44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/25/22 10:09:32 a.m.
- Watch
moved:
That, given that,
(i) Canada is a democratic state,
(ii) this House believes in the principle of equality for all,
the House express its desire to sever ties between the Canadian State and the British monarchy, and call on the government to take the actions necessary to do so.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I must admit, reluctantly, that I am disappointed. I hope no one informs Charles III that his subjects are so slow to rally because he would be disappointed. One would have thought that there would be a massive assembly of MPs primed to protect the British monarchy. I get the feeling that the Bloc members are more passionate about it.
Parliament is a democratic institution. In principle, this means that it is the citizens of Quebec and Canada who, through their elected representatives, one riding at a time, make the decisions. The voters choose who is elected. Then again, it is hard to believe that the voters chose His Majesty King Charles III. Still, even though the monarchy is the very pinnacle of power in the structure of Canada's Constitution, we are being told that it is no big deal, it is not the most important issue, it is not a priority and we could be doing other things.
Just a few minutes ago, I was telling the media that I can breathe, talk and hold my phone at the same time. I can even stand on one leg if I have to. I can do everything at the same time. We are capable of discussing several subjects. There are parliamentary committees that will be sitting this week to discuss a whole bunch of subjects at the same time. We can debate the most and the least important. I would like to show that today’s topic is important.
Parliament is required to decide everything, namely budgets, laws and positions, which are often just principles. The motions we vote on after question period, on unanimous consent, are merely statements of principle. The best evidence of this is that, when the House gives the government a directive, the government usually disregards it. Perhaps the principles we state as principles already have an intrinsic value.
There is also the whole question of international relations and perception. There must be people all around the world who are looking at us and wondering what is happening because Canada is supposed to be a modern state. However, its leader is a foreign king, and a conqueror at that. This already presages something deeply serious.
They say that the monarchy is symbolic. A $70-million a year symbol, that is not bad. That is quite a symbol. We need to take into account the allocation of these $70 million a year, which, in general, go to lemons and airplane tickets; the monarchy is not on its last lemon. That is a lot of money. There is the distribution of all that in the provinces and Quebec, but we are told that that does not matter.
The constitutionalists have at least finished third grade. They are extremely intelligent people who have been debating since the Parti Québécois opened the debate in Quebec on the oath of allegiance. They debate what is necessary and what is not, what is important and what is not, and how to do it or not to do it. I think that these people do not have time to waste. It is because they think that what they are doing is important.
What could we do with $70 million? Seniors between the ages of 65 and 75, whom the government stubbornly refuses to help, could use $70 million. People with social housing challenges could use it, too. We realize that the government’s housing measures will help pretty much everybody, but far less in Quebec, because it had already taken action. I have colleagues who would like to hear that we were getting $70 million. For the transition to green energy, $70 million would go a long way. Forestry, fishing, the restoration of ports in eastern Quebec transferred from the federal government to Quebec, all need far more than $70 million. Can we spend the money there? No, but we are pleased to make arrangements for the royal family to visit western Canada on the taxpayer’s dime.
We are being told we would have to reopen the Constitution. My God, having to reopen the Constitution to change this. That means it must be really important. In general, when we say the word “Constitution”, especially with a French accent, English Canada goes into a panic. It must be a very important issue, I cannot think otherwise.
We need the unanimous consent of the provinces, the Senate and Parliament. That is how important it is. When someone puts 14 locks on their shed, it is because they really like their lawnmower. They are terrified of reopening the Constitution because, in my opinion, no one is comfortable with what is in there. It must be because it is important to keep it just the way it is. They are afraid that reopening the Constitution will lead to Alberta claiming independence or indigenous peoples claiming real rights. For now, we are protecting the British Crown at the expense of our first nations. That must be important.
According to the polls, neither Quebeckers nor Canadians want a monarchy. It is not a question of votes. In general, people do not wake up at night—although I know two or three who do—to say that we need to get rid of the monarchy. However, if they are asked, they will say that it is over, that it is a thing of the past, that we need to get rid of it, that it is expensive and that we do not need it. As the magnificent Yvon Deschamps would say, “The monarchy, what is the point?” The people want us to get rid of it. That has to be important.
It is the people’s preference. That means that this idea that, on some level, defines who we are, who Canadians and Quebeckers are—and please do not confuse the two—must be something fundamental. It is especially fundamental for Quebeckers because, for Quebeckers and for all those of French descent or who adopted the identity, to varying degrees, of French ancestry, the King of England is the king of the conquering empire.
