SoVote

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

Oct/25/22 4:26:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. That is exactly what I was saying. There are so many topics. In mental health alone, there are currently 15,000 people on waiting lists in Quebec to see a psychologist. In the current context, after a pandemic, it seems to me that it would have been worthwhile to talk about the mental health of our citizens in Quebec.

69 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Oct/25/22 4:27:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga on her heartfelt speech. However, I would have liked more substance on the topic. Indeed, other than criticism of the editorial choice, shall we say, for our opposition day, I have not heard an argument about the value of maintaining the monarchy. I would be interested in that because, even when we are not particularly interested in a certain subject, which is fine, we should at the very least debate it. What I feel is that people just do not have the guts or the arguments to advocate for something that costs 70 million. My colleague across the aisle would have every reason to want us to get rid of the monarchy, since that would free up another $70 million for, say, social housing, an issue I know she feels strongly about. Then, there is the fact that the Bloc Québécois proposes subjects such as health transfers, housing, immigration or others, which it raises in the House during debates or oral question period, but to which the government's response sounds like a broken record. My point is that I would have liked a little more substance in my colleague's speech. My question to her would be to name just one benefit of keeping our ties to the monarchy in place, with its yearly $70-million price tag.

235 words

Ms. Soraya Martinez Ferrada

Oct/25/22 4:28:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not the one questioning democracy in Canada. Democracy in Canada is doing just fine. My colleague and I were elected to represent people in our respective ridings on important issues. On my ballot it did not say vote for me if you want to get rid of the monarchy. What people want is more housing, better health care, more food on their table, and a full fridge. We could be debating something other than the monarchy right now.

