Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I speak on Bill C-316 today. I congratulate the member for Carleton-Gloucester for his determination and his conviction in bringing this matter forward. Members will recall that this is the second time he has brought this issue to our attention.
In the first session of this Parliament he brought us Bill C-201. That bill was considered by this House and several members spoke in favour of it but ultimately it did not proceed.
The member, who obviously believes passionately in his idea, was not deterred and rather than abandon this project he has steadfastly introduced this bill again in this new session. When his name was drawn he proceeded anew.
This member is neither the first to recognize the importance of oaths and affirmations nor is he alone in proposing changes with respect to oaths in use in Canada today.
In the previous Parliament the member for Hamilton West, today the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport, proposed a bill with similar objectives. The member for Parkdale-High Park spoke eloquently in favour of that bill. Recently our colleague, the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, sponsored Bill C-223 which, like the bill before us today, proposed amendments to an oath, namely the one found in the Citizenship Act to provide for an oath or solemn affirmation of allegiance to Canada and the Constitution.
What is it that these members are trying to capture in their bills? Obviously something is happening, a desire I would suggest to express patriotism and pride in a place that we can all share.
I have no polls or focus groups results to back me up but I suspect that these bills reflect the strong beliefs of a great many of our constituents. Those beliefs are overwhelmingly positive. They speak of the quality of life Canadians enjoy, the rights and freedoms they exercise. They speak also of nation building and the future we possess collectively.
Despite its positive tone and motivation some members may be reluctant to share in the enthusiasm that the member for Carleton-Gloucester has in this bill.
The technicians among them may argue that this bill is flawed. Others may claim that it is redundant because the Constitution already requires that a member take an oath before taking his or her seat in the House and ask what is the point of two oaths.
I would respectively suggest that is not what today's debate is about. Rather, this debate invites all of us to speak with greater clarity on our roles and responsibilities in this place and our commitment to a Parliament and a country which can welcome debate on the wide range of views which membership of this House represents.
I have no problem with the principles expressed in the member's bill. I congratulate him for bringing this matter forward. It rekindles the pride I have in the work we do here, our Parliament and this country. I think it does us all good to pause and reflect on our reasons for being here and the solemn oath and affirmation we each made before being seated in our places.
For this I thank and salute the member. I know he was disappointed when his bill was not made votable but as a fellow member I want to offer him some congratulations and encouragement. The desire and pride which this bill expresses will continue to grow. It is one of Canada's and Canadian's greatest strengths. Members and Canadians from all walks of life are shedding their traditional reluctance to acknowledge their patriotism and commitment to Canada. Today's debate is but one step in that process and I invite the hon. member to carry on. He is among good company. Congratulations.