44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/25/22 11:34:40 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, no one in my riding of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford is talking about this issue, so I agree with the member on that point.
The Bloc motion also fails to mention that any amendment to our relationship with the Crown would also require the unanimous consent of the 10 provinces of Canada. Look at the problems the provinces are dealing with. In British Columbia we have an opioid crisis and a health care crisis. There are all kinds of things.
I do not think the provincial governments of Canada would look too favourably on having this interrupt their schedules looking after their constituents' needs.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:35:15 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, to have unanimous consent, it would take the consent of at least one province. To have the consent of one province, it would take a province with a separatist government in power. Unfortunately for the Bloc, in the last election the Parti Québécois elected three members to the National Assembly of Quebec.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Following the presentation earlier today of the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Health on Bill C-31, an act respecting cost of living relief measures related to dental care and rental housing, the Chair wishes to draw the attention of members to a procedural issue related to amendments adopted by the committee during clause-by-clause consideration of the bill.
As the House knows, the Speaker does not normally intervene in committee matters. However, in cases where a committee has exceeded its authority, particularly in relation to bills, the Speaker has a responsibility to ensure that certain fundamental rules and practices are properly observed. As Speaker Fraser explained on April 28, 1992, at page 9801 of the Debates:
When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown...no matter how tempting this may be.
The two amendments in question relate to part 2 of Bill C-31, which would enact the rental housing benefit act and provide the establishment of a one-time rental housing benefit for eligible persons who have paid rent in 2022 for their principal residence and who apply for the benefit.
The first amendment would modify clause 3 of the bill, which proposes to modify, in subsection 4(2) of the rental housing benefit act, the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), by increasing the percentage of the payment to be taken into account for rent payments that include board or other services from 75% to 90%.
The second amendment seeks to amend the same clause and proposes to eliminate, in subsection 4(3) of the rental housing benefit act, the rule that would reduce the amount of rent taken into account in the calculation of the 30% rent-to-income threshold. This is set out in paragraph 4(1)(g), paid in 2022 by cohabiting spouses or common-law partners living separately on the reference day.
The chair of the committee ruled each amendment inadmissible because they lacked the required royal recommendation. Both decisions were challenged and overturned. The committee then debated each amendment and adopted them.
The committee chair was correct in the assessment of both amendments relaxing the eligibility criteria for the rental housing benefit. This would result in a greater charge on the treasury than is provided for in the bill since more people could have access to the benefit.
Page 772 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reminds us that:
Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.
Consequently, these amendments need to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.
While the Chair appreciates the difficulties that can arise when examining a bill in committee, it is important to remember that a committee must carry out its mandate without exceeding its powers. By adopting an amendment that infringes on the financial initiatives of the Crown, a committee exceeds its powers.
Consequently, the Chair must declare null and void the two aforementioned amendments to clause 3 of Bill C‑31, adopted by the Standing Committee on Health, and direct that the amendments no longer form part of the bill as reported to the House.
In addition, I am ordering that a reprint of Bill C-31 be published as early as possible for use by the House at report stage to replace the reprint ordered by the committee.
I thank members for their attention.
664 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:42:18 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be splitting my time with my colleague, the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford.
I am pleased to speak in Parliament today in support of this motion. I believe that it is time for us to take the next step in asserting and strengthening our democracy, in part by ending our ties with the monarchy.
We are living in an important time. We are seeing attacks against democratic institutions and processes around the world. We here in Canada need to look at what we can do to strengthen and reinforce our own democracy. We cannot sit idly by. It is time for us in Canada to reflect on our own institutions and our own processes. It is time to ask, how democratic are we in reality?
It is 2022, and we have a king. We have been independent since 1867. We have had our own foreign policy since the 1930s. We repatriated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1982. In 2022, we still have a king.
I think it is legitimate to debate this question, about whether we should keep moving toward a more democratic system.
I recognize that there are people in this country who do support the monarchy and there are people with emotional connection. My own grandmother, who was born in England, camped out to witness the coronation of the Queen in 1953. My grandmother felt a direct connection going back to World War II, when during the Nazi bombardments the Queen and the monarchy were a symbol for many in England of the resistance at that time.
