to the rest of Canada that the country needed a national anthem and it was because of Quebeckers' desire to sign O Canada that we adopted it as our national anthem here in Parliament some twenty years ago. I forget the exact date. But the anthem is now widely recognized.
Ms Catterall.
[English]
Ms Catterall: I have a couple of points specifically about the motion. If we are going to move on this, and I personally think we should, I hope the purpose is to have the anthem sung and any playing is only to assist the singing, because I really don't want muzak in Parliament.
Miss Grey mentioned we should settle this quickly because of today's situation. I think it's really important to remember that today's situation is not what should guide an institution that lasts for the lifetime of a country. In fact, we should be very cautious about making changes that future parliaments will have to live with because of a specific situation at a specific time.
I would propose that if we go ahead with this, we allow it to be something we simply start doing. We don't do something like make a change to the Standing Orders for future parliaments that are not dealing with today's situation. In a sense, I guess I'm suggesting we allow it to become a new tradition rather than a formal requirement of Parliament.
[Translation]
I would like to respond to Mr. Laurin's comments. I listened closely to what he had to say because I think I can understand why he feels as he does today.
.1155
It's a shame that we did not deal with this matter 18 months ago. I don't want to blame anyone. A working group was formed and the member moved a motion, but we have all sworn the same oath of office. For the moment, we are all members of Parliament of a country called Canada and this is our national anthem. We all have equal status. However, I can understand the sentiments he expressed.
[English]
Wednesday is always a difficult day in the House; ask the Speaker. I don't know if it's because we all get fired up in our caucuses or what, but yesterday to me was a pretty shameful day in the House of Commons on all sides.
We were being insulting to each other and disrespectful of each other. I personally think we need something that might remind us we are all here to serve a purpose, different as those purposes may be, beyond expressing our own momentary anger, our own momentary sense of what might be funny - and a lot of them weren't. We are all here to serve a public interest that goes beyond what we might feel like saying at a particular moment in time.
Maybe Wednesday is exactly the day we should take that one minute or so to remind ourselves we have 29 million people out there to whom we have a responsibility. We are responsible for an institution they would like to look to with respect and as representing something on their behalf, and I don't think we did that very well yesterday.
If the singing of the national anthem every Wednesday, before we start into the most raucous period of the day, can help remind us to stifle our own impulses and remember the public interest, I'm all for it.
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): I think the move to have the national anthem sung in the Parliament of Canada is a very positive one. I have absolutely no question that we are the Parliament of Canada; we represent the Canadian people. What better place is there in this country to represent the symbols of this country? I think it is in the interest of all who have taken an oath to Canada, who represent this country and represent the constituents. No matter what the view, we all represent Canadians.
There is absolutely no reason to equate representing our country with our national song, our national flag and our national symbols to a baseball game. I find that trivializes what we are trying to accomplish here.
I know pride and symbols are there, and every one of us has tremendous pride in our Canadian flag, our provincial flags, and the symbols of the organizations we belong to. In Canada, in its Parliament, we must show that pride in the symbols of Canada, and I have no question that is important to this country. It is important to every one of us.
Without question, when I look at it I see judgments being made about whether or not this symbol should exist. I am surprised that viewpoint would be taken here. I saw people rally around symbols in the referendum. I saw the no side very clearly rally around the Canadian flag and the Quebec flag. I didn't see the presence of Canada in the other side, and I believe the presence of Canada in every section of this country is important. I believe the presence of Canada in Parliament is important.
.1200
Very clearly, I think the people who view this as a significant part of our Canadian society are right. It's not a divisive thing; it's a national emblem we have. I think if all of us, no matter who, are part of this country, we should be proud of our symbols. I think that is critical in this country today.
Mr. Ringma (Nanaimo - Cowichan): I'd just like to address one small point brought up by Ms Catterall, who said we should be very cautious about putting this in the Standing Orders lest we commit future parliaments. Surely it's the right of future parliaments to decide what they want to do, or to change the Standing Orders if they have any reason to do so. Would you agree with that,Mr. Chairman? You're a procedural expert.
The Chairman: The matter can be accomplished by rule change. It can be accomplished by agreement among the parties that somebody will stand up and start singing O Canada at a particular time in the House. There are various ways it can be done. It's up to committee members to decide how they wish to proceed, but we're not bound and tied to do it by rule change or any other means.
The one thing I will add, in response to what the chief government whip said, is that the House does have the power on its own to put O Canada where the prayer is played because the feed given to CPAC by the House starts with that music. It is produced by the House of Commons, not by CPAC, and broadcast by CPAC. So if the House wishes to make that change, or if the committee wishes to request that the House make that change, I think we could instruct House officials who prepare that program - we might want to get them here to see how it could be done - to play the national anthem and show a flag waving or something. That could all be done by us in-house without approaching the CPAC producers themselves.