They tell us that that was in 1760, and that we should stop talking about the conquest. They tell us that the Patriotes rebellion was in 1837-38, and that we should stop talking about the Patriotes. However, if we are swearing an oath today to the King of England, it is because we are still a conquered people, who had to swear an oath to the then king of the conquering British Empire, an empire that was incredibly racist and engaged in slavery. That is not trivial. Can we start adding the word “important” to the sentence?
I feel like asking what they are afraid of when it comes to reopening the Constitution, but I think I have already answered that question: No one can identify with Pierre Trudeau’s Constitution.
There are 338 ridings in Canada and, when we add more, it will be to the detriment of Quebec. There are approximately 100,000 people in each riding and around 60,000 to 70,000 electors, so if not everyone votes, only 50,000 or so voters per riding vote in elections. They never choose a king. They always choose a member of Parliament and, as a result, the leader of the country. They never voted for a king. I do not know anyone who said they voted for Charles, for example. I have not seen that happen, and yet, at the top of Canada’s food chain, there is the Crown. That must be important.
Are not the tens of thousands of people in every riding more important than an expensive, frivolous monarchy? Are they not more important than a foreign king who knows nothing about us—I am not sure that he would pass the test immigrants have to take in Canada, not to mention Quebec—and who is a descendant of the king who crushed us with his cannon balls and muskets? That must be important.
The Prime Minister says that the state is democratic and secular, and he is protecting a king who is the head of a Church. That must be important for the Prime Minister.
It is important, but it is unjustified. It is obsolete, not to say archaic, reactionary, paleontological, backward and humiliating. It will anger some people that I call the monarchy backward. The people who are angry prove that I am right. It makes no sense. We need to get out from under it because it is important.
There are more important things. To name them one at a time, it is true that it is more important to go to the Supreme Court to fight Quebec's secular values. It is true that it is much more important to go to the Supreme Court to fight Quebec's efforts to strengthen the promotion of French. It is true that it is much more important to open new maritime territories to oil drilling when we know that the North Atlantic right whale is endangered. It is true that it is much more important to hand out contracts to Liberal friends for Roxham Road. It is true that it is much more important to meddle in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions, especially when it comes to health transfers.
If I am wrong and it is not important, why do we not get out from under it quickly, easily and light-heartedly and move on enthusiastically to something else?
The Liberal Party's Quebec lieutenant worked himself up to such a fever pitch that he now has a sore throat. Neither he nor the Prime Minister have answered any of the basic questions. Canadians and Quebeckers nevertheless have the right to know whether, when the Prime Minister and his Quebec lieutenant swore the oath, they swore it to a foreign king, a conqueror, a spoiled, ridiculous man. I have had a good life, but no one has ever ironed my shoelaces. With great discipline, not only did I learn how to tie them, but I also learned to put toothpaste on my toothbrush. It took a while, but I succeeded.
Canadians, Quebeckers and Quebec voters in the case of the lieutenant and the admiral, have the right to know whether they swore the oath to the British Crown or the Canadian people.
The monarchy is not important. However, is an oath important? Swearing loyalty and allegiance is a serious matter. What is there more important than a solemn oath of allegiance? Let us say it is not important. Does that mean that the commitments these people make to their voters are not important? Does it mean that they can frivolously ignore their commitment to their voters, like they frivolously ignore their commitment to the sovereign? Is it not important? It seems important to me.
On the other hand, the Bloc Québécois says that an oath given under duress is meaningless. If it does not come from the heart, it has no value. The Bloc's members swear an oath under duress in order to be able to enter Canada's Parliament to expose to Canada what, in many ways, is a lack of respect for Quebec, for the French language, and for the values of secularism and equality, the hypocrisy of a system created to drown us slowly in institutions where our space and our weight is almost inexorably dwindling.
That is no small matter. We come here to speak out against the fact that the government is not doing anything about environmental issues, despite the threat looming over the entire planet. We are here to speak out against the fact that the government's ultimate allegiance is perhaps to the lobbies.
Spoiler alert: The Bloc Québécois is not sincere in swearing allegiance to the Queen. However, the Bloc Québécois is irrevocably sincere, heart and soul, in its pledge and commitment to Quebeckers, and to the Quebec nation alone. If the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP are not sincere, then their constituents have the right to know. For our part, we are stating that we no longer want to be subjects of the empire that conquered us, because we live in a democracy. A foreign king and religious leader: That is as important as it is unacceptable.
We invite members to free themselves and us from the monarchy; otherwise, we will show Quebeckers who we are and who they are. I invite all members to think carefully about this before praying for the English King tomorrow, just a few hours before voting on the Bloc Québécois's motion.
This motion is a test of the sincerity of this solemn oath. It is a test of loyalty to our citizens and constituents. It shows that an oath to a foreign monarch and religious leader takes precedence over a pledge to members' constituents. There is no question that the Bloc Québécois is at the service of Quebeckers and only Quebeckers.