82 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Oct/25/22 4:29:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot. It always surprises me when the people who are elected to govern tell us, the opposition members, that it is a shame we do not tell them what to do. They should know what to do. For one thing, they could give us transfers for health care and seniors. There are all kinds of things we could talk about, but I think that if they do not know these things already, we have a serious problem. That said, I want to start by confessing that I am a romantic. I spent my youth of princes, knights, kings and other champions who raced to the aid of princesses held captive by evil characters in the out-of-reach towers of magnificent castles. I have also done some travelling, and I have marvelled at some grand castles. I will also admit that I was delighted to visit the Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna, the famous Princess Sisi's summer residence. Attending the Christmas concert at the Orangery was an absolute thrill. Being emperor of Austria would have suited me well. As I said, I am a romantic. I also dreamed of valiant knights from Quebec, who came to the rescue of our great and glorious nation, ensuring its survival and vitality. I dreamed of epic battles where the greatest orators faced off against one another to convince their political opponents not to give up and not to give in to a challenge that initially might seem too daunting, too difficult to face. Other people before us have met these challenges, and they met them successfully. We have seen examples around the globe of colonies cutting ties with monarchies. However, we are not there yet. The Bloc Québécois is using this opportunity today to propose that we do away with this archaic British institution to which we bow, day after day. We propose that we trade our dependence on the monarch for a simple but noble dependence on democracy, on the will of the people. This is by no means a personal attack on the current King of England, Charles III, or his predecessor, Queen Elizabeth II. I am merely proposing that we make a full, unambiguous and unreserved commitment to our fellow citizens. How about it? Do we not all believe in the virtues of equality among citizens? Do we not all believe in the sovereignty of the people, in their right to decide their future, their institutions, the laws that govern them, in the inalienable sovereignty of the people? Do we not also believe in the separation of church and state? No, it is true that this Parliament has already decided to continue saying a Christian prayer before each sitting of Parliament, before pleading before this same Parliament for equality between religions and faiths, and apologizing for having ostracized, even persecuted them in the past. Let us move on. Of course we should address the housing problem, balancing the budget, controlling our borders, gun trafficking, the challenges that come with immigration, which we in fact need so much, funding to give all our seniors a decent life, other issues of national and international interest, and so on. We also need to address this government's troubling reluctance to transfer the necessary funding so that Quebec and the provinces can fund health care services, where costs are increasing while the federal government seems to think it is a joke. Should we not also be concerned about our position and the state of our institutions? Are we really incapable of managing the nation's affairs and democracy at the same time? Each one of our challenges needs to be met full on, but none should prevent us from dealing with our institutions. How can we ignore this huge stain on our democracy and claim to serve democratically? Could we not set our sights higher this time and do something honourable that makes Quebeckers and Canadians proud? When you ask people if they would like to get rid of this subordination to the British monarchy, many answer that they would. In fact, 71% of Quebeckers and 51% of Canadians answer yes. Moreover, 56% of Canadians and 75% of Quebeckers want their elected officials to stop swearing allegiance to the British sovereign. Certain members of the royal family themselves have dared to question their belonging to this outdated and overly restrictive regime. Is it not time for this Parliament to join the 21st century, the third millennium? It is outrageous that tens of millions of dollars are spent every year to maintain this useless and outdated body of protocol. Could this money not be better spent? Are we so wealthy that we no longer need to watch our spending? Without going into the sometimes scandalous details, we know that the office of the Governor General alone spends more than $55 million a year. Let us set aside the issue of cost and ask ourselves what the monarchy has done for us since its conquest of our territory. My colleague put this question to my colleague opposite earlier and she was unable to answer or to name a single benefit that we gain from the monarchy. There was the infamous bloody war against the rebellion of our patriot ancestors, the deportation of 80% of the Acadian population, the forced annexation of the Métis territories and the hanging of their leader, Louis Riel. What can one say about the ban on speaking French in the predominantly English provinces for more than a 100 years or about the ratification of the agreement on the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution? That agreement was ratified in secret in a hotel kitchen while the Quebec premier was away. Over the past century, many states have decided to cut ties with the British monarchy. Is it not time that Canada did the same? Of course, Quebec can always dream of freeing itself from the Canadian yoke. Of course, a referendum, a solemn declaration or other mechanism developed for Quebec sovereignty could also break that rather embarrassing, expensive and restrictive tie. However, could we not think today about a more effective, more cohesive and less embarrassing federation? Every member of the House had to swear allegiance and loyalty to the British Crown before they could take their seat here and fulfill the mandate given to them by their constituents. Like everyone else, I swore the oath by thinking of the interpretation we must make of it, that is, that the occupants of the British throne are not its true recipients, but rather that it is sworn to the institutions that govern us. Therefore, is it not high time we honoured our real allegiances? Is there anyone here who would be prepared to ignore the interests and values of the constituents who elected them in favour of the interests and values of the king or the queen? I am not prepared to do that, for my part. Today, the Bloc Québécois proposes to free us from the monarchy and, thus, from this flawed oath. That would allow us to fully assume, unapologetically and unfettered, our rightful elected mandate to represent our constituents, who are relying on us, our allegiance to their ideals, our courage and our loyalty. Let us be worthy of that trust.

1239 words

All Topics

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

Oct/25/22 4:38:40 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a few years back, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals boldly went to the Governor General. Reflecting the will of their constituents collectively, the Bloc supported going to the Governor General to replace the Stephen Harper government. At that time, the Bloc recognized the value of the monarchy. Does the member see any irony there? It seems to me that when Bloc members feel it is to their advantage, the monarchy or the Governor General is a good thing. However, now when they seem to feel it is not, they are against the monarchy. What would they replace it with? Would they give more power to the Prime Minister? Would they elect a president? Would they appoint a head of state? What is the alternative? I would really appreciate an answer to that. What is the alternative to the monarchy? Will the member answer that simple question?

150 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Oct/25/22 4:39:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. I would point out to him that we are here to play a game that is not really a game. We have to play by the rules, which is what all members of the Bloc Québécois do. We have done just that since the Bloc Québécois was founded. Yes, we once went to the Governor General's office to request that the Harper government be replaced. As we all know, these are the rules of the game. I have sworn allegiance here to the rules that govern us, and I do not intend to break them. I will continue to abide by them, but when I am asked whether I prefer to have a monarch or an elected head of state, I will instantly say that I want an elected head of state. That is the answer I want to give to my colleague.

