44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 31, 2024 02:00PM
- Jan/31/24 7:42:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by thanking our colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for introducing this private member's bill.
Generally speaking, convention dictates that one should begin with compliments and then move on to criticisms. However, I am going to do the opposite. I am going to share my criticisms first and then my compliments.
I would like to say that this is an extremely interesting bill. However, I am somewhat uncomfortable with it, because it is a bill about us. I am not a big fan of that. I would rather debate a bill about people struggling to pay the rent and buy groceries, or about climate change, our children's future or education. This bill is focused on us, so it is not one of my favourite bills. That said, it touches on a crucial issue. That ends my criticism.
This is a crucial issue because it is kind of about who we are as an institution, as a people, as a democracy. This is an opportunity to look at how we can improve things, update and modernize ourselves. The idea is to give people who represent the Quebec nation, the Acadian nation, first nations and the Inuit nation, along with all the different people who come from different places around the world, whether they have been here for several generations or for just a short time, a chance to feel comfortable here, not trapped by archaic practices and outdated institutions that harken back to another time.
I am speaking on my own behalf because, today, the NDP caucus has decided that people can vote as they see fit on this issue. We believe that every member should be able to vote freely in accordance with their beliefs and their conscience, with how they see things, in whatever way they feel comfortable, whether they agree or disagree. I think it shows freedom and maturity on our part to be able to have frank and healthy discussions while airing what may be differing opinions.
I will therefore speak for myself. It is no secret and no surprise that I am not a fan of the monarchy. To me, swearing an oath to a sovereign, a monarch who, in theory, holds power by the will of God, is something out of the Middle Ages. The fact that it is the monarch of another country does not make it any better, nor any worse. If it were a monarch from Quebec, that would not be any better in my eyes. To me, the idea of inheriting such a title is completely at odds with democratic values. As the French revolutionaries said, men are born free and equal in rights. They did not mention women at the time, but that was in 1789. If what they said is true, then the idea that someone can benefit from such power through a stroke of fate that caused him to be born into that family makes no sense.
I want to point out right away that I am not a fan of New Labour. However, I remember when Tony Blair, Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, did away with hereditary seats in the House of Lords. One British lord said that that made perfect sense because he did not see why he should inherit the title of lord, the equivalent of a senator in Canada, just because one of his ancestors had partied with the king. That is what it boiled down to. Friends of the king were appointed and were given the aristocratic titles of duke, baron or whatever it was, making them lords. Four hundred years later, that individual, who was in his early thirties or thereabouts, said that it did not make any sense for him to sit in Great Britain's upper chamber simply because he had inherited a title.
It is much the same thing with the monarchy. It goes against our democratic values.
I for one am very pleased that we are starting off the discussion, as the member for Madawaska—Restigouche very sensibly did, by saying that if some people want to keep swearing an oath to a monarch, they can go right ahead, but now they would have an alternative. They would have the option of swearing an oath to the Constitution, in this case, or maybe to the people or constituents or an institution. I think that is a good thing. I think it is entirely appropriate.
It is true that some colleagues in the National Assembly did the work and got the rules changed. I congratulate them and applaud their efforts. Maybe here in Ottawa, we could adjust the clock to 2024, or 1789, and stop the completely outdated and obsolete practice of swearing oaths to a sovereign, a monarch, a king or a queen. If we are true democrats, it seems obvious to me that we should swear an oath to the people, to constituents and to the Constitution. I think that my Liberal Party colleague brought this forward very skilfully. I thank him and congratulate him. I hope that all parliamentarians in this House will pass this bill.
There is something deeply offensive and profoundly unjust about the very system of the monarchy, a caste that awards itself privileges, rights, powers and absolutely staggering wealth on the backs of the working men and women. It goes against all democratic principles. If it were a meritocracy, if they at least had to work to achieve that status, that would be something else entirely.
At least the people here have worked to become a member of Parliament, Leader of the Opposition, minister or Prime Minister. What is more, we are held accountable every four years, or sometimes every two. We have to go back to our constituents and ask them if they will again give us a mandate to represent them. We must ask them if we did our job well, if we defended them well, if we voted in accordance with their values and principles. Monarchy is not like that at all. People are born into it, and it is theirs for life. It continues in perpetuity.
As a member of Parliament, it would be nice to have this option. I hope the bill passes. If I am re-elected to the House, I will be able to take advantage of the option that is presented to me.
