SoVote

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

Oct/25/22 12:35:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the monarchical model may not be the one my colleague is referring to, but it is still a rather sickening model. I find that a bit sad. There has not really been any debate all day. People were chatting on the other side. Still, the monarchy is important. We are talking about the head of state. I said earlier that when I took the oath, it was bullshit. I was not telling the truth. When we come here, we are asked to be truthful, to speak. We are told that it is important to tell the truth in the House, to not make things up. We do research, we work hard to create bills that help people. However, the day I came here, the first thing I was asked to do was to talk nonsense, to tell lies, to be silly, to act out, as my colleagues have been accusing me of doing since then. All of this is theatrics. Me coming to Parliament is theatre. My colleagues are laughing. I cannot believe it.

176 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/25/22 12:36:48 p.m.
Watch

I want to make a little point about words that are parliamentary and unparliamentary. I think the member used something that is unparliamentary. The next time he stands up, I would love for him to take back his words and say something else. There are other words that are similar to what he said that are parliamentary.

57 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Oct/25/22 12:37:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did listen with great interest to the theatrics coming from the member from the Bloc. The question that kept going through my mind was this: Are any of my constituents really concerned about this issue today? The answer is no. The issues my constituents are concerned about today are the cost of living, the huge inflation and the tripling of the carbon tax. Those are the tabletop issues that are first and foremost in my constituents' minds, and I am wondering if the member's constituents do not feel the same way.

95 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Oct/25/22 12:38:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, I am laughing my head off. Our colleagues have gone on and on all day about how there are more important things in life and we need to work on solving problems. They seem to think this is a place where problems get solved. That is the joke of the year for sure. Bill C‑31 gives renters $500. There are 87,000 people in Quebec who will not benefit from that. Organizations in Quebec tell us that inadequately housed renters do not need $500; they need bricks and mortar. That is what will fix the problem. Bill C‑31 will not fix climate change. Canada is one of the worst countries in the world. This morning, members said we should be talking about climate change. That would be fine if we actually fixed problems, but we never fix anything here. My Conservative friend knows all about wasting time. I remember one evening when the Conservatives wasted a whole hour of the House's time on a vote and on figuring out which of two Conservative members would do the talking. That was an incredible waste of time. The Conservatives are in no position to lecture us.

201 words

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

Oct/25/22 12:39:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert for his passionate speech, above all a speech full of conviction. It is good to be shaken up once in a while, to have someone who speaks their mind, lays it all out on the table and tells it like it is. Some members seem to be promoting the status quo, the old British Crown colonialism, with its symbols and history that is fraught with horror stories. Those members pretend that nothing is the matter, that there is no problem. They behave as if everything is fine. After all, they do not think about the monarchy every morning as they get up. We have a historic opportunity to change that and we are not doing it. Does my colleague not think that there is something that members are not aware of, something that is perhaps in their subconscious? One of the big differences between Canada and the United States is that the very foundation of Canada is the attachment to the monarchy. At the end of the day, is there not a little bit of that in the fact that they do not want to get rid of it? I wonder, because I cannot think of any other reason.

214 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Oct/25/22 12:40:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could talk about this issue for quite some time. It is true that in Quebec we often say that Canada has no culture. That is also what my friends from the cultural sector say. If not for Quebec, there would not be a Canadian culture. The proof is that many people in Canada watch English-language media, American shows and the news from the United States. Indeed, I agree with my colleague that there may be something to that. What we are talking about today is fundamental. The issue of the oath troubled me deeply. I consider my mandate to be important, but it began with a lie and a farce. That really bothers me. Every time I think about it, it troubles me. I try to be sincere in my commitment to this place, to the constituents back home and to my colleagues in the House. Having begun my mandate with a lie still troubles me and it will trouble me for the rest of my days. I would like for us to settle this issue.

180 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/25/22 12:41:14 p.m.
Watch

Before we continue, I would like to say a few words. Members may at times become passionate during their interventions, but they have to follow the Standing Orders and usual practice of the House during their speeches and questions and comments. Standing Order 18 stipulates, “No member shall speak disrespectfully of the Sovereign, nor of any of the royal family, nor of the Governor General or the person administering the Government of Canada.” House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 621 states that “any reference to these persons which appears intended to influence the work of the House is also prohibited”. Although some latitude may be given by the Speaker, I ask everyone to show a bit of restraint in their comments in order to respect this important rule, and avoid using unparliamentary language such as the word “bullshit”. I would like the member to take back what he said at some point today. Continuing debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport.