161 words

Mr. Dave Epp (Chatham-Kent—Leamington, CPC)

Oct/25/22 4:40:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is not often I agree with my colleagues across the way, but on this issue I do. The hon. member was asked what he would replace our constitutional monarchy with. The U.S. News, and the last time I checked the U.S. was a republic, combined with a UN world report, surveyed countries with 76 attributes and determined that seven out of the 10 top-lived countries in the world had constitutional monarchies. If a constitutional monarchy is good for seven of the top 10, why would my hon. colleague from the Bloc want to go away from that system, which seems to work not only in Canada but in other places?

116 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Oct/25/22 4:41:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It may be that seven out of 10 countries are run by constitutional monarchies, but that number is of no importance, in my opinion. It does not matter to me if the other seven out of 10 countries are right or wrong, nor does it matter if nine or 10 countries are right or wrong. What bothers me is that we are here to represent peoples and nations that operate within a federation that is itself subject to a foreign monarch. I cannot stand that. That is what the Bloc Québécois wants to abolish, regardless of how things are done elsewhere. We are capable of governing ourselves, and I am sure all Canadians can do that. I guarantee that Quebeckers can. We can get along well enough to manage all kinds of issues. The one thing we do not need is a foreign monarch's stamp of approval on our laws.

164 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Oct/25/22 4:42:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the speeches from my Bloc Québécois colleagues since the day began, and I am surprised that no one has made a single particularly compelling argument, in my opinion. As parliamentarians, we have to take an oath. It can be quite unpleasant, I agree. However, people who were born in Quebec and in Canada do not have to take that oath. There is a lot of talk about what we, as members of Parliament, have to do. However, those who must take this oath of allegiance, apart from members of the House, are immigrants. Still, the Bloc never talks about them. Someone from the United States, India, France or Germany who wants to come here is obliged to swear allegiance to the King or Queen of England. That must hurt them even more than it does us.

147 words

Mr. Rhéal Fortin

Oct/25/22 4:43:36 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I agree with my NDP colleague on this point. We believe that members of Parliament, newcomers and everyone else should only swear an oath to the English monarch when they are in England. I am sorry, but if you have to swear an oath in Canada, it should be sworn to the people of Quebec and Canada, not to a foreign monarch. My colleague is right.