I would like to say a few words about meritocracy because I talked about monarchy and democracy. We have to recognize that even meritocracy has its issues. Yes, we all worked very hard to be here, as did the people who lead us, but we must not forget that there are very few labourers in parliaments in western democracies. There are not many PSWs or plumbers. There are not many people who work with their hands or do manual labour because meritocracies have their own illusions, too. Generally, people born into families of means that also possess social and cultural capital, relationships, networks and contacts will have easier access to education, to good schools and to the opportunity to use their words to debate and present ideas. Clearly, even a meritocracy has its flaws.
I studied sociology, and I want to call my colleagues' attention to the magnum opus of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu, which is entitled The Inheritors. It describes the French education system as a system that reproduces class dominance, with the dominant class consisting of people who are already in power, who already have access to knowledge and culture and who already have contacts in the right networks to be able to push and get people into the circles of power.
We must not be fooled. As a good socialist, I have a vision that includes working to prevent social reproduction in order to achieve true equality, not an illusion of equality that is merely theoretical, because inequality of various types of capital, as Pierre Bourdieu explained so well, does in fact still exist today.
I thank the member for his bill, because it gives us a chance to have this debate and to talk about Pierre Bourdieu in Canada's Parliament.
1365 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 7:52:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I wanted to raise a point of order at the earliest possible opportunity regarding the response I received to Question No. 2155, if you would allow me to briefly explain my concern about its accuracy and completeness.
My question was respecting development assistance projects in Israel and Palestinian territories and projects aimed at supporting Palestinian refugees in other countries. I asked for information about all projects since 2016. That includes all the organizations involved in delivering a project, with the clear implication of both implementing and sub-implementing partners. The initial response describes the fact that there are implementing and sub-implementing partners, which are screened. It says that all funding goes through trusted partner organizations.
Subsequently, in reviewing the list of projects, I found that none of the projects mentioned identify sub-implementing partners. They speak about the large organizations; for instance, they speak about $100 million going to UNRWA. However, they do not identify sub-implementing partners. The implication is that either there are none or the government did not wish to provide that information, despite the clear ordering of that information as part of Question No. 2155. That makes the response inaccurate and incomplete.
I do not know if the government is intentionally trying to hide information about the development assistance in this regard. However, in accordance with the Standing Orders, the government needs to provide a complete and accurate response.
236 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 7:53:48 p.m.
- Watch
That is duly noted.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Louis-Hébert.
14 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, first of all, I also want to thank my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche for this very simple, well designed and precise bill, which addresses a rather important concern. It is important because symbols are important, even though I agree with my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie that there are likely other issues that are of greater concern. There is the monetary system that puts wealth into the hands of a few, for instance, or inflation, which is affecting our constituents across the country.
We know, perhaps better than anyone, that here in politics symbols are very important. I think that oaths are important, that they should not be taken lightly and should not be taken grudgingly. I truly believe that no person duly elected by their constituents to represent them in the House should be reluctant to swear an oath to take their seat, reluctant to do it for various reasons. There may be various reasons to be reluctant to swear an oath to a foreign monarch, as one of my Bloc Québécois colleagues said. For various reasons, namely historic ones, there are some people here who will have a hard time swearing an oath to an institution that may leave a bad taste in their mouth. There are many different identities represented here in the House of Commons, much like the people we represent. I think that if we can find a way to take our seat by swearing an oath that respects the sensibilities of every individual while honouring the historic reality that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche described so well by giving the option, that would be a good thing.
That is exactly the purpose of Bill C‑347. As I said, it offers a very elegant solution, the option to swear an oath of office that I will read as written in my colleague's bill, an oath that would be added to the one we swear now. It says that we will carry out our duties “in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution”. That, to me, is a much more inclusive oath.
There have been several attempts to change the oath of allegiance that members of Parliament must swear. As I was reading in Marc Bosc's green book, such attempts occurred in 1990, 1991, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2002 and 2003. I think that my colleague from Madawaska—Restigouche's Bill C‑347 offers a very simple and effective way to do this. That is what I want to focus on in my speech.
If we were to look into the origins of this obligation to take an oath to assume office and take our seat in Parliament, we would see that it dates to the 16th century. This oath was originally intended to exclude Roman Catholics, among others. Initially, the aim was to bar them from Parliament. It evolved over time to include more people or exclude others, but it is clear that, today, section 128 of the Constitution sets out the obligation for members and senators to take an oath. That oath can be found in the fifth schedule and reads as follows: “I, A.B., do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to [His Majesty King Charles III].”
Bill C-347 simply adds to section 128 another section that would allow elected members to take another oath, a solemn declaration. This other section states, “Notwithstanding subsection (1), every Member of the Senate or House of Commons of Canada may take and subscribe the Oath of Office contained in the Fifth Schedule to this Act instead of the Oath of Allegiance or may take and subscribe both.” That oath I just read would be added to the fifth schedule.