Mr. Frazer: I watch CPAC before the House commences sometimes and quite often the national anthem video is played about half an hour before the House opens. I find that very impressive. I enjoy the presentation. However, I do think there is a benefit to be obtained by having the national anthem either played or sung - I prefer it sung - with real, live people around, where people can see that people are participating.
With regard to precedent, I thank the Library of Parliament for the research it has given us, but it strikes me we are in a position here to lead by example. Because there isn't precedent for it, particularly in the provinces, it may be the case that if the Parliament of Canada does it, the provinces may very well elect to institute it also.
With regard to Mr. Laurin's comments, I hope, as is the prayer and the silent reflection, this would not be obligatory. If people wish to refrain from singing, that is their prerogative. If some people don't like their voices or don't like the anthem, then I suggest they have the option of just not participating in the singing.
With regard to it being brought up today, as Ms Catterall said, it was brought up 18 months ago and therefore this is something that might have been badly dealt with at that time. Again, I'm not slinging blame; I just think it's time for us to deal with it.
I would like to go on record as saying I strongly favour the institution of this procedure.
The Chairman: Second round, Mr. Duceppe.
.1205
[Translation]
Mr. Duceppe: I would like to come back to the status of members of this House. All members who were elected have the same status. It is fairly clear that members of the Bloc Québécois were elected on a sovereignty platform and that their mandate is very legitimate. We have never hidden our option and we will continue to defend it. This sets us apart a little from those who share another option, but we were elected just as legitimately as the other members.
I gather that this motion is an attempt to show that members of the Bloc Québécois are not proponents of federalism. If that's the case, then it's quite a revelation.
One of my colleagues was saying earlier that he had seen Canadian flags in the No camp, but none in the Yes camp. I guess he has started a course in Quebec Politics 101, because it's rather obvious that there are no Canadian flags flying in the Yes camp. That's been the case for several years and I find it completely natural given our different option. This is not an affront to Canada, simply an indication that we feel differently.
In closing, if this motion passes, you will have to view it as a choice you are asking members to make, not as an obligation that you are imposing on all of them. Every member will be free to participate in this show of Canadian patriotism and nationalism and those who do not share these sentiments will abstain from any outward show of emotion during the singing or playing of the anthem.
Mr. Boudria: If I understand correctly, there are two things basically that we can do. Of course, we could do nothing, but there are two possible courses of action if we wish to proceed. The first option, perhaps the easiest one on which we could all agree, would be to ask CPAC officials to play an instrumental version of the national anthem, not at 7 a.m. as they normally do, but at the start of the sitting of the House. I don't know if everyone would agree with this. At least, it would be less controversial. Those of us who favour this option would not have to ask us to follow through. I hope they will hear us.
Secondly, I recognize that the singing of the anthem in the House is a more controversial option for the reasons mentioned earlier today. I do not share the sentiments expressed, but I did hear what was said.
Ms Catterall has said that we could try this temporarily, without having to change any rules. Currently, there is nothing to stop a member, during statements under Standing Order 31, from singing the national anthem. I'm confident that the House would react spontaneously, as it did last Monday, although I'm certain not all members would rise. I recognize the position of the members opposite, although I do not share their sentiments.
That's an option. I wager that if I were making a statement under Standing Order 31 on Wednesday and decided to sing the national anthem, most members would rise and join with me. Moreover, the events of last Monday bear me out. It worked, and no rule change was required.
A second option would be to proceed in a somewhat more official manner. Some of us could meet with the Speaker and ask him whether once a week, he would be willing recognize a member for the singing of the national anthem.
Finally, we could go even further and amend the Standing Orders to provide, for example, for the singing of the national anthem in the House of Commons every Wednesday at exactly 2:14 p.m.
.1210
I, for one, support the singing of the national anthem. The question is whether we should try it out on a temporary basis, after consulting with the Speaker, or whether we should amend the Standing Orders. I am open to both options.
For example, if Mr. Speaker wanted to propose in principle that we sing the national anthem and that we then get together to find a way to do it, I would agree with this. I see that it is getting late and I would not want to conclude today's meeting without having made a decision of some kind. At least, I share his opinion.
Mr. Laurin: Mr. Chairman, if this is going to be an opportunity to proclaim one's political convictions, I agree completely that this should be done in the House.
Every week, every Wednesday, Quebec taxpayers would have a chance to see that we disagree, that there problems in Canada today and that we are not willing to take part in this demonstration.