68 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Oct/25/22 4:44:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the great journalist and pamphleteer Arthur Buies made the following forceful statement in 1869: “A republic is the government for men; a monarchy is the government for children”. A government for children indeed, or a system of governance that fully acknowledges it has never reached maturity in the democratic sense. It is a system of government that states loudly, clearly and shamelessly that it holds power not because of the polls but because of divine right. This power derives its legitimacy solely from the transmission of privilege from one generation to the next. This system is openly opposed to the sovereignty of the people and in favour of royal sovereignty, which is hereditary and, to top it off, religious. Many people do not realize that the House of Commons, despite purporting to be the seat of “Canadian” democracy, begins its daily work with a prayer in honour of the current monarch, who is also, lest we forget, head of the Anglican Church. Even now, in 2022, many people do not realize that elected representatives must take an oath not to those who bestowed upon them the honour of representing them in Parliament, but to His Majesty, to whom they must swear allegiance. Many people do not realize that the British monarch is also Canada's head of state, or that the bills that we vote on in the House have to be approved by the Governor General, who represents the monarchy. In fact, it is this same Governor General who presents the new policy directions in what is known as the “Speech from the Throne”, and who must be consulted before the Prime Minister can call an election. I would add, as the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie suggested, that many people do not realize that new Canadians must pledge allegiance to the King. The well-publicized antics of some of those who have held the position of Governor General are an apt reminder of the hubris of the royal lifestyle. I am also reminded of the words of the Marquis de Sade: “The end of this so very sublime reign was perhaps one of the periods in the history of the...empire when one saw the emergence of the greatest number of these mysterious fortunes whose origins are as obscure as the lust and debauchery that accompany them.” Monarchism is an undemocratic regime that systematically separates the state from the community, strips the people of their decision-making levers, and removes their collective rights. It also establishes opacity as a political system, a system that is based on centuries of plundering and slavery. The British monarchy is embodied by Elizabeth I's support of John Hawkins, a navigator who was given a ship as a reward for the 300 slaves he brought back from his first voyage. The British monarchy is also synonymous with the intensification of human trafficking in Africa in the name of the power and wealth of the royal family under Charles II, through the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa which was granted a 1,000-year monopoly on the African coast. In 1663, this monopoly was extended to trading slaves captured in Africa. The British monarchy is synonymous with the Royal African Company of England, which, between 1672 and 1731, transported more than 187,000 slaves, all for gold, ivory, and pelts. The Prime Minister, despite being a champion of maudlin political apology ceremonies, does not mention this often. Worse, he tells us it is not a real issue. The British monarchy in reality has never been anything but a vampiric system where a clique of rich and greedy privileged people have been able to fuel many disasters, for the strict purpose of enjoying even more benefits and privileges. The monarchy in Canada meant the deportation of 12,500 Acadians, nearly 80% of the population, in 1755, without the slightest apology from the Crown to this day. The monarchy in Canada meant the suppression of the Patriotes rebellion, resulting in many hangings. The monarchy in Canada meant the hanging of Louis Riel following the annexation of the Métis territories. The monarchy in Canada meant the forcible annexation of Lower Canada, with the explicit aim of assimilating francophones and developing Upper Canada at the expense of Lower Canada. The monarchy in Canada meant the abolition of French-language instruction in all provinces for over 100 years. The monarchy in Canada means astronomical costs over which its loyal subjects have no power and no opportunity or right to refuse to pay. We are shelling out an average of $67 million a year for purely symbolic activities, ceremonies and trips. As several of my colleagues have pointed out today, $67 million is roughly the amount allocated to affordable housing in the last federal budget. Furthermore, $67 million is more than twice the budget allocated for seven years to the National Research Council of Canada. The monarchy is an unjust, archaic and expensive system. It is also a regime that is irrelevant to the values and political culture of Quebec and the Quebec nation. The Quebec nation believes in a political system where the head of state does not inherit their power, but shares it with other authorities within a balanced and transparent system in which the people have a say and religious authorities are relegated to private life. A republic implies equality for citizens, who are fully recognized as such, with their own rights and duties, before secular institutions. In other words, it is the antithesis of Canada. The Quebec nation boasts a republican tradition firmly rooted in its history. It is with pleasure that the Bloc Québécois honours that tradition today. In a remarkable 2012 book, political scientist Marc Chevrier even believed he had detected in New France a fascinating seed of the modern republic. It is interesting. I recommend that everyone here read it. In the 19th century, our republican heritage was that of pamphleteer Louis‑Honoré Fréchette and that of patriots such as Louis‑Joseph Papineau and Robert Nelson, who courageously fought against the Crown. This was also the struggle of author Clément Dusmesnil in his fight to abolish seigneurial and feudal rights, the struggle of Montreal mayor Honoré Beaugrand and the struggle of the great premier and great statesman Honoré Mercier, who was also an MNA from Saint-Hyacinthe. This struggle is also that of Louis‑Antoine Dessaules, from Saint-Hyacinthe, and his fight against the excesses of clericalism, and that of Maurice Laframboise, former mayor of Saint-Hyacinthe and member from Bagot. I am very proud to remind this House that the republican struggle has deep roots in Saint-Hyacinthe. During the talks that were to result in the misnamed Confederation, this republican heritage was also that of the members belonging to what was then known as the “Red Party”, who warned against the fundamentally reactionary nature of the regime that was being established. In 1866, Red member Jean‑Baptiste‑Éric Dorion made a comment that deserves to be remembered: “They want to create a monarchy, an aristocracy, a viceroy and a shiny replica; I am alarmed at the position they want to put us in, as all these ridiculous and absurd plans will be extravagant folly.” This reminds us how completely the Liberal Party of Canada has forgotten its roots, or if it does remember them, how it has betrayed them. In the 20th century, our republican heritage was that of journalists and writers like Godfroy Langlois, Ève Circé‑Côté, Olivar Asselin, Jules Fournier and André Laurendeau. Today, we must pick up the torch of this republican struggle once more. Let us choose the sovereignty of the people rather than royal sovereignty. Let us abolish the monarchy. Long live the republic.