180 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Health and to the Minister of Sport, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 12:42:42 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, before I begin, it is a pleasure to say that I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. I am grateful for the opportunity to speak today to respond to this motion brought by the opposition. The demise of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II has raised questions about the relevance of constitutional monarchies in the 21st century, and a number of western democracies remain constitutional monarchies. Nevertheless, I understand why, for some, the idea of having a British monarch as head of the Canadian state no longer seems relevant. Personally, I have debated this issue. I do not consider myself a monarchist. I like to keep an open mind and consider why we have a head of state. Over the past couple of months I have had the occasion to reflect on exactly why, so I am thrilled today to deepen that degree of understanding with conversation and debate here in the House of Commons. Our system of democratic constitutional monarchy is not just about one person. The King and Crown personify our system of government. They are stand-ins for the Canadian state and all that it represents: federalism, democracy, the rule of law and constitutionalism. Changing the monarch is not mere window dressing or symbolic change; rather, it would involve fundamentally rethinking all of our institutions and how they relate to one another. It is no simple task. There are two main themes that I would like to explore today. The first is that the Crown is ubiquitous. It is the cornerstone of the Canadian state, and it is involved in all branches of government. The second is that the Crown's authority, which appears broad in a reading of our constitutional instruments, is tempered by other constitutional values. Though unwritten rules and norms, they are equally important. Our Constitution comprises legal written rules enforceable by the courts. It also comprises unwritten constitutional conventions permeated by values, including democracy, the separation of powers and responsible government, which all breathe life into the constitutional text. Understanding our Constitution requires understanding both of those sources. Those are two themes that I hope show that the legal system is significant and that abolishing the monarchy would cause quite a lot of chaos in our system of government. Therefore, I also hope to show how modern values infuse our, admittedly ancient, constitutional institutions. The Crown, in particular His Majesty the King of Canada and his representatives the Governor General and the lieutenant governors of the provinces, occupies a central place in the architecture of the Constitution of Canada. Indeed, it may be easy to forget that the creation of the Canadian Confederation, although authorized by the Imperial Parliament, was made by proclamation of Her Majesty Queen Victoria, who by that order created a new power under the Crown of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, as it was then called. The very legal existence of Canada is in this sense derived from the monarchy. His Majesty the King is our head of state. Section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867, formally known under its imperial name, the British North America Act, vests in him the “Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada”. The King's Privy Council for Canada was established to aid and advise the Government of Canada, and the King also has the command-in-chief of the Canadian Armed Forces. However, the executive government of Canada was to be monarchial and, in the context of the Constitution, similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. The constitutional conventions of responsible government have meant that only those privy councillors summoned by the Governor General serving as ministers and forming cabinet can exercise or recommend the exercise of executive authority by the Governor General or the Governor in Council. Canada, like the United Kingdom, after all, is a constitutional, not an absolute, monarchy. I have had the opportunity to reflect a bit on what the value of that is for my constituents and for people in Canada, and I have come up with a couple of reasons I feel the monarchy and the Commonwealth are important to Canada and Canadians. First is our collective identity. In some countries around the world, when a government is elected, that government then is the head of state, or the prime minister or the president is the head of state. Oftentimes that means the identity of a nation is on the shoulders of that individual. I think that creates turbulence and it creates change that people are not necessarily comfortable with. I understand why some Canadians do not want a political party to represent their nation's identity. Indeed, we have seen Canadians over the last year, unfortunately, use our flag, the national symbol of Canada, in inappropriate ways during protests to indicate they feel un-Canadian, and that is their right, I suppose. I disagree with using the flag in that manner, but I would say that the individuals in many cases who are using the flag in that way do not disagree with the country of Canada. They disagree with the political party. Therefore, I think that divide is one of some utility. Second, I had the opportunity to go to the Commonwealth Games this past summer. It is called the “friendly games”. I have been to lots of games. I have been to the Pan-Am Games and the winter and summer Olympics. I see now why the Commonwealth Games are called the “friendly games”. It is a place to go and share some values, discuss important issues and compete in sports we all love and enjoy. That opportunity to go and enjoy the Commonwealth Games in a different context from when I was an athlete was an eye-opening one, and it caused me to reflect on the value of that partnership and camaraderie. Following the Commonwealth Games, I was invited to the Victoria Forum, which is a conversation around sports' role in truth and reconciliation. It was a really good gathering in the capital of British Columbia, and it was an opportunity to discuss how our country can participate and collaborate with peer nations and countries with similar challenges and offer advice and recommendations for progress on various issues, from climate change to truth and reconciliation and creating an economy that works for everyone. Last, but certainly not least, this morning I had coffee with the high commissioners of New Zealand and Australia to talk about agriculture, rural issues, climate change, resilience and adaptation, as well as how we can work more closely together. I think there is quite a lot of value in the Commonwealth, and beyond that there is value in having a monarch and head of state who is not elected and continues to be, in part, the identity of our country. On the legislative side, His Majesty the King is one of the three essential elements of the Parliament of Canada. Section 17 of the Constitution Act, 1867, states that “There shall be One Parliament for Canada, consisting of the Queen, an Upper House styled the Senate, and the House of Commons.” Royal assent, signified by the Governor General in the name of His Majesty the King, is the spark that gives life to bills, making them legally binding and enforceable. Royal assent acts as a bridge between the sovereign expression of the will of Parliament and the execution of that will. Also, royal recommendation is required every time the House wishes to adopt a money bill. A similar situation prevails in each of the provinces. The provincial legislatures now consist of a legislative assembly, or the National Assembly in Quebec, and the lieutenant governor, the representative of His Majesty the King. However, here too the constitutional conventions infused in the United Kingdom borrow from the preamble of the Constitution Act, 1867, and that permeates every aspect of constitutional parliamentary life. Royal assent is not a discretionary power exercised by a capricious sovereign whose power is absolute. It is a constitutional convention, and it is practically unthinkable for a Governor General to reserve royal assent in modern times. Likewise, ministerial responsibility means that royal recommendation is granted by the Governor General on the advice of cabinet and not at the discretion of the Governor General. In short, I believe the monarchy, the King and the Crown are everywhere in our constitutional order. His Majesty King Charles III, as King of Canada, personifies the Canadian state and the constitutional system of government that underlies it. Also, because the Crown is divisible, the Crown also personifies the state of the provinces. In any event, since our system of government has monarchy as its premise, any constitutional change affecting the office of the King, the Governor General or the lieutenant governors requires the unanimous consent of the House, the Senate and all provincial legislatures. A change to these institutions would involve a significant alteration to the Canadian federal compromise, thereby justifying a veto right for all state stakeholders. The relative importance given to the symbols of the monarchy can be debated today, but the abolition of the monarchy is not a decision for the House alone, however important. In any event, since the central premise of our system of government is that it shall be a monarchy, it is a conversation that I welcome today. I think there are other issues that our constituents would rather us be debating today, but I appreciate the debate and welcome some questions.