2261 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:29:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not understand why the leader of the Bloc decided to introduce this motion here today. Quebeckers are concerned with other, more important problems, such as the cost of gas, food and heating, and immigration at Roxham Road.
Does the leader of the Bloc believe that the matter he is raising is more important than inflation and immigration at Roxham Road?
64 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:33:53 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we would gladly take part in a discussion of this nature at any time.
I would immediately rule out giving any more powers to the current Prime Minister. A little trouble is fine, but to ask for more would be madness. Furthermore, some degree of independence is needed, and I think that is feasible.
As members know, one nation, or better still, two nations, that have the technological capacity to go into space should be able to come up with an alternative to a king who has no idea who we are as a people. This could be the subject of some discussion.
If it were up to me, Canada and Quebec would each have their own constitution. Quebec could then start thinking about one that is uniquely Québécois, one that Quebeckers can identify with, and I sincerely hope this happens, but one never knows.
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:08:27 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Mégantic—L'Érable.
The subject today on opposition day is the motion moved by the Bloc Québécois. Is the issue raised in the motion relevant?
I could say yes, the same way Canada's intervention in support of Ukraine is relevant, or the treatment of the Uighurs by the Chinese Communist regime is relevant. There is no shortage of important topics in the House of Commons. Everyone has their own opinion on various topics, and the relationship with the monarchy is no different.
The real question is, is it essential that this issue be debated at a time when Quebeckers are more concerned about the impact of inflation on their lives?
Inflation and interest rates keep going up and up, even though the Prime Minister and the Governor of the Bank of Canada said not so long ago that there was no need to worry. I wonder how many people and young families decided to buy a house or a new car because interest rates were really low and they had been reassured by their Prime Minister, who was spending taxpayer money recklessly while saying that it was the right time to do it, that interest rates were low and would remain low for a long time. This was an extremely dangerous attitude that is now being confirmed as a disaster.
Let me get back to the Bloc Québécois.
What are the Bloc members doing today? They want to talk about the monarchy and changing the Constitution that has governed the country for over 150 years. The Bloc used to be the farm team for the Parti Québécois, but it has found a new vocation as the Parti Québécois's big brother. After throwing themselves wholeheartedly into the last Quebec election, the Bloc troops returned to Ottawa disappointed, having only succeeded in getting three Parti Québécois candidates elected. The leader of the Bloc threw his full political weight behind his separatist friends, but the result was very disappointing. That too was a disaster. In a sign of the times, Quebec chose a government that is prioritizing the economy and growth, rather than division.
Quite simply, the Bloc claims to speak for Quebec's National Assembly. In the recent election campaign, the Bloc went up against the Coalition Avenir Québec, the party now forming government. Now, the Bloc members are claiming to be the political arm of the National Assembly, whereas in truth, they represent three members of the third or fourth opposition party, which does not even have official status. They do not represent the CAQ government. Is there anyone left who believes in the Bloc Québécois's strategy?
When a party is searching for a purpose, a reason to exist, what could be better than talking about the Canadian Constitution?
If we pay attention, we see that the Bloc Québécois is proposing that we sever ties with the monarchy. However, what are they proposing instead? Are they suggesting that we swear allegiance to a president of the republic of Canada? In that case, the Bloc's next motion would be about severing ties with the republic.
As we can see, the Bloc Québécois is searching for a purpose. The Bloc members are looking for an excuse to justify their presence in the House, which they call a foreign parliament.
An hon. member: That is true.
Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus: Madam Speaker, one of my Bloc colleagues just said that it is true. He considers himself to be in a foreign parliament. That is the background for our speeches. I am not making it up. This form of belligerent rhetoric is the Bloc Québécois's standard discourse.
The fact remains that today's motion is part of a long tradition of political spinning by the Bloc. The Bloc members get up in the morning and wonder what could get people talking today, what would make a good headline. They find an issue they can spin in a way that will make the news and be fun for them. They try to figure out how they can make the federal parties look bad, meaning the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP.
As I always say, the easiest job in Ottawa is being the leader of the Bloc Québécois. They just have to spin issues and will never have to shape the country's destiny. Today, the Bloc Québécois chose to spin an issue so as to help their Parti Québécois friends in the National Assembly.
My priority is to influence the Liberal government so it looks after Quebeckers' future properly. The current economic situation and the imminent recession require that federal elected representatives who believe in economic success from coast to coast work together for that common goal.
The rhetoric from the leader of the Bloc Québécois is not going to impress anyone whose mortgage is getting so big that the only option is to give the keys to the bank.