1338 words

All Topics

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

Oct/25/22 4:53:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we heard in the preceding question and answer period that the Bloc's preferred model in Canada is not to have a monarch but, instead, to have another elected head of state. In essence, the member before this member was suggesting that we should be electing a president, so we would have a prime minister and a president. Could this Bloc member confirm that is indeed the position of the Bloc Québécois? Could he explain why they did not include that in the motion today?

91 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Oct/25/22 4:53:45 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is because that is not what the motion says. The motion calls on the House to mandate the government to initiate the process. It is as simple as that. Deciding what form this will take will come later. I know that the very idea of a republic is a bit foreign to a Canadian government that is proud of its monarchy, that it is a rather alien concept that may be hard to understand. There is also the idea of consulting the public, deferring to the sovereignty of the people, where the people get to write their own Constitution, make their own choices and decide which institutions they want. However, I guess that can be hard for a descendant of British colonialism to understand.

127 words

Ms. Lindsay Mathyssen (London—Fanshawe, NDP)

Oct/25/22 4:54:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conversation today, although I may not agree with it or with having it at this time. This is not necessarily the time. One thing that I keep questioning myself about as we debate this motion, which we will be voting on at some point, is what a lot of the people in my riding will think about this. I think about the veterans whom I talk to on numerous occasions. In the next few weeks, we are going to be commemorating and remembering what they provided to this country in fighting for freedom. I think of how incredibly proud they are as part of our democracy in fighting for that within the institutions, whether one agrees with them or not, and how they link that to the monarchy. How would the member have me explain that to veterans who put so much emphasis and pride into fighting for what Canada represents, including the monarchy?

159 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Oct/25/22 4:55:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very simple. Honestly, I think that most veterans did not go to war ready to die for royalty. I do not think that was the main motivation. That being said, I personally know some veterans who are proud of their past service but who do not think that this institution is still relevant in 2022. I am not trying to tell them that they need to renounce their past oaths or military service. As of now, we no longer consider the monarchy to be part of our political system. It is as simple as that.

99 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Oct/25/22 4:56:06 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an honour to participate in this debate. My question for my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot is almost the same as the one the parliamentary secretary asked. Early in the debate, this morning, I asked the leader of the Bloc Québécois the same question: What alternative is the Bloc proposing? I did not get an answer. I guess the Bloc did not have an alternative in mind when they wrote today's motion. I am surprised. I should mention that the member for Rivière-du-Nord at least went to the effort of responding that the Bloc Québécois would rather have a president. I want to ask my colleague if that is true. Is that what is now advocated by the Bloc Québécois, instead of this morning's position?

148 words

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay

Oct/25/22 4:57:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think what the member for Rivière-du-Nord said and what all the Bloc Québécois members would say is that an elected president is better than a king. That is undeniable. That part is settled, everyone agrees on that. The Canadian members of Parliament are pretty much the only ones who disagree. That said, as my colleague was saying, she was picking up on the question from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, so I will give her the same answer I gave him: the whole reason the sovereignty of the people exists is to define—

114 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 4:57:43 p.m.
Watch

Order. Before resuming debate, it is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, Public Safety; the hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Taxation; the hon. member for Nunavut, Indigenous Affairs.

61 words

Mr. John Nater (Perth—Wellington, CPC)

