44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/25/22 4:44:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the great journalist and pamphleteer Arthur Buies made the following forceful statement in 1869: “A republic is the government for men; a monarchy is the government for children”.
A government for children indeed, or a system of governance that fully acknowledges it has never reached maturity in the democratic sense. It is a system of government that states loudly, clearly and shamelessly that it holds power not because of the polls but because of divine right. This power derives its legitimacy solely from the transmission of privilege from one generation to the next. This system is openly opposed to the sovereignty of the people and in favour of royal sovereignty, which is hereditary and, to top it off, religious.
Many people do not realize that the House of Commons, despite purporting to be the seat of “Canadian” democracy, begins its daily work with a prayer in honour of the current monarch, who is also, lest we forget, head of the Anglican Church.
Even now, in 2022, many people do not realize that elected representatives must take an oath not to those who bestowed upon them the honour of representing them in Parliament, but to His Majesty, to whom they must swear allegiance.
Many people do not realize that the British monarch is also Canada's head of state, or that the bills that we vote on in the House have to be approved by the Governor General, who represents the monarchy. In fact, it is this same Governor General who presents the new policy directions in what is known as the “Speech from the Throne”, and who must be consulted before the Prime Minister can call an election.
I would add, as the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie suggested, that many people do not realize that new Canadians must pledge allegiance to the King.
The well-publicized antics of some of those who have held the position of Governor General are an apt reminder of the hubris of the royal lifestyle. I am also reminded of the words of the Marquis de Sade: “The end of this so very sublime reign was perhaps one of the periods in the history of the...empire when one saw the emergence of the greatest number of these mysterious fortunes whose origins are as obscure as the lust and debauchery that accompany them.”
Monarchism is an undemocratic regime that systematically separates the state from the community, strips the people of their decision-making levers, and removes their collective rights. It also establishes opacity as a political system, a system that is based on centuries of plundering and slavery. The British monarchy is embodied by Elizabeth I's support of John Hawkins, a navigator who was given a ship as a reward for the 300 slaves he brought back from his first voyage.
The British monarchy is also synonymous with the intensification of human trafficking in Africa in the name of the power and wealth of the royal family under Charles II, through the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa which was granted a 1,000-year monopoly on the African coast. In 1663, this monopoly was extended to trading slaves captured in Africa.
The British monarchy is synonymous with the Royal African Company of England, which, between 1672 and 1731, transported more than 187,000 slaves, all for gold, ivory, and pelts.
The Prime Minister, despite being a champion of maudlin political apology ceremonies, does not mention this often. Worse, he tells us it is not a real issue. The British monarchy in reality has never been anything but a vampiric system where a clique of rich and greedy privileged people have been able to fuel many disasters, for the strict purpose of enjoying even more benefits and privileges.
The monarchy in Canada meant the deportation of 12,500 Acadians, nearly 80% of the population, in 1755, without the slightest apology from the Crown to this day.
The monarchy in Canada meant the suppression of the Patriotes rebellion, resulting in many hangings.
The monarchy in Canada meant the hanging of Louis Riel following the annexation of the Métis territories.
The monarchy in Canada meant the forcible annexation of Lower Canada, with the explicit aim of assimilating francophones and developing Upper Canada at the expense of Lower Canada.
The monarchy in Canada meant the abolition of French-language instruction in all provinces for over 100 years.
The monarchy in Canada means astronomical costs over which its loyal subjects have no power and no opportunity or right to refuse to pay. We are shelling out an average of $67 million a year for purely symbolic activities, ceremonies and trips.
As several of my colleagues have pointed out today, $67 million is roughly the amount allocated to affordable housing in the last federal budget.
Furthermore, $67 million is more than twice the budget allocated for seven years to the National Research Council of Canada. The monarchy is an unjust, archaic and expensive system. It is also a regime that is irrelevant to the values and political culture of Quebec and the Quebec nation.