For many indigenous peoples, the relationship with the Crown is of significance. That is with whom the treaties were signed. It is a relationship going back in history and we must acknowledge this.
However, the question is this. Here, in 2022, are we not at the point where we can elect or select our head of state, rather than having the head of state represented by the British Crown?
The answer should be yes. We need to view this question through a modern lens in 2022.
We must acknowledge the second-ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which has built on the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, making it clear that we must recognize the truth when it comes to Canada's ugly history of colonization. That colonization is rooted in the Crown's control, to its benefit. With the Indian Act, the reserve system, the residential school system, the pillaging of indigenous resources and the genocide of indigenous peoples, the devastating impacts of colonization are still evident today.
Reconciliation means carrying on a journey of decolonization and this must include ending our ties with the British monarchy. The monarchy is a symbol of colonialism for many indigenous peoples and for many people who have come to Canada from around the world. Many people left countries for a better life because of the conflict, impoverishment and repression waged by the British Crown. Many left from countries that had struggles for independence and where resistance was brutally quashed by Britain and those who served the British Crown, including India, Malaysia and Cyprus. The list of countries goes on.
Reconciliation also means embarking on the path to decolonization. It means severing ties with the monarchy. I am thinking about all the people who left their countries in search of a better future because of the wars, economic hardships and repressive measures inflicted on them in the name of the British Crown.
We must be clear. The monarchy is a symbol of colonialism, a symbol of slavery, a symbol of oppression, a symbol of repression and a symbol of conflict.
We know that in recent years the monarchy has engaged in a fair bit of public relations. It has said sorry for some things, but sorry will not cut it. Countries like Jamaica are demanding reparations from Britain. Countries like Barbados have done away with the monarchy entirely.
It is time for Canada to boldly take a step forward on the path to decolonization and away from the monarchy. There are steps we can take right now. Elected members of Parliament are asked to swear allegiance to the King. This is an anachronism that we can get rid of. I would like to point out that Sol Mamakwa, an NDP colleague in Ontario, and many Québec Solidaire and Parti Québécois members in the Quebec National Assembly have refused to swear allegiance to the King. We should be swearing an oath to the Canadians who sent us here.
I have long had many people asking me why Canada is not an independent country and why we do not swear allegiance to Canadians instead of to the Queen or the King. However, we need to do more. How democratic is it to have an elected House of Commons and an unelected Senate, a Senate modelled on the House of Lords, whose duty is to check our democratic excesses?
While there are good people in the Senate, it is profoundly undemocratic. We have to recognize that. I believe the logical thing to do is abolish the Senate, and I am proud that the NDP has always stood for the abolition of the Senate.
Canada lectures other countries around the world on the importance of being a democratic country, of having a democracy. Of course we have an elected House of Commons, but we cannot lecture other countries because we are far from having a perfect system. We have a king, we have a Senate where senators are appointed and we have a Parliament that is elected through a first-past-the-post system, where parties like the Liberal Party form a government with less than 33% of the popular vote.
We must strengthen our democracy. We must bring in electoral reform to ensure that the voices of Canadians and the will of the Canadian people are truly reflected in their houses of government across our country. We have made some small steps to bring our House into the modern era, including bringing in a hybrid Parliament, but the reality is that the foundations of our Canadian democracy, and certainly our institutions, have a long way to go to be able to strengthen the democracy we claim to believe in.
With all due credit to Quebec parliamentarians, we should pay tribute to the leaders of the Quiet Revolution and finally become masters in our own house.
It is time for Canada to move into the modern era, one that is rooted in reconciliation and committed to decolonization and strengthening our democracy. This ought to include ending our ties with the British monarchy.
1121 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:50:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
It is interesting to see someone who has decided to actually participate in the debate. The Bloc Québécois has opened the door and invited the members of the House to take part in a debate capable of generating comments as intelligent as the ones made by my colleague.
How would she characterize the attitude of the Conservatives and Liberals who simply want to ignore the debate, despite the fact that people have been talking about the public's dissatisfaction with institutions? That dissatisfaction is often the result of institutions being maintained even though they are outdated.