No one is interested in that rhetoric when groceries cost 11.4% more, when families have to cut back on their meals and when food banks are struggling to meet demand. To use a very Québécois expression, we wonder, “What planet are they living on?”
Did the people who voted for the Bloc expect their members of Parliament to be this disconnected? In the last provincial election in Quebec, I expected to see several Bloc members take up the baton of sovereignty and jump into the fray. If they want a country, they need to work from Quebec City. Instead, they chose to stay on the bench and pray hard for the junior team to win. It was a wasted effort, however, as only three members of the Parti Québécois managed to get elected. The dream of a country called Quebec is just that: a dream.
As a result, they needed to find a purpose. What better way than wasting an important day in the House of Commons proposing that we create a republic of Canada so they can come back later with another motion to abolish the republic? The Bloc strategy is very easy to understand, and I have just lost 10 minutes of my time explaining it. I would have preferred to find ways to help Quebeckers pay their mortgage and put food on the table for their children.
1137 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:16:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was here during the leader of the Bloc Québécois's speech. If I am not mistaken, he said or suggested that the Canadian Constitution is some kind of irrelevant foreign beast.
However, the Constitution includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which Quebeckers use every day to defend their rights.
Does the member opposite agree that the Constitution and the charter are irrelevant to Quebeckers?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:17:30 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent question.
This is the issue with having Bloc Québécois members working as federal MPs in the federal Parliament. MPs should consider and focus on the common good in Canada, which obviously includes Quebec.
Quebec has twice decided to remain part of the Canadian federation. Our duty is therefore to ensure that Quebeckers are happy in their country. As members from the province of Quebec, we work on issues that affect Quebeckers.
However, the issue raised by the Bloc today is of no interest to the people. What the people need is a stronger, more stable economy and lower inflation. That is what is important, and that is what I am working toward.
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:18:28 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, which was in response to an earlier speech by the leader of the Bloc Québécois.
In his speech, the leader of the Bloc Québécois asked this open-ended question: Who are Canadians and who are Quebeckers? I thought he was going to talk about moms and dads who are worried about their mortgages, university students who are worried about their future and grandparents who are worried about their retirement fund, but instead he launched into a very interesting historical and philosophical discussion about the differences between people from Quebec and people from the rest of the country. I do not speak for them; I speak for my own province, of course, but I suspect that the differences are much smaller than the similarities among people from coast to coast.
146 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:19:19 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as a matter of fact, when we consider the country from coast to coast to coast, we notice that every community and every region has its own distinct character. Obviously, Quebec is very different because our main language, our only language, is French. Consequently, our way of being and our way of life are very different from other parts of Canada.
However, aside from the language component, our daily lives are much the same. When people get up in the morning, they have to pay the bills, buy food and pay for housing. It is the same situation everywhere in Canada, and that is why we must all work together to combat this inflation that is hurting all Canadians, including Quebeckers.
123 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:20:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles for his speech.
We are here because our colleagues from the Bloc Québécois decided to present an opposition motion in the House of Commons from which I will read the preamble, which I find interesting. It states that “Canada is a democratic state” and that the “House believes in the principle of equality for all”.
I will focus on those two points from the Bloc motion day because I do believe that “Canada is a democratic state” and that the “House believes in the principle of equality for all”. That is why I prefer today to talk about the fact that 100% of Canadians are suffering every day from the cost of inflation caused by the costly New Democrat-Liberal coalition.
When we look at the numbers, we realize that 80% of Canadians, including Quebeckers, are worried about their finances and wonder if they will be able to make ends meet at the end of the month and pay their bills and groceries each week, while 72% of Canadians feel they pay too much in taxes.
On January 1, 2023, the Liberals are preparing to further increase what they will be taking from the paycheques of Canadians and Quebeckers. They are about to further raise the carbon tax, which will create even more inflation and make absolutely everything cost more. The cost of food alone has risen by more than 11%, something that has not been seen in the last 40 years.
In addition, inflation remains at about 7%. There were reports that inflation had come down slightly, but it only came down by 0.1%, primarily because of a drop in the price of gas, but that did not happen everywhere. Unfortunately, people will not benefit from it for long because, very soon, the Liberals will turn that drop into an increase for all Canadians.
Let me also quote a few figures from Statistics Canada. Last month, the price of meat was up 7.6% compared to last year, dairy was up nearly 10%, baked goods were up 14.8% and vegetables, 11.8%. These figures do not paint a complete picture, however.
It is clear something is going on when you go to the grocery store and see how people have been acting over the past few months. People are looking for products, they cannot find what they are looking for, or they are leaving products on the shelves because they simply cannot afford it. Another change is that people are going to grocery stores as soon as the flyers come out so they can take advantage of the discounts as quickly as possible. That way, they can save money on products that inflation would otherwise prevent them from buying. That is the reality.