1598 words

All Topics

Mr. René Villemure (Trois-Rivières, BQ)

Oct/25/22 12:52:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the parliamentary secretary for approaching this issue with a seriousness that has been lacking in the House since the debate started this morning. I see that he recognizes the value of dialogue, and I appreciate that. In a Parliament where there is a great deal of room for many sensitivities, why not recognize the sensitivities of Quebeckers, the majority of whom consider it an affront when they see the monarchy being maintained in the current system?

85 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Oct/25/22 12:53:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the word “diversity” brings about a different sense or meaning for a lot of people. This place contains a lot of diversity in terms of our backgrounds, beliefs and systems. However, we are in a country called Canada with many distinct nations and distinct identities, and they are all welcome here. I do not see any reason why we cannot work together despite some of the differences. Conversations like this, civil discourse on an important subject, are important. Earlier I heard a member from the Bloc Québécois mention colonialism. I know it is a challenge for many of us to consider how we are a nation that was built on colonialism, but the Commonwealth is not the only nation responsible for colonialism. France also participated in acts of colonialism. My father's family came from the Netherlands, which had some of the most brutal colonialists, as well as the Belgians and Portuguese. Colonialism is a global phenomenon. Here in Canada, because we have a British head of state in the monarchy, we refer to colonialism as a British thing, but many other countries and nations had an impact on colonialism in Canada as well.

202 words

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

Oct/25/22 12:54:50 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I had a chance to give remarks on today's a motion about an hour ago, and I commented on the fact that many peoples around the world have a troubled relationship with the British Crown. My hon. friend just talked about colonialism. Before he became king, the then Prince of Wales, on a previous visit to Canada, made some very public remarks about the legacy of residential schools in this country. Now that he is king, His Majesty King Charles III, I am wondering if my hon. friend would comment on what he would like to see King Charles do on his first visit to Canada. The British Crown has evolved over the centuries. It used to be the divine right of kings and now we have a constitutional monarchy. In what ways could the Canadian Crown evolve in the 21st century to take into account those past injustices, specifically here in Canada?