Should their attitude be characterized as: (a) lack of courage; (b) crass complacency inherent in a colonial attitude; (c) total ignorance of history; (d) all of the above?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:51:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would have to go with (d) all of the above.
I am concerned about the fact that very few members are willing to talk about the important matter before the House today. Let us be clear. The King is a symbol that is part of our history and the reality of colonization. If we truly believe in democracy and decolonization, we will take steps that include our ties with the monarchy. As I said, there are a lot of other things we should do to strengthen our democracy. We must have the courage to do them.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:52:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has put interesting comments on the record today. I suspect this is just about putting them on the record, unless the member is prepared to indicate that at the end of the day, Senate reform and changing our system of head of state require a constitutional change.
Does the member believe the NDP would like to have a constitutional debate imposed upon Canadians and parliamentarians at all levels? Is this what she believes we should be focusing our attention on? I do not.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:53:13 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is incumbent upon us as parliamentarians to respect the debate in the House today and track with the reality that many Canadians are sharing: Why do we have a head of state who is a British monarch? Certainly, a growing number of Canadians are incredibly disaffected by our political system, in part because of the fact that our first-past-the-post system is not as democratic as it should be.
I think these are important debates, and I would hope the Liberal government takes them seriously and actually commits to action. However, as I pointed out, the Liberals are in power with only 33% of the popular vote. That result has served them well, and I hope their lack of interest in pursuing this is not rooted in their own self-serving reality. The reality is that Canadians expect better from their democracy and we should be acting on that.
156 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:54:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski for bringing some important commentary to today's conversation.
I wonder, as other members have reflected, if the member would like to share more comments on the constitutional implications of how the motion before us would move forward if passed in this place.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:54:56 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think we are a mature enough democracy to handle next steps. I spoke of other countries, such as the Barbados, that have moved forward, and Jamaica is considering severing its ties. However, here we are in Canada too scared to deal with this debate in the House of Commons it seems.
I think we can handle what lies ahead. Really, what Canadians expect is parliamentarians who are going to reinforce democracy, which is what we are talking about today.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:55:32 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, allow me to present a slightly different view on today's motion brought forward by the Bloc Québécois.
For the constituents of Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, today in the House of Commons we are going to be debating a motion from the Bloc Québécois that acknowledges, in its preamble, that Canada is a democratic state and that the House of Commons believes in the principle of equality for all. Therefore, the motion calls on the House to express a desire to sever ties between the Canadian state and the British monarchy.
When I was approaching today's debate and figuring out how I would speak on it, I thought about what my constituents in Cowichan—Malahat—Langford were coming to my office for and what they were emailing and phoning me about. It is definitely not about the monarchy. People in my riding are very concerned about the rising cost in food. They are very concerned about housing unaffordability and availability. My community is going through an opioids crisis. So many immediate needs are being presented to my constituents. The monarchy is far down the list.
With all the problems we are facing in Canada today, including in the province of Quebec, why has the Bloc Québécois chosen to bring this motion before the House?
I serve on three committees with members of the Bloc Québécois. I serve on the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security with the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. She has been a fantastic member to work with, and I often hear her in the House raise the issue of firearms violence in Quebec and illegal firearms. That matters to many Quebeckers and many Canadians. Why is the Bloc Québécois not bringing forward a motion centring on that?
I serve on the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food with the member for Berthier—Maskinongé. We have worked together on improving the lot of our farmers, recognizing the link between agriculture and climate change. I know the member has spoken in the House in support of supply management. Again, this is in an opportunity that the Bloc could have used today to talk about Canadian farmers and what more we should be doing.
Bloc Québécois members have frequently stood in the House and talked about the environment, climate change and unfair tax policy, all of which could have better been served today instead of the monarchy, and issues about which I think their constituents are very concerned. How do I know this? Because they spend a lot of their time in the House talking about those issues, not the monarchy.
If we were truly concerned with the preamble of the motion today, namely that we are a democratic state and that we believe in the principle of equality for all, it could have dealt with things like the election results we see too often in our first past the post system, where there is such a disconnect between the number of seats a party wins compared to the percentage of the vote it receives. One needs to look only at the recent results in the provincial election of Quebec, where four parties in opposition received between 12% and 15% of the vote but wildly different seat counts.