Oct/25/22 4:58:11 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a great pleasure to rise today in this House to debate this opposition day motion. When it is a Bloc Québécois or NDP opposition day motion, the Conservative Party gets remarkably few speaking spots. This is only our second speaking slot today on this motion and, as luck would have it, I get a full 20 minutes. I think colleagues may regret allowing me to have the floor for the full 20 minutes as I do have a lot to say on the motion at hand. I think it is a happy coincidence and convergence that today's debate is what we call an opposition day or supply day debate. If we look at the chyron on the screen right now it says “Business of Supply”, which is somewhat of an antiquated way of speaking. I believe most Canadians probably do not understand what supply may mean in the context of Parliament, but it means money. It means granting the government the ability to spend money. In our Canadian parliamentary context, each opposition party has the opportunity to raise debates during the business of supply through opposition day motions before we, in December, grant the government the cold, hard cash. Before December 10 we have the opportunity to debate things. It is like the airing of grievances. We, as opposition parties, get the chance to air our grievances in this House. Why I say this is a happy convergence and coincidence is that the ancient roots of the business of supply rest with the monarchy, so here today we have a fun coincidence where we can talk about the cold, hard cash, about the business of supply and also about the monarchical roots of this process. I would like to draw the attention of the House to the concept of grievance before supply and its ancient roots. I will quote from the late eminent scholar C.E.S. (Ned) Franks, formerly of Queen's University in Kingston, who wrote, “Parliament demanded and obtained the right to set its own agenda and it placed the expressions of grievance before the King's business. Only in this way could the Commons be assured of a sympathetic and attentive ear. Grievance before supply became one of the key principles of parliamentary government. The Commons also insisted that it could discuss the King's business as long as, and in such a manner as, it wished. From this comes the principle the House is alone responsible for its own proceedings and its own rules and procedures. These are not the King's business, but the Commons'.” When it comes to the question of supply and the questions we ought to speak of, here we are debating the monarchy. I am very proud to be part of an opposition party with a leader who believes in putting the people first, their families, their homes, their paycheques, their country. I want to read the preamble to the motion before us. It states, “(i) Canada is a democratic state”. That is correct. It goes on to state, “(ii) this House believes in the principle of equality for all”. That is agreed. Let us talk about economic equality and where we are right now in this country where families are struggling to make ends meet and finding it challenging to put food on the table. I received an email from a senior citizen from near Arthur, Ontario, which of course is Canada's most patriotic village. She wrote that balancing a budget was incredibly difficult before COVID, but now it is beyond her. Speaking for herself, she said that basic essential groceries absorb at least half of her income. Here we are debating the monarchy, something the Bloc knows full well will not change, is unable to change, based on our constitutional system. That is the issue that it sees fit to debate, not the families in Perth—Wellington, not the families who are struggling right now across the country, not the families who each and every day are sitting down at the kitchen table, often late at night or early in the morning, going through their numbers and wondering how they are going to make ends meet. People are wondering how they are going to make sure that the end of the month does not come before they have enough of their paycheque left to pay those final bills. I want to talk very briefly about Perth—Wellington. Perth—Wellington is one of the great agricultural places in the country. We are very proud of our agricultural heritage. One of the things we could be talking about right now is the impact the Liberal government is having on Canadian farm families and on the challenges that are facing them, one of which is the carbon tax, which is driving up the cost on Canadian farmers. This is Business of Supply, and this is an opposition day motion that is just ripe for the taking. We could be talking about how farm families in Perth—Wellington or in any of the Quebec ridings are being impacted by the government's mishandling of the carbon tax or the government's mishandling of the tariff issue on fertilizer. No one in the House would disagree that we need to take strong action against Vladimir Putin and his thugs, but when the government slapped a tariff on fertilizer which was purchased before March 2, it impacted no one except Canadian farmers. An individual came into my Harriston office recently and gave me a copy of his bill from one of the local farm supply stores. The impact alone on fertilizer purchased prior to March 2 for a relatively small amount was $1,376.20. That is $1,300 that has been taken out of our rural economy for no good purpose, no benefit whatsoever and no impact on the Russian regime, yet it has been taken out of the local economy. If we are looking at what could be discussed in an opposition day motion when we are talking about the Business of Supply, I think that colleagues in our party and most parties would choose the impact of the housing