At least once every week, we would have a formal opportunity to let Quebeckers know that they are being well represented by the members they sent to Ottawa and that these members are not joining in the singing of the national anthem. These are not happy times for us. These are divisive times and we do not feel like singing. This would be an opportunity for us to say so. I don't think that's quite the effect you were seeking, but if that's the case, we have no objections. We don't have to vote either for or against this motion. When you take your stand, we will also make our views clearly known.
However, if you want to use this occasion to demonstrate your pride, I suggest that you find some other time to do it. Many people are proud of Canada, but I don't think many people would feel like singing O Canada the day after losing a tax case against the Crown in court. They might want to wait several days before singing. They would not be very happy about how they had been treated.
I don't know many Quebeckers would have happily sung O Canada the day after the 1914 conscription or the 1945 plebiscite, when they were forced to go defend the Queen of England even though they felt no allegiance to the Crown. For other reasons, some later became proud to sing it, but if Quebeckers had been forced to sing O Canada at that time, I don't think many of them would have complied.
If you absolutely want to create an opportunity for persons to express their political convictions, I think this would be an excellent one. We could find other ways. If that's the case, then go ahead and pass this resolution and every Wednesday, in the House, we will have a formal opportunity to state our position. Every Wednesday at 2:15 p.m., members will have a chance to proclaim their convictions. You will see people from English Canada speaking one way and people from francophone Quebec, speaking another way. It will be official.
If that's the objective, then you have a choice to make. In any case, we have no choice. We will have to live with the decision and we will be proud to state our beliefs.
Mr. Chairman, you can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink!
[English]
Mr. Duceppe: Even in Kingston.
The Chairman: Even in Kingston.
[Translation]
Mr. Ringma: I would like to respond to two points raised by Mr. Duceppe. First of all, we have no intention whatsoever of forcing anyone to do anything.
Secondly, it is completely wrong to say that we are putting forward this motion to show that the Bloc Québécois is against Canada. That's totally false.
[English]
In fact, maybe you can better understand how some of us feel about our national anthem. When we were young, whatever part of the country we were in, it was regular that you would sing not only O Canada but the Queen as well. That has gone by the board. We rarely do the Queen any more. But I think coming through this is a resurgent interest just to sing O Canada, at the very least.
We make comparisons with the Americans across the border. When they are always doing their own anthem, we find that it's pretty poor on our part to be doing so little.
.1215
So I just want to affirm that the motivation here is purely for the entity of the country as a whole and certainly is not at all directed at the Bloc.
Mr. McWhinney: I'd actually, in your absence, just said something in the reverse. When I was young there was, I think, less emphasis on symbols, but I notice that it's much more pronounced today.
I wouldn't see any great problem there. For example, the provinces now have flags. They didn't have flags fifty years ago. I think Quebec was the first to adopt a flag, and that was underMr. Duplessis in 1938. The other provinces have followed and it's a national institution.
The European Community celebrate Beethoven's Hymn of Joy as their opening.
I would suggest that it be accepted in that spirit. I also welcome the statement, which is conformable to parliamentary constitutional law, that this would not be a ceremony that would be considered as being obligatory for anyone.
In fact, when I referred to American Supreme Court decisions, the United States Supreme Court has made it very clear that even for issues like flag-salute patriotic ceremonies, if people have religious or other objections, they cannot constitutionally be compelled to take part.
So I take it that this is offered. My neighbour Marlene Catterall stressed the point that maybe it would have been best to have debated this 18 months ago to air it. It was an oversight that it wasn't debated, but, in this particular spirit, it is being offered because Canadians today and national institutions feel that they would like this to be done.
I think it emerged spontaneously on Monday afternoon when, to my surprise, I heard somebody singing in what sounded like a professional voice. I wondered what was happening. One of our deputies from New Brunswick got up and the whole House rose.
It was very much like what I observed in the European Community after the reunification of Germany.
So if it is understood in this sense, the House, as Ms Catterall suggested, is not trying to create a rigid custom. The time, the place, the circumstances, and the modalities can be adjusted from our experience.
There are comments that seem trite, but they're relevant and need consideration. Should we have canned music or not? My reaction is that under no circumstances should we have canned music.
Let's apply it in this spirit, and I understood that this was in fact the spirit in which the member for Beaver River raised it. So there is no sense of implying a rule for people. This is something they do spontaneously, and we try to avoid rigidifying it or codifying it. Let it emerge as a custom, and on this basis, interpreting precedents in an expansive way, developing as the country's feelings change, and remarking the fact that if new communities of Canadians, the new communities that are part of our unique experiment in a successful community of communities, want it, then it's right and proper at this time.