In House of Commons, the New Democrats received almost double the number of votes of the Bloc Québécois, but we have less seats. The Conservatives received more votes than the Liberals, but they sit in the opposition because of the efficiency of the vote. If we are truly talking about democratic reform, the monarchy is so far down the list. We should be talking about how we elect members, how we tackle the strength and powers of the Prime Minister's Office and the decision-making powers it has in all aspects of governing; and how we can improve more parliamentary oversight over our institutions, the watchdogs we, as a legislative assembly, are supposed to be over executive power and privilege. Those things would have better been served by today's motion instead of talking about the monarchy.
When we talk about today's motion, it is important to realize that if we go into our Constitution, namely, section 41, on any amendment to Canada's relationship with the Crown, it not only requires a resolution from the House and the Senate, but we need to also have all 10 legislative assemblies of the provinces on board. Right now, the provinces are united in trying to get more health care dollars, and that is great to see, but we would never ever see the provinces unanimously support getting rid of the monarchy. They are dealing with far more pressing issues. They are dealing with a health care crisis. They are trying to reform their housing policy. They are trying to deal with an opioid crisis, a toxic drug supply.
There are far more pressing concerns, and I do not think that with all the things my constituents are worried about, my fellow British Columbians and Canadians from coast to coast to coast are worried about that we need to put ourselves into the middle of a constitutional amendment. Other parts of the Constitution would be far more worthy of amending, but not our relationship with the monarchy.
I do not consider myself to be a rabid monarchist. I am pretty laissez-faire about our relationship with the monarchy. It does not bother me in my day-to-day workings, not only as a citizen of our country but also as a member of Parliament. In my humble opinion, monarchs can truly be above politics. They do not have any political affiliations. In fact, if the King were to meddle in domestic politics, that would be seen as highly inappropriate and would probably result in a constitutional crisis.
It is important to realize that our oath to the King, to the heirs and successors of the King, is not to an individual person; it is rather to that person as an embodiment of the Crown as an institution. It is a symbol of the Canadian state, a ship that continues to sail on despite the occasional changing of its captains. The monarch's continual rule provides legislative and policy consistency over long periods of time. Governments come and go but the Crown remains.
Canada is not alone in this. Constitutional monarchies in western Europe include the United Kingdom, Denmark, Spain, Norway, the Netherlands, Monaco, Belgium, Luxembourg and Sweden, countries we would all uphold as successful, with strong social foundations, strong democratic participation and, in many cases, serving as models for what Canada could aspire to be. Asia, Japan and Thailand are also constitutional monarchies as well.
When we are talking about the institution of Parliament, and this is what I like to talk to my students in my riding about, because we often talk about Parliament and the House of Commons interchangeability, Parliament means the House, the Senate and the Crown, which is represented by our Governor General, all three constituent parts that are required to pass a bill into law. No bill could become a law without any of those bodies playing an important role.
I also want to address the need for the monarchy to address past injustices. I may be saying that the monarchy is okay to stay in Canada, but that does not mean it cannot and must not change with the times in which we find ourselves. Many people around the world have a very troubled history and relationship with the British Crown. It has to confront and deal with legacies of colonialism, of slavery and, particularly in Canada, the treatment of indigenous people and residential schools.
His Majesty King Charles III has an unparalleled opportunity to move the monarchy forward in a way that is acceptable and more relevant to today's generation. As a king, he has the opportunity to go further than his predecessors, to truly understand the 21st century in which we find ourselves. It is my sincere hope that in his first visit to Canada, he takes the time to meet with indigenous elders to truly understand the Crown's role in the residential school system and in colonialism. He owes that to Canada's indigenous peoples, he owes that to the wider public here to fully address those past wrongs and to set a path forward.
I will not be supporting this motion today. I will continue to stand in the House and represent my constituents and their far more pressing needs.
1467 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:05:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I entirely and completely agree with the first bit of the speech of the member when he talked about much more pressing needs and that people were not coming into his office to talk about the monarch. However, he then went on to talk about electoral reform and tried to convince me that people were coming into his office to talk about that. I will leave that aside for a second.
