44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- Oct/25/22 10:51:45 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I am having difficulty following my colleague. We are supposed to be talking about the monarchy, not the Liberal Party platform. I am not sure where he is going with his speech, but I do not see the connection between the motion before us and what he is saying.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:52:00 a.m.
- Watch
We know debate can range widely, but it must be focused on the bills or motions before the House.
I would therefore ask the parliamentary secretary to ensure that his speech relates to the motion. He may continue.
38 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:56:41 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have just been subjected to a 10-minute speech on housing, and now my colleague seems intent on talking about climate change for the next 10 minutes. The motion before us today is about the monarchy. That is what it is about. Certain tangents are acceptable, but members should spend at least a little time talking about the subject of the motion.
65 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 10:56:54 a.m.
- Watch
I was listening to the parliamentary secretary and I know that he made a reference to the monarchy less than two minutes ago. What is more, he does not have 10 minutes remaining in his speech, but rather one minute and 26 seconds. He will have the opportunity to participate in the period for questions and comments.
I would remind members, parliamentary secretaries and ministers that they are to ensure that the discussion is directly related to today's motion when they are making their speech.
The hon. parliamentary secretary has one minute and 30 seconds to conclude his speech.
100 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:33:45 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member is making a speech as opposed to just asking a question, and there are other people who want to ask questions.
The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable.
35 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:50:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
It is interesting to see someone who has decided to actually participate in the debate. The Bloc Québécois has opened the door and invited the members of the House to take part in a debate capable of generating comments as intelligent as the ones made by my colleague.
How would she characterize the attitude of the Conservatives and Liberals who simply want to ignore the debate, despite the fact that people have been talking about the public's dissatisfaction with institutions? That dissatisfaction is often the result of institutions being maintained even though they are outdated.
Should their attitude be characterized as: (a) lack of courage; (b) crass complacency inherent in a colonial attitude; (c) total ignorance of history; (d) all of the above?
137 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:05:21 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I entirely and completely agree with the first bit of the speech of the member when he talked about much more pressing needs and that people were not coming into his office to talk about the monarch. However, he then went on to talk about electoral reform and tried to convince me that people were coming into his office to talk about that. I will leave that aside for a second.
Let us assume that this motion were to pass and in some way we could, as of tomorrow morning, be free of the monarch, how would life change for any average ordinary Canadian on a day-to-day basis?
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 12:39:12 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert for his passionate speech, above all a speech full of conviction. It is good to be shaken up once in a while, to have someone who speaks their mind, lays it all out on the table and tells it like it is.
Some members seem to be promoting the status quo, the old British Crown colonialism, with its symbols and history that is fraught with horror stories. Those members pretend that nothing is the matter, that there is no problem. They behave as if everything is fine. After all, they do not think about the monarchy every morning as they get up.
We have a historic opportunity to change that and we are not doing it. Does my colleague not think that there is something that members are not aware of, something that is perhaps in their subconscious? One of the big differences between Canada and the United States is that the very foundation of Canada is the attachment to the monarchy. At the end of the day, is there not a little bit of that in the fact that they do not want to get rid of it? I wonder, because I cannot think of any other reason.
214 words
- 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 4:24:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague repeated herself a lot in her speech. That is fine because she wanted to emphasize her point.
When it is your turn, you can choose the topic of debate. The Bloc Québécois usually does not pass judgment, as you have been doing all day long. If you do not like this subject, that is your problem. This subject pertains to our values—
71 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:26:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her speech.
As a proud democrat and a proud socialist, I do not mind talking about the monarchy, because I can settle the matter rather quickly and move on to another subject.
In talking about other topics, she focused a bit on the fact that our health care system is being strangled, emergency rooms are overflowing and people are really struggling after two years of living with a pandemic. Federal government transfers for health care are at an all-time low, at 22% or 23% of total system costs. All provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, are calling on the federal government to do more and to quickly and permanently increase health transfers to the provinces.
Does she not think that would have been a good topic of conversation for today?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:27:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga on her heartfelt speech. However, I would have liked more substance on the topic.
Indeed, other than criticism of the editorial choice, shall we say, for our opposition day, I have not heard an argument about the value of maintaining the monarchy. I would be interested in that because, even when we are not particularly interested in a certain subject, which is fine, we should at the very least debate it.
What I feel is that people just do not have the guts or the arguments to advocate for something that costs 70 million. My colleague across the aisle would have every reason to want us to get rid of the monarchy, since that would free up another $70 million for, say, social housing, an issue I know she feels strongly about.
Then, there is the fact that the Bloc Québécois proposes subjects such as health transfers, housing, immigration or others, which it raises in the House during debates or oral question period, but to which the government's response sounds like a broken record.
My point is that I would have liked a little more substance in my colleague's speech. My question to her would be to name just one benefit of keeping our ties to the monarchy in place, with its yearly $70-million price tag.
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:18:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, there are some things that my colleague said in his speech that I want to understand. That is the message that we have been hearing since this morning, that this is not a real issue and that there are so many more important issues.
Let us say that I understood that criticism earlier this morning, but at this point in the day, I see it as a sign that nobody really has any real arguments against what we are saying.
Also, why was this considered to be important and a real issue when the Conservative government was bragging about putting portraits of the Queen and the word “royal” everywhere?
113 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 5:23:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is a shame that it seems my colleague is required to deliver such an eloquent education on some of the basics of the Constitution of Canada, including the Canadian monarchy. I am glad that he did so and had a chance to wax Walter Bagehot. I felt he did not quite get to the end of where he wanted to go with that part of his speech, so I will give him a few moments to expand on any point that might have been lacking for lack of time.
92 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