156 words

Mr. Adam van Koeverden

Oct/25/22 12:55:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, as the member was speaking, I was just reflecting about the opportunities we have had to play soccer with staff from some of the high commissions here in Canada, and that represents the kind of fraternity that I was referring to, which I do not think is a frivolous thing. It is unfortunate to use a term like “fraternity”, which is steeped in sexism, but we agree that those occasions are good. On the topic of what the King could do on his first trip to Canada, acknowledging the wrongdoings is, first and foremost, the most important thing a king needs to do as a leader. As a head of state, it is responsible to accept some culpability. There is no question that the British Crown should assume more culpability for the harms that were done through the residential school system and colonialism. I would also say that I have admired King Charles for his forward thinking on climate change, which he has had since far before it was in vogue to have the conversation we are all having now. King Charles, prior to his new title, has been a climate change activist. I hope that, when he does arrive on Canadian soil, he makes mention of wrongdoings that were done in the past, how the monarchy and the British Crown could participate in truth and reconciliation, and how to right some of those wrongs, and I sincerely hope that he continues his fight against climate change. Leaders around the world are needed to stand up for positive action on that front.

266 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/25/22 12:57:32 p.m.
Watch

This is just a reminder to the folks who are participating in the debate that, the shorter the question, the shorter the answer, and the more people who will get to participate in this great debate. I want to thank everybody for their interventions. Continuing debate, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has the floor.

58 words

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

Oct/25/22 12:57:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to a very interesting motion, if I am going to say something kind about it. I am totally amazed. If we stop to think about it, the Bloc party typically gets three opposition days a year. That means in 2022, they have three opposition days. I want members to reflect on the issues that are facing the people of Quebec and the country. Canada is a wonderful nation made up of all sorts of regions, but I think there are consistent threads going through. With three opposition day motions, the Bloc has decided that it wants to spend a day talking about the monarchy. For the last 30 plus years, I have gone, on a weekly basis, to the local McDonald's. I cannot recall anyone ever coming up to me and saying, “Kevin, what is happening with the monarchy?” I do not hear anyone saying that. People are talking about issues surrounding immigration. They are talking about issues surrounding the economy. They are talking about a wide variety of issues. No one is talking about constitutional change. Surely, the Bloc understands that it does not matter what region or province one is from. No one is talking about this issue— An hon. member: Oh, oh! Mr. Kevin Lamoureux: Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. No one is talking about this issue except for the Bloc. We have to ask ourselves why the Bloc party, just the Bloc, the people who want to see Canada fall part, wants to talk about this issue. I will not speculate on that. Suffice it to say, it is not because of the people of Quebec, the people of Manitoba or any other province. If it were, there would be a better reflection of the issues that we are hearing every day in our communities from coast to coast to coast. This motion, in essence, just shows how irrelevant the Bloc is when it comes to contributing in a positive way to what is actually being debated and brought to the House. Today is its day. This is the day it gets to pick the issue. We have a good number of members of Parliament here on the government benches, in the Liberals caucus, who are from the province of Quebec. I do not necessarily need to consult with them because I follow the national news. I have a good sense of what is happening in the province of Quebec. I understand the unique nature of Quebec. It is one of the reasons I often advocate for important issues, such as the aerospace industry, the agri industries and hydro development in the province of Quebec. These are all issues that Manitoba has in common. It even has in common the issue of the French language because that is such an important issue. Even in the province of Manitoba, where it is doing relatively well as it continues to grow. These are the issues which people, whether they are in Manitoba, Quebec or any other province, would like to see some dialogue on, let alone the issues of the day. We are still not out of the pandemic, and the Bloc wants to talk about royalty. When we talk to Canadians, they are concerned about their economic well-being and the cost of living, but the Bloc wants to talk about royalty. I invite them to talk to some of the seniors in the province of Quebec and listen to what they have to say about the cost of living, health care and long-term care, or talk to some of the industries there that we need to continue to support, such as the aerospace industry. Talk about missing the mark. I think that I, if they would have given me their date, could have come up with a dozen things offhand that would allow us the opportunity to have a more creative and positive debate, which would be of benefit to not only people in Quebec, but also people in Manitoba and, in fact, all regions. That is something which, as a government, we have been focused on virtually from day one. I understand the monarchy. It is interesting that Bloc members are coming to the chamber to say they want to open up the Constitution and have Canadians from coast to coast to coast to talk about whether we should have a monarchy, elect a head of state or appoint a head of state, but they are not saying what they believe. They just want to open up the Constitution. There is no recommendation, but that is what they want us to talk about. We are just out of the pandemic, and with the cost of living, we are bringing forward first-time legislation on things such as the creation of a dental plan for children under the age of 12. We are bringing forward legislation to assist people with disabilities. Both of those pieces of legislation are historic, in the sense that it is the first time a national government is moving into those areas. We are listening to what people in our communities are saying and bringing that to the House of Commons, whether to the floor of the House, our respective caucuses, the standing committees or the many different stakeholders we meet with. The Prime Minister constantly tells Liberal MPs to gauge what is happening in our constituencies and bring those ideas and thoughts here to Ottawa. Obviously, that concept or principle is not being followed by the Bloc party. If it were, it would definitely not be bringing forward a motion of this nature. In Winnipeg North, my seniors are concerned about their future. They want to know that there is going to be quality long-term health care. They want to know that the federal government will continue to support health care, as it has been. There have been historic amounts of money invested by this government in health care in every region of our country. We have achieved accord with every province. These are the types of issues that are important to our constituents. They are concerned about the issue of the cost of living. That is why we brought in legislation to enhance the GST rebate, so that there would be more money in their pockets in dealing with the issue of inflation. That is the reason why we have the dental program for children. We want to make sure that children are in fact getting the dental care they need, which will prevent many of those children from having to go into the hospital. These are the types of measures that are making a difference. The Bloc earlier blocked the idea of a rental subsidy. That rental subsidy would help people across Canada in every region. It is going a long way in providing tangible supporting by putting money in the pockets of Canadians. If the Bloc were genuinely listening and responding by bringing those ideas and thoughts from their constituents, I think they would have a better understanding why individuals, such as myself and others, are questioning why the Bloc would bring forward such a motion in 2022, given that typically they will get three days in any given year. I know the member for Kingston and the Islands will talk a little bit more about those three days in his speech later on this afternoon. Suffice it to say, given the environment we are in today, I would suggest the Bloc members start talking beyond their inner caucus, the Bloc caucus, with less focus on separation and more focus on the things that matter most to Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada.