Let us assume that this motion were to pass and in some way we could, as of tomorrow morning, be free of the monarch, how would life change for any average ordinary Canadian on a day-to-day basis?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:06:08 p.m.
- Watch
That is the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker. How would it change? People are far more concerned with their immediate needs right now, with how they are going to make it through the month on their paycheques, trying to balance the rent, the food and other household expenses.
To take my answer to the member's question a bit further, if we were to look at other countries that have politicized heads of state, an elected president, such as France and the United States, that can come with its own set of problems, where that office is highly politicized and, in some cases, even has negative consequences for the elected legislatures of those countries.
It is about priorities. There are more pressing priorities and that is why I will stay focused on those for my constituents.
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:07:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very curious about something my colleague said at the end of his speech when he talked about modernizing the monarchy. I have to say I find that very intriguing.
What is a monarch? At some point in time, God gave power to someone and said that person's descendants would continue to hold power until the end of time. That person and their descendants would govern until the end of time.
We now live in a democracy. I am genuinely curious about how this wacky idea from the Middle Ages can be modernized.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:07:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is going to borrow from history, he need only look at the Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights. The struggle in British history, and even in Canadian history, has been between the executive power lodged in the form of the Crown and the will of the people, and we have evolved. It started back in the 1200s in England when the barons demanded the king share more power. That spread more. Now England has a fully modern democratic state where power is entirely vested in the elected government, the same as it is in Canada.
These two things can exist. We can have a modern Crown that acknowledges past injustices, while we continue to take steps to strengthen democratic accountability and the power of the people in electing members to this place.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:08:30 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford again mentioned electoral reform in his speech. Some have inferred that electoral reform is separate from the pressing priorities of Canadians.
I put it forward that for those who want meaningful action on climate, for example, it will be far more difficult to do so if we do not have the views of all Canadians represented in this place. Could the member comment on that?
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:09:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. The way we elect members to the House has a very real consequence for what is debated and the types of policies that are enacted. Instead of seeing regional power blocks that all political parties have, we have to realize that every province has a variety of views and those are not always honoured in how their provinces vote.
Saskatchewan is entirely Conservative based on this vote, but we know that not all people in Saskatchewan are Conservative voters. The New Democrats and Liberals there do not have a voice in this Parliament, and that is an important part of the province of Saskatchewan that is not getting a voice in the House of Commons.
I absolutely agree with the member that if we were to tackle and improve electoral reform, it would have much better positive consequences for how policy is enacted in this place and would be much more representative of the true will of the Canadian people.
167 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
What we are discussing today centres around our principles and our ideals, so I do not think this debate is unwarranted. I would like to thank everyone who is taking part in it, including those who just spoke before me.
As a matter of principle, I often look back at my roots. Everything we have experienced has helped shape the elected officials we are today. I was born to a working-class father and a mother who was a nurse. I was born female and that is the way it is. I was born a Quebecker and that is also the way it is.
Because of what we are discussing today, like all Quebeckers and Canadians, I cannot even aspire to become the head of the Canadian state, even if I wanted to.
I have barely spoken three sentences, and we are already deeply entangled in something that makes absolutely no sense to someone like me with democratic ideals. After all, what kind of state deprives its entire population of the possibility of becoming head of state? It is certainly not a democracy. At most, I would say that it is masquerading as a democracy and trying to imitate its form. It is a bit of smoke and mirrors.
As some of my colleagues have done, I often like to recall the past and dwell on the meaning of words we use ad nauseam that sometimes might escape us. The word “democracy” derives from demos, the people, and kratos, to rule. Democracy is sharing power between the people. Democracy is the power of the people.
Canada, as we know, and that is what we are talking about today, embraces a constitutional monarchy. That means that the true head of state cannot be an MP, not me or anyone in the House, but a monarch such as an Elizabeth or a Charles, someone who through fate or arbitrary alliances and births, inherited a crown. That bears repeating because it is important, not only symbolically, but because it also has tangible and potential implications.
