44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:14:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will note at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.
I have been listening to my colleagues in the federalist political parties speak since this morning, except maybe our friends in the NDP, who like to make a big show of their Canadian pride by trying to protect a foreign institution at all costs. What is so typically Canadian about the British monarchy?
I hear the Conservatives and Liberals telling us how proud they are of Canada, telling us that it is the best and most beautiful country in the world, and telling us that they want to protect British institutions like the British monarchy. They keep saying that this debate is not important, that no one in their respective ridings wants to talk about the monarchy.
What is the point, then, of spending $67 million a year on an institution that no one in their ridings cares about? That is the real question.
If the monarchy is not important to their constituents, why take that money from them every year and spend it on that, when the $67 million could be spent on essential government services like housing or EI supports, for example? Why continue this wasteful public spending for the benefit of a privileged few?
Some citizens of this country that our colleagues are so proud of will never have the opportunity to go to Rideau Hall to have cake with Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada. They are struggling every day to cover the cost of inflation.
We are talking about the very heart of our democratic institutions, which are founded on the equality of citizens and the rule of law, not the bloodline of a handful of people who, simply by birth, would have the right to rule an entire country.
The monarchy goes against so many principles at the heart of our institutions, from, as I was just saying, the equality of citizens, to sovereignty of the people, to democracy, which is the corollary, and the separation of church and state.
We are told what people in this country think about this. According to a poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute in April, 71% of Quebeckers are against maintaining the monarchy and want it to disappear from Canada. A majority of my colleagues' constituents, 51%, want the monarchy to be abolished.
The poll also indicates that there is not a single province in Canada where the percentage of people who want to maintain the monarchy is greater than the percentage of those who want us to get rid of it.
Those members who say that their constituents do not talk about this should take note of it. My colleagues must take note of what people think, and the majority of their constituents believe that we should abolish this useless institution.
Another poll conducted in June by Leger indicates that 56% of Canadians oppose the oath of allegiance. In Quebec, that number is as high as 75%. Australia, whose head of state is still His Majesty the King, decided to do away with the oath of allegiance. Why does Canada not do the same?
I would like to share with my colleagues a few words I spoke when I swore the oath for the very first time, in 2005, as a member of the National Assembly of Quebec. I referred to the oaths I had sworn here, in the House of Commons, and said:
Previously, I swore oaths in a very private manner, and in complete anonymity. I never invited anyone to attend, not even my closest colleagues, not even my spouse.... I did so, as they say back home, “on the sly”.
I did not see any reason to celebrate. For me, the swearing-in was just a formality, something I had to do to be able to fulfill my responsibilities. In fact, I found this ritual very difficult because my common sense and my conscience were engaged in a bitter struggle. As I was swearing the oath, I was thinking of our Canadian ancestors who, under British rule, were forced to swear the oath of allegiance to be able to serve in public office. I was thinking of my Acadian ancestors who were stripped of their property and deported in wretched conditions under the false pretext that they supposedly refused to swear unconditional allegiance to prove that they were British subjects, a totally futile endeavour. I was overcome by a deep sense of helplessness and shame at the idea of betraying their memory in that way by performing this official act that was the source of such misfortune for them.
I am once again hearing our colleagues bragging about how proud they are to be Canadian. The parliamentary secretary even said that the Bloc Québécois initiated this debate because it wants to break up this beautiful country. However, some quintessential federalists share our position, not the least of which is John Manley. John Manley, who served as deputy prime minister and minister of finance under Jean Chrétien, made some statements that I would like to share.
I do believe when most people think about it and realize our head of state is foreign when she travels she doesn't represent Canada, she represents Great Britain. I think they kind of realize this is really an institution that is a bit out of date for Canada to continue with.
He went on to say that Prince Charles should not be allowed to become the country's king:
Having the oldest son inherit the responsibility of being head of state, that's just not something in the 21st century we ought to be entertaining. That's why it ought to be a person who is Canadian, who reflects Canadian diversity, and who is chosen by Canadians.
He also said this:
Personally, I would prefer an institution after Queen Elizabeth that is just Canadian. It might be as simple as continuing with just the Governor General as the head of state in Canada. But I don't think it's necessary for Canada to continue with the monarchy.
Here, we are not talking about an evil separatist and someone with ties to the Bloc Québécois, we are talking about a Liberal minister. We are not talking about a junior minister, we are talking about the former deputy prime minister and minister of finance under the Jean Chrétien government.
The Young Liberals, who cannot be suspected of being sovereignist supporters, even tabled a motion in 2012—not in 2002, as was the case in the John Manley era—at the Liberal Party convention to abolish the monarchy in Canada.
We can see that this has absolutely nothing to do with being a sovereignist or not, since the majority of my colleagues' constituents across Canada are also opposed to the monarchy.
When they say that their constituents never talk about the topic, I think that this in fact speaks volumes about the $67 million a year we spend on this institution rather than investing it in social housing, for example. There could be 670 new social housing units built each year if that money were invested in social housing rather than in maintaining Rideau Hall and the person who resides there at our expense.
I am not going to mention all the lavish spending that has been reported in the media for far too long in relation to the governors general of Canada and the lieutenant governors throughout the provinces. I will spare the House from having to listen to the list of all such people.
We have been told repeatedly that monarchy provides stability to Canadian democracy, so I will simply conclude my remarks by respectfully reminding the House that many, many democracies in the rest of the world are not monarchies but are nevertheless very stable and work very well.
1339 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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
