44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/25/22 10:27:36 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to pick up on the point the Bloc leader referenced. Here we are getting through a pandemic and serious inflation-related issues, which the government is attempting to address on a daily basis through a multitude of different budgetary measures and legislation. There are so many things on the minds of Canadians, whether it is our seniors, our health care system or having a job. The separatist party here in the House of Commons wants to focus on constitutional change.
Does the member really believe, given the priorities I just emphasized, that now is really the time to open up the Constitution? Does he believe Canadians want the constitutional debate to occur today?
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:32:29 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Beloeil—Chambly for proposing this topic for debate in the House today. However, what he is suggesting is just half a proposal, merely seeking to abolish our constitutional monarchy. Does he have any alternatives to propose?
We currently have a head of state, who is the monarch. We have a head of government, who is the Prime Minister. Does the Bloc Québécois believe that the Prime Minister should be promoted and also serve as head of state?
The vast majority of Canadians have no problem with our existing constitutional monarchy. Things are totally different in Europe. In France, the system recognizes an elected president as head of state. In the United States, the head of state and the head of government are the same man, and I say “man” because, unfortunately, this has always been the case.
What does the Bloc Québécois propose?
161 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:52:37 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there is a thread between what I have been saying throughout this speech and the motion being presented today, as well as in line with the questions from the last intervention.
Each of those questions talked about the legitimacy of a motion like this while the country has strong and very persistent problems. It takes up the time of the House, so it is absolutely critical that we look at the question of the day and wonder why the Bloc would bring the motion today. It is absolutely fair to do that.
It is also fair to talk about our more important issues. As I said, those more important issues relate to what is on the minds of Canadians. Yes, democracy is on their minds. Yes, constitutional monarchy may be a topic brought up once a year.
Fundamentally, people are worried about the cost of living. They are worried about peace in our world. They are worried about affordable housing. They are worried about issues such as ensuring we have good dental care. They want us to address the issue of climate change. Those are the kinds of things they want us to do.
The thread that draws it back to the question is that we have the privilege of doing that because we have a bedrock, fundamental constitutional monarchy that gives us the freedom to be in this place. It gives us the freedom to have this discussion. It gives us the freedom to have a government that is elected. A minority government needs to listen and it needs to be aware of the demands of all parties in the House in an attempt to devise an agenda that will meet the needs of Canadians. We do that because we have a dependable, fundamental, rock-solid constitutional monarchy.
We have confidence in the Crown, which is able to represent something well beyond us. It gets us out of the everyday discussions we have and puts us above politics to the things that matter the most in our society. We are able to do that because we have democratic institutions that we have fought to have for decades. For a century and a half, people have fought to keep this democracy alive and well.
Fundamentally, we gather today as people of privilege. We gather today honouring a past and building toward a future. That future is absolutely dependent upon people having the things they need to live their lives, like affordable housing and a climate that is not racking disaster on their neighbourhoods and communities. We need to ensure that we address the issue of climate change.
We absolutely need to do this and this government will continue to do that because we are bent on delivering for Canadians and Quebeckers. We know what is also on the minds of Quebeckers. We know that they are concerned about the cost of living. We know that Quebeckers are concerned about housing prices. We know that Quebeckers are concerned about climate change. Canadians and Quebeckers share those absolute fundamental goals and desires in society. That is why we address them everyday, and we do that in this place because we have a system of government that Canadians trust. Canadians trust our ability to gather here and do our work with the freedom, grace and dignity they give us.
We know that the economy and fighting climate change go hand in hand, and that is why the government continues to support green innovation in Canada and projects that create—
589 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:57:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will argue again that absolutely everything I have said is relevant to this motion, because we have a constitutional monarchy. We have had a constitutional monarchy in the past; I think for as long as I live we will have a constitutional monarchy, and I am glad for that.
Canada has a system of government that works for Canadians. It works to develop the appropriate responses, and it does not get sidetracked on issues that should not take all of our attention. The issues that should take our attention are issues of cost of living, of affordable housing, of human rights and of peace in our world. Those are the kinds of things we can discuss here because we have a constitutional monarchy. They are directly related. They are absolutely embedded in each other, and we will continue to do that.