What is in store for us tomorrow? The Bank of Canada is going to raise its key interest rate again, making housing even more expensive and making home ownership even less likely for young families and young people entering the workforce. That is the reality. We do not know by how much the rate will go up, but it will definitely go up.
The Liberals keep saying that they are not responsible for inflation because it is caused by the global economy and all sorts of other reasons and people. However, that is not what the head of the Bank of Canada thinks. According to Mr. Macklem, inflation is the result of many factors that are becoming purely domestic. In other words, inflation in Canada is created by Canada.
613 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:31:23 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my hon. colleague's question, and even though he repeated it over and over and over again, I found it difficult to follow his train of thought because, at the very end, he said that we support the monarchy, but that we do not support it.
I wish my colleague had listened more carefully to my speech, because what I said is that Quebeckers are currently more concerned about whether they can afford their groceries at the end of each month, not whose face appears on the $20 bill.
The Bloc Québécois chose to take a debate that started in the Quebec National Assembly and try to turn it into a debate in the House of Commons today, because the Bloc members still see themselves as white knights and they want to save their little brothers in the Quebec National Assembly. I sadly feel the need to repeat that there are three PQ members in the Quebec National Assembly.
169 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:10:08 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.
What we are discussing today centres around our principles and our ideals, so I do not think this debate is unwarranted. I would like to thank everyone who is taking part in it, including those who just spoke before me.
As a matter of principle, I often look back at my roots. Everything we have experienced has helped shape the elected officials we are today. I was born to a working-class father and a mother who was a nurse. I was born female and that is the way it is. I was born a Quebecker and that is also the way it is.
Because of what we are discussing today, like all Quebeckers and Canadians, I cannot even aspire to become the head of the Canadian state, even if I wanted to.
I have barely spoken three sentences, and we are already deeply entangled in something that makes absolutely no sense to someone like me with democratic ideals. After all, what kind of state deprives its entire population of the possibility of becoming head of state? It is certainly not a democracy. At most, I would say that it is masquerading as a democracy and trying to imitate its form. It is a bit of smoke and mirrors.
As some of my colleagues have done, I often like to recall the past and dwell on the meaning of words we use ad nauseam that sometimes might escape us. The word “democracy” derives from demos, the people, and kratos, to rule. Democracy is sharing power between the people. Democracy is the power of the people.
Canada, as we know, and that is what we are talking about today, embraces a constitutional monarchy. That means that the true head of state cannot be an MP, not me or anyone in the House, but a monarch such as an Elizabeth or a Charles, someone who through fate or arbitrary alliances and births, inherited a crown. That bears repeating because it is important, not only symbolically, but because it also has tangible and potential implications.
The word “monarch” derives from monos, one, and archon, ruler, and therefore refers to a single ruler, a single person who rules. Literally and absolutely antithetically, Canadian democracy does not rest in the hands of everyone, but in the hands of a single person, namely the monarch. I say this with all due respect, but, to me, this is a ceremonial democracy.
I spoke just a moment ago about appearances and form. Appearances are not the only reason why the Bloc Québécois wants to sever ties once and for all with the British monarchy. In fact, this situation goes against Quebeckers' very values.
I spoke of the people earlier because I work for them. Indeed, we need to think about values such as equality. In the Bloc Québécois, we affirm that all citizens are equal; we promote and we defend equality. There needs to be equal rights, as well as equality in fact. Not only is the monarchy hereditary by nature, the order of succession attributes preference to male heirs and to Protestants above all others.
We can therefore infer that the primary role in the Canadian state is preferably, and we truly are talking about a preference or arbitrary choice, assigned to an individual on the basis of their sex and religion, not to mention bloodline.
A democracy that has preferences and that excludes half of humankind is not a democracy and is practising discrimination. The monarchy discriminates both literally and figuratively and takes away the very sovereignty of its people because the monarch is not a Quebecker or a Canadian. The monarch is British, only British.
As a legislator, it is my job to create laws. As a member of Parliament elected by the people, I and the people I represent are supposed to accept a monarch from overseas, whose legitimacy is arbitrary, and who has the power to make or unmake laws that we vote on in the House of Commons and also in my own National Assembly in Quebec.
The public proposes, Great Britain disposes. The potential British—and patriarchal, I might add—veto belies any claims of sovereignty by the people. The sovereignty of the people is a value that is important to the Bloc Québécois. It requires another element that is important to the Bloc, another value that we have had the opportunity to debate, the separation of state and religion.
