Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester for introducing Bill C-316, for his love of Canada and for his love of Parliament. He has spent a lot of years here.
While not votable, I believe that this legislation allows us to debate an important issue for us as parliamentarians and for all Canadians.
The bill proposes to amend the oath for members of Parliament. It changes the wording so that we as members of the House of Commons would swear or affirm that we will be loyal to Canada, rather than to the Queen. Given that a number of members of Parliament want to break up Canada, this is an important distinction.
Regional interests have always been represented in this House and in the British House of Commons. In fact, Welsh, Scottish and Irish separatists have sat and continue to sit in the House of Commons in Great Britain. Unlike Canada, they do not have the numbers to make up the official opposition.
A great number of my constituents, and I am sure the constituents of the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester, are troubled by the presence of the Bloc Quebecois in this Parliament. While recognizing that Bloc members were freely elected, the fact that they sit in the national Parliament to represent regional issues is difficult to accept.
The Bloc members argue that they are here to represent the many Quebecers who support the break-up of Canada; that is of course when they wish to discuss separation. Many seem to be unsure of whether they want their own country, a partnership or some sort of association with Canada. None seems to be able to convince anyone outside of their own caucus of how this would benefit Quebec and Canada.
However, despite the fact that on two separate occasions Quebecers have rejected the idea of whatever it is the separatists are trying to sell, they remain in this House.
Members of the Bloc are Canadians. They benefit from Canada like everyone else in this House. They are supported by the Canadian government. They were elected by Canadians to serve Canadians and they are paid through the taxes remitted by Canadians. Each and every one of them is allowed to sit in Parliament because they have affirmed their loyalty to the Queen.
Bill C-316 makes an important distinction. Certainly there are a number of Canadians who feel a strong attachment to Queen Elizabeth II. For example, Guelph is know as the royal city because Guelph was the name of the royal family at the time of our founding in 1827. I see you are surprised by that, Mr. Speaker. Like most municipalities, our coat of arms includes the crown.
Some may find discomfort with the change in the oath of affirmation. I understand and appreciate that. They do not want us to ignore Canadian traditions. However, elected officials' affirming their loyalty to Canada also acknowledges the traditions that make us unique and that have helped to make us the greatest nation on this earth.
The current oath used by members of Parliament is similar to that used in Great Britain. In Great Britain members say: "I", and give their name, "do solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will be faithful and be true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth, her heirs and successors according to law".
It is interesting that refusing to state this oath prohibits members of the House of Commons from voting and taking part in debate. When a member breaks the rule he or she is subject to a fine of 500 pounds and their seat is declared vacant. Members cannot draw a parliamentary salary or expenses unless he or she has taken the oath of affirmation.
In the United States, article 6 of the constitution states that senators and representatives shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this constitution. Their oath, sworn in public in either the House of Representatives or the Senate, states: "I do solemnly swear and affirm that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same, that I take this
obligation freely without any mental reservation or purpose of evasion and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office in which I am about to enter, so help me God". This oath is said in public together before each new Congress.
There are some who believe that changing the oath or solemn affirmation will mean that the separatists will disappear from this Chamber. This is probably not true. As I have said earlier, nationalist separatists sit in the British House of Commons. Members of the Bloc Quebecois claim they can affirm loyalty to the Queen, head of state of Canada, while they attempt to destroy this country. Unfortunately, swearing an oath of allegiance to our country will probably not change that position.
Does this bill deal with mere symbolism? In a press release issued following the introduction of the bill, the hon. member for Carleton-Gloucester said: "If this bill were to pass I acknowledge that it would create a certain dilemma for people who want to be elected to destroy or separate our country. However, I think that an oath of allegiance to our country will strengthen the sentiment of pride which the majority of members feel when they arrive in the House of Commons".
The member also spoke about the loyalty that we as members of Parliament must carry out to the country and the tradition of tolerance and compromise.
The presence of separatists in the House of Commons is perhaps the greatest example of our tolerance and understanding as a nation. We are fortunate to have in this Parliament representatives from a variety of ethnic groups, women, unilingual francophones, unilingual anglophones and a number of members who were born outside Canada. We bring together a variety of tradition, history and culture.
Each of us in our very own way contributes through our talents, our experiences and our hopes for a better Canada to serve our constituents in a national forum. We are here because we want to help address problems and make the future better for our children and our grandchildren. Perhaps the fact that the separatists are here and are in such a prominent position really shows how great our country really is.
We are so tolerant and we are so democratic that we allow a party which is determined to break up the country to sit in this House of Commons as the official opposition. We are here to solve problems, not to create them.
I remain hopeful that Canada will remain strong and united. Perhaps pondering our roles as elected representatives, pausing to affirm our loyalty to Canada, will remind us that Canada has served us well. We owe it to our history and to our future to work to better this great country.
I doubt this bill will mean that the separatists will leave. I doubt it will mean that their narrow and negative vision of our country will change. However, I do think that any reminder that we are here to serve Canada should be supported, and I congratulate my colleague and my friend for bringing forth this piece of legislation.