1289 words

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Oct/25/22 1:08:31 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader should focus less on partisanship, which seems to be blinding him. In yesterday's debate on the Uighur genocide, he spent 20 minutes attacking the Conservative Party because he did not think it was the time to talk about that. I just want to say to the parliamentary secretary that not a blessed day goes by that we do not talk about health care funding or the gun problem during question period. His government, on the other hand, is doing absolutely nothing. If he does not care about tossing $67 million out the window, then why is he on the government benches?

115 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/25/22 1:09:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to seeing less of my being so partisan. I will consistently advocate for national unity and the importance of Canada as a nation. There is only one political party inside this chamber that ultimately wants to see the demise of Canada as we know it today. I would never apologize to the separatists who want to see Canada divided, because I believe Canada is the best country in the world to live in. One of the ways in which we can contribute to ensuring that into the future is by reflecting the true understanding and interests of Canadians here on the floor of the House. I can assure the member opposite that the issue of the Crown and the issue of Senate reform are not being debated in our communities in any real and tangible way in comparison to the types of issues I have talked about.

153 words

Mr. Robert Kitchen (Souris—Moose Mountain, CPC)

Oct/25/22 1:10:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, very seldom will I agree with the gentleman on most issues, but when he says Canada is the best country in the world to live in, I am 100% behind that, and I appreciate that. With that said, in Souris—Moose Mountain, throughout my whole riding, I have not had anyone come and talk to me about the monarchy. I appreciate the member's comments on that. What we have heard about is basically the economy, inflation rates and the big cost to individuals in a rural community. The member touched a bit on how he is hearing similar things, and I am wondering if he could expand upon that for us today.

116 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Oct/25/22 1:11:27 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue being brought forward, it is very rare for me to be giving compliments to the Conservative Party, but the question has captured the essence. We may disagree in many ways on many policies, but we understand that what we should be debating is in fact issues that are somewhat relevant, at the very least, to what Canadians want us to be talking about. I guess I would take the proposal a little differently if the Bloc were to approach it in a different way. Is it suggesting we have an elected president in the future? Is it talking about us appointing a president? There is absolutely nothing more with this particular motion than just being mischievous.

124 words

Mr. Ken McDonald (Avalon, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 1:12:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on the whole idea of the monarchy, I will give an example. My mother-in-law turned 90 recently. She has lived through three monarchs: King George, Queen Elizabeth and now King Charles. Throughout my riding, when one goes door to door or visits people, people still have pictures of the Queen and her father up on the wall in their houses. The connection to the monarchy in Newfoundland and Labrador is probably stronger than in any other province. I wonder if the member would comment on the fact that Quebec is a province within Canada. It is a part of Canada, and as such— An hon. member: Oh, oh!

113 words

Mr. Ken McDonald

Oct/25/22 1:13:22 p.m.
Watch

The member can heckle all he likes about what he thinks he is or what he thinks he is not, but he is a Canadian citizen even though he lives in Quebec. He is a Canadian, a Canadian, a Canadian. Would the parliamentary secretary agree with that perspective and agree that this is the way Canada is right now?

59 words