We are talking about the leader of another country not only being subject to a foreign state, but also, as I mentioned earlier, to a church, the Anglican Church. The Canadian head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church. For those of us in Quebec who decided a few decades ago to separate church and state, this is a relic of an idea that is completely outdated in terms of the sovereignty of peoples, the sovereignty of ideas and the matter of the state itself.
I do not have much time left, so I would like to very quickly talk about the status of women, colonialism and accountability, which is also important to me. Of course, the status of women is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. I will let my colleagues talk more about colonialism because that is what the monarchy's wealth is built on. We too have a story to tell here. With regard to accountability, we hope that elected representatives will no longer be subject to anyone above them or look to anyone else to save or decide for them. We are fully responsible for our own decisions.
As I was pondering what to say today, I smiled to myself because I remembered thinking about these same things back when I was a young teenager. That is when people begin to think critically, question conventional thinking, question authority and throw off the shackles of beliefs that do not stand up to reason. I went through my own quiet revolution as a young woman.
For me and for Quebeckers, our desire to cut ties with the British monarchy goes back a long way. It is centuries-old. It is an intense desire to sever a connection, seek emancipation and empowerment for our society as a whole and affirm the deeply held values I mentioned earlier: democracy, equality and separation of church and state. The majority of Quebeckers want to cast off the trappings of another world and a long-ago time so alien to who we are. I am one of them.
As a democratic woman of no religious affiliation, I reject this inequitable, arbitrary and colonialist form of power. My faith and my loyalty lie with Quebeckers.
1151 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:23:23 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I have no problem telling the Bloc my position. I have no issue with the prayer. We can continue doing it because it does not affect anything, other than using up about 15 seconds of the House's time. I have no problem with the current form of our parliamentary system, which includes a monarch in it. Quite frankly, I do not see life being any different.
Let me ask my previous question, which the member did not answer, in another way. Could she explain to the House, if the monarch were suddenly abolished at midnight tonight, when Quebeckers and Canadians woke up tomorrow morning, how would their lives be so different from what they are right now?
120 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:25:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians now have a historic opportunity. I am choosing my words carefully. With the recent death of Queen Elizabeth II, the British crown will be placed upon a new head.
The last time this took place was 70 years ago. It is as rare as a comet. This makes it the ideal opportunity to reconsider our symbolic tie to this foreign Crown. It is a tie that is problematic for Quebeckers like myself, despite what my colleague says. Just maintaining archaic institutions like the Governor General and the lieutenant governors costs millions of dollars that we could use to fulfill other, more essential government duties. We could trade a crown for social housing, a sceptre to finally provide drinking water to reserves that do not currently have any, but no, that is not happening.
We even have to provide more resources than usual for this transition of royal power. We must change Canada's official letterhead and change the die for stamping coins that bear the portrait of our monarch. The portrait of Elizabeth II must be replaced with that of her son, Charles III, at considerable expense, especially because additional zinc is required to depict his ears.
Furthermore, this transition comes at a time when the tide of public opinion is increasingly turning against these archaic ceremonial trappings, if I may talk like my colleague from Trois-Rivières for a moment. Every poll confirms it. It is especially true in Quebec, but even in Canada, a majority of respondents agree with ending all ties with the monarchy in our political institutions. In the days of Elizabeth II, at least, we could understand. She was an old woman. No one wanted to hurt her feelings. It might have done her in to be told that we no longer wanted her as head of our country. It was nothing personal.
Now that the crown is sort of suspended between her and Charles III, it is the best time to say enough is enough, we are leaving. There needs to be a modicum of consistency. Canada cannot support truth and reconciliation with the first nations while continuing to require each MP to swear an oath to the Crown that endorsed the worst lawful violence against them. Canada cannot claim to recognize the Quebec nation while continuing to require each MP from Quebec to swear that same oath to the same Crown that hanged patriots and sanctioned the violent repression of villages that supported them. Ten thousand people died. That happened here.
Throughout history, the British Empire has been responsible for untold atrocities. It is estimated that, in India alone, the British Crown is directly responsible for between 12 million and 30 million deaths, and yet we continue to invoke its name. That is crazy. There is an old expression in Quebec that is not heard much anymore but that always intrigued me. When someone was disturbing everyone in a group by yelling or trying to boss them around, he or she was taken to task by someone else yelling, “Hey, leave the people alone”.
In this case, “the people” means everyone who happens to be around, but this could also be read through a nationalist lens. It is important to leave “The People” alone, which means not humiliating them, badgering them, bugging them, insulting them or hassling them.
Communities deserve respect just as much as individuals. Leaving the people alone means not adopting common symbols containing images that remind them of historical traumas. Leaving the people alone means not asking the representatives of a secular society to swear allegiance to a king who is also the head of a church. Leaving the people, my people, alone means not making us watch a Crown corporation spend astronomical amounts of our own money force-feeding us the funeral of a queen who agreed, without batting an eye, to sign a Constitution that Quebec did not want.