crisis. The housing crisis is preventing young families from moving into their first home and young university graduates from moving out of their parents' basement. Families are looking for a place to rent. The rental housing crisis is a challenge, and people can no longer afford to actually buy a house. I have an email from a local councillor in the town of St. Marys. She wrote that there are little to no options. In her small town, she knows of families with four kids that are in jeopardy of being homeless, and also a single dad with children, and young adults that cannot move away from their parents' home, because there is simply nothing available to rent. She said that some families are being displaced, because the owners of homes they now rent want to sell them for profit in a hot market. These are the issues that are impacting Canadians. These are the issues that are impacting us every single day. These are the issues that we hear of in our ridings across the country, yet we are debating this issue for political and partisan means rather than focusing on a number of the issues that matter. There are issues such as the cost of Internet and the availability of rural broadband. I see my friend from Dauphin—Swan River—Neepawa is in the House today, and one of his challenges now as our shadow minister for rural economic development and connectivity is the fact that across Canada, there are massive amounts of our country that are in dead zones and do not have access to reliable high-speed Internet. Even in my area of rural southern Ontario, which is not that far in the grand scheme of things from places like London, Kitchener and Guelph, we have massive areas of our community that cannot access rural high-speed Internet, and those who can are paying through the nose. I have heard stories of families and farm businesses having to pay tens of thousands of dollars to get fibre down a quarter-mile stretch of a concession road. These are the types of issues that resonate with Canadians. These are the types of issues that each and every day we as Canadians are hearing about and that we want to focus on. Those are the issues we were sent to this place to focus on, but again, here we are discussing this issue. There are two final issues that have been brought to my attention by my constituents which should merit discussion. One is food insecurity. I have the great benefit of having amazing organizations in my riding that go above and beyond the call of duty in ensuring that families, community members and persons living with disabilities have food on their table each and every day. I think of the Stratford House of Blessing. I think of the local community food centre. I think of the Salvation Army. All of them go above and beyond the call of duty. I get emails like this: “One critical challenge is food insecurity. The shocking reality is in Canada, one of the richest countries in the world, over 4.4 million people can't afford the food they need. In communities across Canada, one in eight households and one in six children are affected by food insecurity.” The fact of the matter is that with the rising cost of groceries and the impact inflation is having on groceries, these numbers are going to rise. These numbers are going to rise and have that impact on families, on folks in my riding and across the country. They simply can no longer afford to put food on the table. This leads me to another email I have had, about the family doctor shortage. We all know that when people are food insecure, it causes other challenges in the health care system. The fact of the matter is there are far too many Canadians living in Canada without access to a family doctor. I have received a number of emails bringing this issue to my attention and urging me to act on the health care workforce issue, specifically on the inability for families to have a primary care physician. They need an individual who can help care for their family and ensure that there are measures in place to prevent the need for urgent care in an emergency department or other matters, to prevent it from ever happening. We all know, going back to food insecurity, that when someone is food insecure, it has an impact on their overall livelihood and health. I raise these issues because that is where we are today. We are having this debate in the House, discussing the business of supply, and no debate is ever wasted when we can raise the issues that affect our constituents. It is unfortunate that in this specific example we are not specifically debating and eventually voting on food insecurity, on rural broadband, on support for families, on support for cutting the cost of living, or on support for ensuring that every Canadian has a family doctor. To the issue at hand in this debate, and I promise I will not speak at too much length, I have some thoughts on this motion, not the least of which is the error in the motion itself. The motion refers to the British monarchy, but as members will know, we pledge allegiance to the Crown in Canada. We can reflect on what is said in what we refer to as “the green book”, Bosc and Gagnon, about the oath of allegiance. Let us be clear on where this motion is coming from. This motion is coming from the Parti Québécois in Quebec. This motion is coming from the PQ, the cousins of the Bloc Québécois. I should point out that despite the efforts of the 32 Bloc Québécois MPs, they helped elect only three PQ MNAs in Quebec, so I question, frankly, the motivation there. This is all driven by the oath of allegiance that we all take when we are sworn in as parliamentarians. In Bosc and Gagnon, it says the following: When Members swear or solemnly affirm allegiance to the Sovereign, they are also swearing or