Canadians will have trust in us when they do not think we are playing games in this place. They will have trust in us when they think we absolutely value what they value and care about what they care about. I will continue to defend that with every member of this House who wants to be part of that very important process.
206 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:01:08 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the fundamental basis of my speech was to ensure that we bring this House back to the matters that Canadians are concerned about. We will disagree on how to solve those problems. We will disagree on whether or not we should have certain taxes or not certain taxes, certain programs or not certain programs, but I do not doubt that anyone in this House is concerned about those.
We go back to our ridings every weekend and hear the stories. We hear people's worries and concerns, and our job is to bring them back to the House today. Not a single resident of Don Valley West has raised the issue of the constitutional monarchy to me. I will be very willing to talk to them if they do, and I will be happy to raise the issue in the House, but right now, that is not what they are talking about. They are talking about bread-and-butter issues. They are also talking about world peace, about Canada's role in the world and about human rights, but not about that issue.
185 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:06:05 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to raise an issue that the hon. member made reference to, in terms of how he has not had any constituents raising the issue of the Crown with him.
In my 10-plus years as a parliamentarian, I cannot recall one incident when someone came to talk to me about our getting rid of the Crown. I just cannot recall any of that nature. When we talk about the constitutional changes, again, I have not had anyone approach me, not that I can recall offhand.
Given that as a background and the context of the communities that are having so many challenges, such as the pandemic, inflation and dealing with issues such as seniors, health care, long-term care and mental health, I am wondering if my colleague and friend can provide his thoughts with regard to why we are debating this today.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:52:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member has put interesting comments on the record today. I suspect this is just about putting them on the record, unless the member is prepared to indicate that at the end of the day, Senate reform and changing our system of head of state require a constitutional change.
Does the member believe the NDP would like to have a constitutional debate imposed upon Canadians and parliamentarians at all levels? Is this what she believes we should be focusing our attention on? I do not.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:54:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Churchill—Keewatinook Aski for bringing some important commentary to today's conversation.
I wonder, as other members have reflected, if the member would like to share more comments on the constitutional implications of how the motion before us would move forward if passed in this place.
54 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:13:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am from Manitoba, yet I am a Canadian. People are from all sorts of provinces and territories, but we can see that there is a high sense of pride in being a Canadian. That is probably the best way. We have a system that is in place, and I am not hearing arguments that we should switch this to X or Y. At this point in the game, I do not want to open up the constitutional debate. I do not think Canadians want that. I think we need to get through this period of difficulty, and hopefully, in the future, who knows what might happen?
109 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 3:42:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He is a good friend, and I find that he always has relevant things to say. I completely agree that we should not block the motion by saying that it is not an important issue. We can indeed chew gum and walk at the same time.
For me, this is a constitutional issue, which makes it very complicated. Even if I agree that we should be asking ourselves some questions about the future of the monarchy and even if the member suggested we hold a national debate on this, I would note that the constitutional process is a very arduous one.
The motion mentions taking necessary actions. How does the member see this process unfolding? Does he believe we should engage in a constitutional process that would involve the federal government and all of the provinces?
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:03:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, today, I will be sharing my time with the member for Hochelaga.
I want to start off today's discussion by reflecting on exactly what we are doing here today. Those who are watching, perhaps who do not tune in regularly and may have happened across the channel today displaying the parliamentary proceedings, might wonder what is going on.
In a calendar year, based on the composition of the House of Commons, the Bloc Québécois gets three sitting days of the House to bring forward issues that are important to the individuals and communities it represents. Today is one of those days, and today is not unique, unfortunately. This is not the first time the Bloc Québécois has done something like this. Today, it has decided to bring forward a motion that we somehow start this constitutional process of removing the monarch from the framework that sets up our parliamentary democratic system. However, the Bloc did something very similar with respect to being completely out in left field just last spring when it brought forward a motion to remove the 15-second prayer at the beginning of the proceedings every day in the House of Commons
I mention this not because I do not think these two issues might be important to Bloc members, but I bring these up because I wonder how, when the Bloc Québécois gets three days in a calendar year to bring issues forward, it uses two of those days to talk about the 15-second prayer we have at the beginning of the day and this motion about the monarchy and the current framework of our parliamentary system. This is important to Bloc members, but I cannot believe for one second that it is the most important thing about which their constituents care.