To top it off, my hockey team, the Montreal Canadiens, the closest thing French Canadians have to a national team, must now sport a jersey sullied by a reference to the monarchy, “Royal Bank of Canada”, in English only. What more could they possibly do to make me thoroughly sick of it all?
I have no problem with the word “king”. Quebeckers have their french fry kings, their hot dog emperors and their frozen sub princes. When my daughter was little, she loved princes and princesses, just like millions of little girls around the world. Not once in her entire childhood did I try to take that away from her because the monarchy is dirty. However, every stamp and every quarter bearing the image of the English crown is a reminder that I am still subject to a political regime that neither I nor my ancestors ever chose.
That is a loaded symbol for a Quebecker like me to swear an oath to, never mind for first nations and Acadians, as others said earlier.
I do not recognize this Parliament, which reminds me of a defeat and symbolizes 260 years of oppression and attempts to assimilate my people. Although I do not recognize it, I agree with what is happening here. I accept the idea that people who represent different schools of thought and who have had the courage to face the electorate are meeting here and spending their days together debating and trying to come up with bills that will improve the lives of their constituents. That is what we call democracy, and I accept that.
I would like to confess to members, however, that there is one thing I do not understand and do not accept. I would even say that it fills me with shame every time I think about it. This mandate that I am trying to fulfill with honour and conviction is based on a vile lie.
Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a serious matter, but my colleagues are chatting about cooking and TV shows.
In order to fulfill the mandate given to me by the people, I had to meet an unavoidable condition when I arrived here. I was asked to pledge allegiance to a queen I do not recognize, to power by divine right. It is a power that supposedly comes from God himself, whereas I do not believe in God. It is an immense fraud.
We have a responsibility to abolish the monarchy, if only to prove to ourselves and to the world that democracy can work, that sometimes things can change without violence, and that democracy, through parliamentary dialogue, can deliver what the people want.
People want to break ties with the monarchy. This is especially true in Quebec, but it is true across Canada. Barbados did it two years ago, so why not us? Is it because Quebec truly wants it to happen and because the Bloc Québécois proposed it? Is the secret to Canadian unity to simply hold on to everything that upsets Quebec for as long as possible?
I vote for representatives who take an oath in accordance with their true convictions, in my case, to the people of Quebec. I vote so that members can work under symbols that reflect their values and true beliefs. I vote for a democracy based on a true will of heart and soul. I vote for sincerity and truth in political commitment. I vote for the abolition of the monarchy, its oaths and its symbols. I vote for Quebec independence.
1266 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- 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 1:26:05 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Bloc Québécois motion is designed to distract attention from what they just did.
Yesterday, they voted in favour of a stronger, tougher federal government that is going to triple the carbon tax for Quebeckers.
However, right now, inflation is the highest it has been in 41 years and the cost of living is rising. I am therefore wondering why the Bloc Québécois moved this motion. Do they not see that their motion does not really affect the daily lives of Quebeckers?
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:27:02 p.m.
- Watch
Actually, Mr. Speaker, this motion does affect the daily lives of Quebeckers and even those of my colleague's constituents.
The government is taking money out of the pockets of his constituents and Quebeckers' pockets to maintain this institution. While the Governor General is organizing parties and travelling by plane with fancy dinners for her and her guests on board, the people in my colleague's riding are struggling to make ends meet because the cost of living is too high.
Meanwhile, the privileged are living large on the taxes his constituents pay, as though it were still the 12th century. We need to move into the 21st century. As I just said, we managed to do away with the tradition of British governors general, so let us follow that course of action through to its logical conclusion and abolish the monarchy.
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:29:44 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, when I was asked to give a speech on this opposition day, naturally I agreed. In fact, I was honoured.
Who am I? I have been sitting in the House for three years and I am still thinking about why people voted for me. The difference is that they voted for me, while no one has ever voted for a monarch or for a governor general.
We live in a democracy. People chose us. I was born in a mining town, and here I am today. I am incredibly lucky because we live in a democracy. If Quebec were to become independent tomorrow, I could be the head of state.
I can assure members that the Bloc Québécois does not aspire to be in power. However, if that were the case, the Bloc Québécois leader would not be head of state, and the same goes for the current Prime Minister, and future or past prime ministers. In reality, the head of the Canadian state is the British monarch, not a person chosen by the people. There is more. This even affects our own laws, the ones we pass together, work on, reflect on and fortunately reach a consensus on.