solemnly affirming allegiance to the institutions the Sovereign represents, including the concept of democracy. Thus, Members are making a pledge to conduct themselves in the best interests of the country. The oath or solemn affirmation reminds Members of the serious obligations and responsibilities they are assuming. That is what we are talking about. That is what we need to be focusing on: our duties as parliamentarians and our devotion to our country, our commitment to our country. That is what the oath of allegiance is talking about. That is what the oath of allegiance is focusing on. It is not focusing on the British monarchy. It is focusing on our duties as parliamentarians. Frankly, I find it somewhat troubling when parliamentarians from a certain party keep referring to the British monarchy. In fact, if we go as far back as 1947, in a classic Corry and Hodgetts text, they wrote: The British Government and Parliament no longer have any control over its members. The Dominions are autonomous and independent. They are bound to Britain and to one another only by the invisible ties of a common tradition.... We do have a common tradition with our British counterparts, but we also have a common tradition with the first French monarch of 1534, when what is now considered Canada was in fact a French royal province, so we do have a history that is reflected in this place and in this concept. I want to focus once again on the concept of the Crown in right of Canada, a distinct and separate entity from the British monarchy, and I would quote from Philippe Lagassé and James Bowden, who talk about the Canadian Crown as a corporation sole: However antiquated or abstract it may appear, it remains that the Crown is the concept of the state in Canada, and that the state is a legal person known as Her Majesty in Right of Canada by virtue of the Crown's status as a non-statutory corporation sole. Claims that the laws governing this Canadian corporation fall under the authority of the British Parliament, or that the legal personality of the Canadian state is still the same as the legal personality of the British state, undermine the independence and sovereignty that Canada began to enjoy after 1926 and could fully claim after 1982. There we have it. The Canadian Crown, His Majesty in right of Canada, is a separate and distinct legal entity from that of the British monarchy. In fact, if we want to have a more lengthy conversation on where we go as a Parliament and where other Commonwealth countries may go, we will find that it is indeed possible that other countries, including the United Kingdom itself, could do away with their monarchy, but Canada itself, as a distinct corporation sole, the monarchy of Canada, the Crown of Canada as a corporation sole, is a separate and independent institution beyond that of the British monarchy. My friend from Chatham-Kent—Leamington earlier referenced some of the benefits and some of the added specificity of the Canadian Commonwealth tradition and the parliamentary democracy we have here in Canada, and one of the great scholars, Walter Bagehot, talked about the beauty of a constitutional monarchy. He talked about how it worked and how it has benefited not only the United Kingdom, but in our case our tradition. Bagehot talked about both the efficient and the dignified parts. The dignified parts are the monarchy, the Crown and the august nature of that part. The efficient part is that of the cabinet. We may from time to time debate how efficient a particular cabinet or a particular government may be, but the important part is recognizing the distinction between the two. The benefit of a constitutional monarchy is that the embodiment of the Crown and head of state does not rest with the partisan deliberations of the day-to-day political struggles of the House of Commons or of other legislatures. That is the benefit: dividing the efficient and the dignified parts and thus allowing us to have a head of state, represented in Canada by Her Excellency the Governor General, but also a separate and distinct efficient part that focuses on the day-to-day running. I know for a fact that other countries where those two are merged, where the head of state and the head of government are one and the same, are not ones we would like to emulate. As my time is running out, I want to make one final point. Parliament consists of three parts. We often think of Parliament as two houses, which is correct, but it is three parts. It is the House of Commons; it is the Senate, and it is the Crown. Those are the three parts of Parliament, and those are the three processes through which bills become law: through first reading, second reading and third reading in both houses, and finally through royal assent. Those three elements were combined once together in the Speech from the Throne in 1957, when Her late Majesty The Queen delivered the Speech from the Throne from the Senate chamber during her visit to Canada.

2981 words

All Topics

Mr. Simon-Pierre Savard-Tremblay (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, BQ)

Oct/25/22 5:18:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are some things that my colleague said in his speech that I want to understand. That is the message that we have been hearing since this morning, that this is not a real issue and that there are so many more important issues. Let us say that I understood that criticism earlier this morning, but at this point in the day, I see it as a sign that nobody really has any real arguments against what we are saying. Also, why was this considered to be important and a real issue when the Conservative government was bragging about putting portraits of the Queen and the word “royal” everywhere?

113 words