The word “monarch” derives from monos, one, and archon, ruler, and therefore refers to a single ruler, a single person who rules. Literally and absolutely antithetically, Canadian democracy does not rest in the hands of everyone, but in the hands of a single person, namely the monarch. I say this with all due respect, but, to me, this is a ceremonial democracy.
I spoke just a moment ago about appearances and form. Appearances are not the only reason why the Bloc Québécois wants to sever ties once and for all with the British monarchy. In fact, this situation goes against Quebeckers' very values.
I spoke of the people earlier because I work for them. Indeed, we need to think about values such as equality. In the Bloc Québécois, we affirm that all citizens are equal; we promote and we defend equality. There needs to be equal rights, as well as equality in fact. Not only is the monarchy hereditary by nature, the order of succession attributes preference to male heirs and to Protestants above all others.
We can therefore infer that the primary role in the Canadian state is preferably, and we truly are talking about a preference or arbitrary choice, assigned to an individual on the basis of their sex and religion, not to mention bloodline.
A democracy that has preferences and that excludes half of humankind is not a democracy and is practising discrimination. The monarchy discriminates both literally and figuratively and takes away the very sovereignty of its people because the monarch is not a Quebecker or a Canadian. The monarch is British, only British.
As a legislator, it is my job to create laws. As a member of Parliament elected by the people, I and the people I represent are supposed to accept a monarch from overseas, whose legitimacy is arbitrary, and who has the power to make or unmake laws that we vote on in the House of Commons and also in my own National Assembly in Quebec.
The public proposes, Great Britain disposes. The potential British—and patriarchal, I might add—veto belies any claims of sovereignty by the people. The sovereignty of the people is a value that is important to the Bloc Québécois. It requires another element that is important to the Bloc, another value that we have had the opportunity to debate, the separation of state and religion.
We are talking about the leader of another country not only being subject to a foreign state, but also, as I mentioned earlier, to a church, the Anglican Church. The Canadian head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church. For those of us in Quebec who decided a few decades ago to separate church and state, this is a relic of an idea that is completely outdated in terms of the sovereignty of peoples, the sovereignty of ideas and the matter of the state itself.
I do not have much time left, so I would like to very quickly talk about the status of women, colonialism and accountability, which is also important to me. Of course, the status of women is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. I will let my colleagues talk more about colonialism because that is what the monarchy's wealth is built on. We too have a story to tell here. With regard to accountability, we hope that elected representatives will no longer be subject to anyone above them or look to anyone else to save or decide for them. We are fully responsible for our own decisions.
As I was pondering what to say today, I smiled to myself because I remembered thinking about these same things back when I was a young teenager. That is when people begin to think critically, question conventional thinking, question authority and throw off the shackles of beliefs that do not stand up to reason. I went through my own quiet revolution as a young woman.
For me and for Quebeckers, our desire to cut ties with the British monarchy goes back a long way. It is centuries-old. It is an intense desire to sever a connection, seek emancipation and empowerment for our society as a whole and affirm the deeply held values I mentioned earlier: democracy, equality and separation of church and state. The majority of Quebeckers want to cast off the trappings of another world and a long-ago time so alien to who we are. I am one of them.
As a democratic woman of no religious affiliation, I reject this inequitable, arbitrary and colonialist form of power. My faith and my loyalty lie with Quebeckers.
1151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:20:07 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but wonder why this is the most important issue for the Bloc Québécois. There are so many other things going on right now, and it has very limited number of opposition days. Between now and last spring, it has had a total of three, and it has consumed two of those supply motions on, one, a motion that we remove the prayer from the beginning of our daily proceedings and, two, that we somehow override the Constitution and abolish the monarchy.
Is life that good in Quebec that this is the most important thing to be focused on? Could the member provide some insight as to why this is deemed to be more important than some of the other pressing issues Canadians are facing today?
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:21:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that he does not need to put words in my mouth. I am perfectly capable of saying what I think. In a sense, that is a form of patriarchy.
I never said anything was more important or less important. I should hope the government is able to walk and chew gum at the same time.
We are talking about principles, values and democracy. The fact that the head of state is a man and that men are given preference over women in this democracy is an important and crucial issue to me, and most likely to half the population.
108 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