The Chairman: Is the committee ready to make a decision? Is it the desire of the committee to make a decision on this matter at this point? What is the proposal before us? Are we deciding the initial question? Do we wish to sing the national anthem in the House of Commons on some basis? Is that the proposal?
Ms Catterall: I think there was a suggestion...Mr. Hanger's proposal to approve it in principle and work further on the specifics.
The Chairman: Mr. Speaker's.
Ms Catterall: I'm sorry, Mr. Speaker's.
The Chairman: Yes. That's what I'm asking. So the principle is that we shall sing it in the House, and then we're going to work on specifics. Is that correct?
Is it fair to put that question to the committee?
Mr. Frazer: Are you procrastinating, Mr. Chairman?
The Chairman: I'm not procrastinating. I'm just -
Mr. Frazer: No, but can we not come to a decision here?
The Chairman: We may well do so, but I'm asking. I have no motion.
Mr. McWhinney: Why don't we follow Mr. Speaker's suggestion.
Mr. Ringma: Perhaps we can do it in two steps, then: first agree on the principle and then see if we can get agreement to -
The Chairman: I was trying to see if that's what the committee wants. That's why I'm asking the question.
.1220
Do members wish to sing the national anthem in the House of Commons? Is that the question?
Mr. Speaker: Yes; once a week.
The Chairman: Once a week in the House of Commons.
All in favour of that proposal? Opposed?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
Some hon. members: No.
The Chairman: Two opposed and everyone else is in favour.
How do members want to work out the details? The plan is to sing it once a week. Do you want to have a subcommittee come up with this?
Mr. McWhinney: You could have a subcommittee with instructions to proceed with all deliberate speed, which means not take 18 months and not take 18 days. Maybe we could decide now, but there are -
Mr. Speaker: There seem to be two options available. One is the Wednesday at, say, 2:14 p.m. The other option would be to have it done at Prayers at the opening of the day. Those are the two options, as I see it, on Wednesday.
There is another option, too. I notice in this book that there are many places where, rather than changing the Standing Orders, notes are made that have the effect of change.
Mr. Ringma: I wonder if we could try it here to see if we have consensus to say at 2:15 p.m. on Wednesdays.
Mr. McWhinney: I suggest taking note of the comments made on the time dimension. I think it would be very helpful if perhaps we could make an allotted time, have a subcommittee, and perhaps in a week firm up the details. I think that would meet the substance of the statement you made in terms of seeming to impose something on people. I think we can get this established very firmly with a little flexibility.
The Chairman: Can I make this suggestion? I sense general agreement that 2:15 p.m. on Wednesdays will be fine. I think we need to sort out whether we do it by rule change or by informal agreement. I think some people could get together and discuss that.
Our time is almost gone today. Could I suggest that Mr. Speaker and perhaps Mr. Boudria consult, or Mr. Ringma. Why don't the whips consult? I don't think Mr. Duceppe is going to be interested. I don't want to speak for him, but I suspect that.... I think the three of you should consult.
Mr. Boudria: Whether he is or isn't, Mr. Chairman, I think he should be given the opportunity. If he doesn't want to show up, that's his prerogative, but I don't think we should create a structure that would exclude him.
The Chairman: We have a subcommittee of the three whips that operates anyway. It's our striking subcommittee. Might I suggest that the three of them confer and come back to the committee on Tuesday with a recommendation. If there is no rule change required we don't have to make a formal report to the House, although it might be useful to put one in saying that we're recommending this.
Alternatively, the whips might arrange to have it happen on their own. I don't know how that would work, but why don't we just leave it in the hands of the whips?
Mr. Assad, you're not a member of the committee, but -
Mr. Assad: No, but I can't see how you can do that without presenting it to the House. I don't think it should be the prerogative of three whips to decide something like that.
Ms Catterall: In any case, Mr. Chair, I believe we have a motion that was referred to us by the House and I think it would -
The Chairman: No, we do not.
I suggested that the committee would take it on, but the House did not refer anything to us.
Ms Catterall: I misunderstood.
The Chairman: It was my volunteer initiative. I said we would undertake to look at it again, because we have looked at it before and that's why we're doing this today, and the committee agreed to do it as well.
Mr. Boudria: Between now and next Tuesday I'll arrange to meet with the other two whips, if they want to participate. I think I can see there's agreement on the part of one. The offer will be made, and maybe tentatively we could establish an objective for ourselves. Next week we could cause any and all changes to be made and then the week we come back, after the week of recess, we could start. Does that sound reasonable as a tentative agenda?
The Chairman: Next Tuesday we may be preoccupied with redistribution matters, but if we have time we'll deal with it, because it is a priority item for us at this stage.
I declare the meeting adjourned.