The Quebec nation believes in a political system where the head of state does not inherit their power, but shares it with other authorities within a balanced and transparent system in which the people have a say and religious authorities are relegated to private life.
A republic implies equality for citizens, who are fully recognized as such, with their own rights and duties, before secular institutions. In other words, it is the antithesis of Canada.
The Quebec nation boasts a republican tradition firmly rooted in its history. It is with pleasure that the Bloc Québécois honours that tradition today. In a remarkable 2012 book, political scientist Marc Chevrier even believed he had detected in New France a fascinating seed of the modern republic. It is interesting. I recommend that everyone here read it.
In the 19th century, our republican heritage was that of pamphleteer Louis‑Honoré Fréchette and that of patriots such as Louis‑Joseph Papineau and Robert Nelson, who courageously fought against the Crown. This was also the struggle of author Clément Dusmesnil in his fight to abolish seigneurial and feudal rights, the struggle of Montreal mayor Honoré Beaugrand and the struggle of the great premier and great statesman Honoré Mercier, who was also an MNA from Saint-Hyacinthe. This struggle is also that of Louis‑Antoine Dessaules, from Saint-Hyacinthe, and his fight against the excesses of clericalism, and that of Maurice Laframboise, former mayor of Saint-Hyacinthe and member from Bagot.
I am very proud to remind this House that the republican struggle has deep roots in Saint-Hyacinthe.
During the talks that were to result in the misnamed Confederation, this republican heritage was also that of the members belonging to what was then known as the “Red Party”, who warned against the fundamentally reactionary nature of the regime that was being established. In 1866, Red member Jean‑Baptiste‑Éric Dorion made a comment that deserves to be remembered: “They want to create a monarchy, an aristocracy, a viceroy and a shiny replica; I am alarmed at the position they want to put us in, as all these ridiculous and absurd plans will be extravagant folly.”
This reminds us how completely the Liberal Party of Canada has forgotten its roots, or if it does remember them, how it has betrayed them. In the 20th century, our republican heritage was that of journalists and writers like Godfroy Langlois, Ève Circé‑Côté, Olivar Asselin, Jules Fournier and André Laurendeau.
Today, we must pick up the torch of this republican struggle once more. Let us choose the sovereignty of the people rather than royal sovereignty. Let us abolish the monarchy. Long live the republic.
1338 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:53:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is because that is not what the motion says. The motion calls on the House to mandate the government to initiate the process. It is as simple as that. Deciding what form this will take will come later.
I know that the very idea of a republic is a bit foreign to a Canadian government that is proud of its monarchy, that it is a rather alien concept that may be hard to understand. There is also the idea of consulting the public, deferring to the sovereignty of the people, where the people get to write their own Constitution, make their own choices and decide which institutions they want.
However, I guess that can be hard for a descendant of British colonialism to understand.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:55:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very simple.
Honestly, I think that most veterans did not go to war ready to die for royalty. I do not think that was the main motivation. That being said, I personally know some veterans who are proud of their past service but who do not think that this institution is still relevant in 2022. I am not trying to tell them that they need to renounce their past oaths or military service. As of now, we no longer consider the monarchy to be part of our political system. It is as simple as that.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:57:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think what the member for Rivière-du-Nord said and what all the Bloc Québécois members would say is that an elected president is better than a king. That is undeniable. That part is settled, everyone agrees on that. The Canadian members of Parliament are pretty much the only ones who disagree.
That said, as my colleague was saying, she was picking up on the question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, so I will give her the same answer I gave him: the whole reason the sovereignty of the people exists is to define—
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:18:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are some things that my colleague said in his speech that I want to understand. That is the message that we have been hearing since this morning, that this is not a real issue and that there are so many more important issues.
Let us say that I understood that criticism earlier this morning, but at this point in the day, I see it as a sign that nobody really has any real arguments against what we are saying.
Also, why was this considered to be important and a real issue when the Conservative government was bragging about putting portraits of the Queen and the word “royal” everywhere?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