These bills actually reflect the voices of our constituents, those who elected us and whom we represent. However, laws cannot come into force without royal assent. An individual who is not elected and does not actually represent the choice of the people must give his or her assent. There is a bit of a discrepancy between our deeply democratic values and what we actually do.
It goes beyond that. If a bill does not have complete unanimity among the population and an election is called, something could be done to delay royal assent. However, if a bill does receive royal assent, it is because a majority has voted in favour of it. Even though the people have spoken through us, royal assent might not be given, it might be delayed because political strategists think that the time is not right.
Doing that, however, is like saying that the voices of 338 members are less important than that of one person. It is as though the voices of 338 representatives of 38 million people are less important, less considered and less insightful than that of one person. I have been reflecting carefully on what the monarchy means to me, beyond what I have just explained.
Monarchy is an intellectual curiosity for me. I am a history teacher by trade. Monarchy is a curiosity for me, because I do not know that world. I will never live in that world, and I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. When I was born, my path was not yet set. My parents and the education system helped me, and I helped myself, get to where I am. I feel sorry for the princes and princesses of this world who, from the moment they are born, are told what path they must take and what they must become. I find that sad.
I, for one, was fortunate enough to be able to choose the path I wanted to take, so monarchy is a curiosity for me. I wonder why, at some point, human beings needed to gather behind a monarch who would be there for the rest of his life before giving way to his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren, and so on until the end of time. I would have to consult anthropologists and just about every library in the world to find out why we reached that point in our history, or even in our prehistory.
Then, I wondered why people in the House, in Canada and around the world are so attached to the monarchy. It is important to me to see both sides. Why are there people in the House who are so attached monarchy? It is kind of a mystery.
Then, I dove into my own history books and learned that many anglophones today are close or distant relatives of American loyalists who left what is now the United States because it was separating from the British Crown. It is worth noting that the United States functions fairly well without the Crown. It is fair to say that the United States is a mature country, a little like France, capable of functioning without a monarch. In general, things are going well. That system is worth thinking about. Those people were royalists, loyal to the Crown. They came here, bringing with them their values system as it pertained to the monarchy. I can see how the tradition was passed down from one generation to the next. I do wonder why the Scots and the Irish, who suffered so much under the monarchy, are so attached to it. I do not have an answer yet, but I may get one eventually.
It is important to understand that all of the statements I make and questions I ask today are meant as delicately as possible. I do not mean to offend anyone for the values they espouse. I am simply trying to explain the other side of the argument, knowing that 56% of Canadians and over 70% of Quebeckers are against the oath of allegiance to the Queen and King of England, although now it is a king, and those percentages are increasing all the time.
As my colleague mentioned earlier, no one can say that this idea came from us sovereignists, or as some call us, separatists. This did not come from sovereignists. If that were the case, then 56% of the Canadian population and 70% of the Quebec population are separatists. With 70% of the Quebec population, we would have a new country in North America, and Canada would have a new neighbour. This is not about independence. It is about democratic evolution, about political maturity. We are capable of making our own laws, deciding for ourselves and being reasonable. Once laws have gone through all the necessary procedures, and there are many, we can then say that we approve and enforce them, although it could end up being a judge who enforces them.
We are talking about a symbolic function that costs us $67 million a year, every year.
Earlier, I listened to my colleagues asking if there were other issues we should be discussing instead. Is there nothing else as urgent as the monarchy? Yes, there are more urgent issues, such as the fact that $67 million represents over three times the amount of money we need for infrastructure. From an economic standpoint, this has a real impact. It costs three times as much as an infrastructure program that we want to implement. It costs as much as 670 housing units. That is the reality and those are urgent needs right now. By having access to this money, we would really help people, and our laws would represent us.
Let us be mature, let us move forward with this, and let us think big.
1183 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 1:55:27 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, during our esteemed colleague's speech, I heard words like “celebration”, "jubilee”, “recognize” “commemorative coin”, “stamp” “participating”, “visits” and so on. For me, that is just a smokescreen. It is deliberately turning a blind eye and denying our reality. The member should look back at our history, the history of French Canadians, and at what happened two or three centuries ago.
Perhaps kowtowing and being subject to the monarchy and this completely archaic institution works for them, but I am letting them know that it does not work for most Quebeckers. We want nothing to do with that.
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 2:26:53 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois has all day to talk about the concerns of Quebeckers and Canadians. They could talk about the cost of living, inflation, the work we can do together in the House to meet Canadians' expectations.
No, the Bloc Québécois—surprise, surprise—wants to reopen the Constitution. God knows that is not what Quebeckers or Canadians are concerned about these days.
We are going to stay grounded in the reality that Canadians are facing, in what they need. We will continue to be there for all Canadians.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
