SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

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 That dissatisfaction is often the result of institutions being maintained even though they are outdated.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

Ms. Niki Ashton

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

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

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

Ms. Niki Ashton

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

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

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

Ms. Niki Ashton

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

Mr. Alistair MacGregor (Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, NDP)

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

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

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

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

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

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

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

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

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

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

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

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

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

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

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

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

Mrs. Marilène Gill

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

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Oct/25/22 12:22:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since this morning, we have been hearing the Conservatives and Liberals basically singing the same tune, one after the other. They are wondering how the Bloc Québécois could have chosen such an unimportant subject when there are so many more important things to talk about than the monarchy. However, the monarchy is the head of state, the person at the very top of the pyramid. Is that not important? We are talking about the person under whose authority we vote on all of our laws. Is that not important? I would like to know what my colleague thinks about what those two parties are saying on this subject and, more importantly, what that means. Does this not mean that that they are unable to defend their position because it is not really defensible?

139 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Oct/25/22 12:22:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that I absolutely agree with him. I think we have an opportunity here to talk about this. Rather than repeating over and over that we could have come up with more important things to talk about, my Liberal colleague could stand up and state, once and for all, where he stands on the prayer, for example, or on severing ties with the monarchy. It would be very simple. I would not tell him what to say, but it would take two minutes and it would be done. I think that we can talk about any subject in the House, and my Liberal colleague could definitely do that. I hope he will use his time to answer that question.

127 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/25/22 12:23:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem telling the Bloc my position. I have no issue with the prayer. We can continue doing it because it does not affect anything, other than using up about 15 seconds of the House's time. I have no problem with the current form of our parliamentary system, which includes a monarch in it. Quite frankly, I do not see life being any different. Let me ask my previous question, which the member did not answer, in another way. Could she explain to the House, if the monarch were suddenly abolished at midnight tonight, when Quebeckers and Canadians woke up tomorrow morning, how would their lives be so different from what they are right now?

120 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Oct/25/22 12:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must say that praying to a god, the Christian God, and having a head of state who is a man, and ideally a man, are significant concerns for me. I would point out that not everyone in the House prays to the Christian God, and some people do not pray at all. I would also point out to my colleague that I am a woman, not a man, like him. I am not saying that everything is going to change tomorrow morning, but this is about taking a stance. Keeping these medieval holdovers is a choice, as my colleague said, and it impacts me as a woman who chooses not to be religious.

116 words