I have been the member of Parliament for Kingston and the Islands for seven years, and I have never once had somebody come up to me and tell me that I need to do something about the state of our democratic institution, that the head of state needs to be removed. It has never happened, but maybe it is a Quebec thing, and that is fine.
My wife and I, and our kids spend a lot of time an hour north of here in Lac-Sainte-Marie, Quebec. I got to know a lot of the locals around there. After a bit of time of interacting with them and some of them finding out I am a member of Parliament, they quite often bring up issues with me. To be fair, they are not always complimentary of the government. They bring up things that the government is up to and they ask me questions about them, but never once have they brought up the issue of the head of state.
The Bloc Québécois members will come in here and trumpet on about how it is important that they are able to represent their constituents and whatnot, but they are not representing their constituents. This is a personal and political agenda of the Bloc Québécois. That is why we are doing this today. We are not doing it because they want to represent their constituents and they feel it is very important for them. They are doing it because they feel it is important for their political agenda. For that, the Bloc Québécois members should be absolutely ashamed of themselves. They have wasted two supply days allotted to them in any given year to talk about absolutely irrelevant issues as they relate to what is on the minds of Canadians and Quebeckers.
I am not saying people do not have opinions on the head of state or how our parliamentary system and our government should function. All I am saying is that there is no way those members can tell me this is even among the top 20 issues. We just came out of a global pandemic.
I criticize the Bloc members quite a bit for the issue around health care transfers and how they always bring it up, but at least it is an issue that has substance to it with respect to what the Quebec provincial government would like to see. However, I cannot accept the idea that somehow this particular issue is one of the priorities of the constituencies represented by Bloc members.
Let us just say that Bloc members are fully doing their responsibility to represent those people. I cannot help but ask myself, if they were successful in this, and let us say we could instantaneously, without all the constitutional nightmare around it, be rid of the monarchy, how would this change the lives of Canadians tomorrow morning? How would their lives be any different than they are right now today?
Our head of state does not have supreme power. Our head of state, by and large, is a symbolic figure who is there to help guide the manner in which our parliamentary democracy, and our democracy generally speaking, works in our country. The lives of Canadians and Quebeckers, for that matter, would not be different tomorrow morning if the head of state were suddenly not there.
I am asking myself why. I cannot help but continue to go back to the same thing. This is not about the constituencies that the Bloc represent. This is about a political wedge issue. It is using one of its three supply days as an opportunity to drive a political wedge in constituencies in Quebec. It should be ashamed because it had an opportunity to actually come here and bring forward ideas, hold government to account, set up and initiate policy that could genuinely improve the lives of Canadians.
We heard something quite astounding earlier today in question period. It actually happened twice today. The time that really resonated with people was when the leader of the Bloc Québécois rose in the House and said that he did not mean it. He was, I guess, crossing his fingers. His fingers were crossed behind his back when he swore allegiance to Her Majesty when he was elected.
Can members imagine if this were a court of law. He would literally have been committing perjury. He would have perjured himself. That happened earlier as well. The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert earlier said the exact same thing. His words were even more egregious.
If members of the Bloc Québécois have now finally come to a position where they are willing to admit that they did not mean it, why do the rest of the members not stand up to say the same thing? Did they mean it when they swore allegiance, or were they just pretending too? I would love to hear some of the other members, when they get up to ask me a question, to let me know if they meant it or if they were crossing their fingers too. What a system we live in where it is so expedient for their leader to just get up and say that as though he suddenly can now wipe his hands clean of the responsibilities that he swore allegiance to not even one year ago.
It goes without saying, but I certainly will not be voting in favour of this. I think that the Bloc Québécois has done an extreme disservice to the constituents it represents to try to politicize an issue that might play well in Quebec, but it does not anywhere else. I realize that it is only focused on Quebec.
I get that it might play well there, but I think the fact that the Bloc Québécois has three days in a year to bring forward very important issues should not be lost on anybody. Rather than bringing forward an important issue, it has used this as an opportunity for political advantage for its own party, which should single out to the constituencies it represents how it actually feels about representing them.
1366 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
