CANADA House of Commons Debates VOLUME 138 Ï NUMBER 036 Ï 2nd SESSION Ï 37th PARLIAMENT OFFICIAL REPORT (HANSARD) Monday, December 2, 2002 Speaker: The Honourable Peter Milliken CONTENTS (Table of Contents appears at back of this issue.) All parliamentary publications are available on the ``Parliamentary Internet Parlementaire´´ at the following address: http://www.parl.gc.ca 2081 HOUSE OF COMMONS Monday, December 2, 2002 The House met at 11 a.m. In the middle of the 18th century, as we know, Britain went to war with New France. France at that time controlled all of what we know Prayers as Quebec and much of what we know as Nova Scotia. When Britain went to war, it was the umpteenth war. Britain had been at war with France in a struggle for the continent for many years. A terrible tragedy occurred with the Acadians at that particular time. Because PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS the power was in Quebec and the British conquered Acadia—Nova Scotia—taking some of the forts there and establishing a presence, Ï (1100) the British government authorities required the Acadians, who were [English] all French speaking, just as they were in Quebec, as Quebec had CITIZENSHIP ACT been a colony of France, to take an oath of allegiance to the king. Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Al- That oath of allegiance was essentially the same oath that I just dershot, Lib.) moved that Bill C-203, an act to amend the recited. When the Acadians were reluctant to take that oath, one of Citizenship Act (Oath or Affirmation of Citizenship), be read the the great tragedies of Canadian history occurred, and that was what second time and referred to a committee. is known as the Acadian expulsion, which actually occurred on a Sunday. The British fleet happened to be in port and it seized all the He said: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise to speak to this private Acadian males at their churches attending mass, put them on board member's bill that would, at long last I would hope, change the ship and dispersed them down the entire coastline of the United Canadian oath of citizenship to better reflect who Canadians are. It States, as well as to Louisiana. It took many years for a few of them would change the wording of the oath to reflect the principles of the to return. It was a terrible tragedy and, of course, it changed the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would suggest that, more than complexion of Nova Scotia. I am proud to say that we still have an anything else, what defines Canadians is: our respect for the rule of Acadian presence but had the British not done that, Nova Scotia law, freedom of expression, equality of opportunity, democracy and today would probably be a French speaking province, very much basic human rights. like Quebec and much of New Brunswick. I would like to begin, however, by reviewing, if I may, the current It was that oath of allegiance that I recited earlier that was used for oath of allegiance. When new Canadians come to this country the dispersal of the Acadians because the Acadians could not bear to seeking citizenship they are required to say the following words. swear allegiance to the king. They are: I swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Ï (1105) Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, according to law and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfill my duties as a What one must understand is that the British crown in those days Canadian citizen. did not have an oath of allegiance in England. In fact it did not have Everyone will be interested to know that the New Zealand oath of an oath of allegiance, of citizenship or of naturalization until the citizenship states as follows: 1980s. In England the people were all British subjects but for the I... swear that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen colonies they had to devise this oath of allegiance to the king. People Elizabeth the Second, Queen of New Zealand, Her heirs and successors according to had to pledge fealty to the king as a way of guaranteeing that the the law, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of New Zealand and fulfil my people who were not British subjects, who were perhaps French duties as a New Zealand citizen. So help me God. speaking or perhaps living in the colonies in the Caribbean or in Members will note that there is a direct similarity between the two Australia, for example, who were all convicts, would bow to the oaths. Indeed, they are almost exactly the same. I should say that power of the crown. It ordered them to take an oath of allegiance, only New Zealand and Canada have this oath which basically is which is the oath we have today. derived from the British colonial period of the 18th century. The British at that time had many colonies across the world. Britain was When new Canadians come to this country and swear that oath an empire very much like the United States in the sense that it was a many people have difficulty with it because some of them come mercantile empire that was acquiring colonies around the world in from Commonwealth countries where, in their own colonial history, order to develop a vast commercial enterprise, a vast world pledging allegiance to the Crown meant slavery. Therefore it is commerce. perhaps an oath that needs to be changed. 2082 COMMONS DEBATES December 2, 2002 Private Members' Business In the citizenship bill that is now before the House, Bill C-18, the Now the reason that we have to have a version that makes government has revised the oath. The government did this without reference to God is because it is in the charter, it is in O Canada, but any consultation with Parliament. It was done following hearings by also because there are those who have strong religious beliefs and do the citizenship and immigration committee in 1994-95, which not feel that they can make a real pledge unless there is a reference to universally said that Canada needed an oath that reflected Canadian God. values. What we have now before the House is this oath which states: On the other hand, we have many people coming from other lands From this day forward, I pledge my loyalty and allegiance to Canada and Her who have come from places where there has been oppression in the Majesty Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada. I promise to respect our country's rights and freedoms, to uphold our democratic values, to faithfully observe our laws name of religion and they want a version in which they do not have and fulfil my duties and obligations as a Canadian citizen. to make reference to God. Therefore, I offer in Bill C-203 the two choices. I suggest that this new oath is not much of an improvement over the oath that is currently being used by people taking out Canadian citizenship. There are a number of things about this. Most of it is Finally, Mr. Speaker, you will note that in the version that I taken from the Australian oath of citizenship, which revised its oath present to you, there is no reference to the Queen. I would suggest in 1993, and it is an echo of the oath I just read. that is hardly novel. In 1993 Australia revised its oath of citizenship which was very much like our current oath and the oath of New The oath has some very obvious flaws in it. There is the Zealand. Australia changed it. The Australian oath of citizenship is redundancy of, “I pledge my loyalty and allegiance”. These are the quite nice, it says: same things. I think, more important, it is not enough simply to ask the people who are taking out Canadian citizenship to faithfully As an Australian citizen, I affirm my loyalty to Australia and its people, whose observe our laws and fulfill their duties as citizens of Canada. democratic beliefs I share,whose rights and liberties I respect, and whose laws I uphold and obey. I observe for members that world history is replete with examples where governments change laws so that they do not reflect basic I think that is very nice and actually is an attempt at poetry. And human rights, do not respect the rule of law and deprive people of when the Australians brought if forward—and it is important to freedom of speech and equality of opportunity. remember that Australia, like Canada, is a parliamentary mon- I refer members to the numerous European examples where archy—they had an extensive debate about whether they should citizens were obligated to obey laws that were unjust. The classic retain the monarchy. Australians said overwhelmingly that they example of course is what happened in the interwar years with wanted to retain the monarchy as the head of state just as we have Germany and Italy, where people were forced to obey laws that were here. brought in by totalitarian governments. It is not enough to ask people to obey the laws of the land. We must tell them what the laws are that However, in 1993 Australians appreciated that they needed an they must obey, that really do define who they are, and define the oath of citizenship that reflected Australian values.