I was listening to my Conservative Party colleague talk about constitutionality, and I think that is the crux of the problem for those who may oppose this bill. We are not preventing anyone from swearing an oath to the monarchy. We are just offering another option for those who, like me, as a member from Quebec, are uncomfortable or have reservations about swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch. However, when it comes to amending the Constitution, we must refer to section 44, among others, which states, “Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.” That is exactly what this is about.
Now we have to check sections 41 and 42 to see if there is something there that could prevent this. I will spare my colleagues a reading of that long list. Bill C‑347 has no impact on section 42. There may be something in section 41.
According to section 41 of the Constitution, anything affecting “the office of the Queen, the Governor General and the Lieutenant Governor of a province” would require the unanimous consent of the legislative assemblies of each province, the House of Commons and the Senate. Is the office of the Queen or the Governor General affected by Bill C‑347? In my opinion, no. Nothing about the office of the Governor General will change. She must listen to an oath, and it is up to parliamentarians to decide which oath to swear. Oaths have certainly evolved over time to reflect society's values; that is key to our democracy. I think that Bill C‑347 adapts the oath to reflect Canada's values.
949 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:00:05 p.m.
- Watch
The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:00:46 p.m.
- Watch
There being no motions at report stage, the House will now proceed, without debate, to the putting of the question on the motion to concur in the bill at report stage.
31 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:01:17 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the bill be concurred in.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:01:17 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would ask that the motion be carried on division.
12 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:01:17 p.m.
- Watch
If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The member for Kingston and the Islands.
52 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:01:30 p.m.
- Watch
I declare the motion carried on division.
7 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:01:59 p.m.
- Watch
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
She said: Madam Speaker, this is a simple bill. Everyone has heard about it. In simple language, the bill states that throughout Canada, each and every year, March 11 would be known as “pandemic observance day”.
There are about three reasons to do this. The first is to remember that, to date, 57,000 people in Canada have actually died from COVID-19, to remember and honour those people, and to also remember that 57,000 is more than all the Canadians who died in the Second World War. This is a huge number of people who died from a pandemic. We also need to remember their suffering and try to find how we can support all the people who are the family members and other bereaved people from throughout this crisis.
The second part of what we need to do is continue recovering from COVID-19. I use the word “continue” because since the so-called pandemic was lifted, 7,000 more Canadians have died. Up to today, that is the number. Therefore, we know that COVID has not disappeared; COVID actually continues to be a variant. It continues to adapt and change, as we know all viruses have a tendency to do. Each time, we do not know what the variant will be.
The important thing for us to do is remember that we are continuing to recover and that we must continue, therefore, to apply solid and strong public health commitments to what we do. In other words, we must continue to recognize that while this virus continues, we must wear masks when we are in an unventilated place, continue to wash our hands and continue to do all of the things we did during the pandemic, because we do not want to have the pandemic recur in large numbers.
We need to therefore remember the day and learn of the evolution of the pandemic. We have tests and vaccines. Get the tests, vaccines and booster shots. People must make sure they are protected. They do not want to be counted and increase the number from 57,000 to 58,000. Please reflect on that and remember that viruses are totally unpredictable.
We have independent, trusted science that we must remember, think about and follow, and we must make sure that Canadians are informed. If we are not worried and we think we are invulnerable, will never get COVID and can walk around ignoring it, we must remember that we have a duty to the people around us who could get sick and who could in fact be impacted by it. Let us not forget that this is a duty to others as well in a pandemic.
With respect to recovering from COVID, we must also remember that COVID-19 was a pandemic, the first true pandemic we have had since the influenza after the war. Therefore, what we need to remember about this is that there will no longer be epidemics; we are going to have pandemics. Because of globalization, people who have never travelled before are travelling all around the world and bringing back viruses, diseases and illnesses. We are talking about people from every corner of the globe. The transmission of any illness or disease is quicker and easier in this world of globalization. We need to remember this if a pandemic begins and we feel we have not taken steps to prevent it from happening. Many countries had six times the number of deaths that Canada had because they did not have the resources. Many countries suffered a great deal. Is that what we want for other countries in the world? This duty of care is ours to remember.
Our third duty is to be prepared for any other pandemic, be prepared for the recurrence of COVID-19, make sure we learn something from the COVID-19 pandemic and apply what we learned. Let us not repeat it. Those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Let us not have a repetition of another COVID-19 in this country or anywhere.
We remember the people who lived in homes and institutions, the elderly people who died who did not have to and who died alone because they did not have family with them to look after them because of the isolation that was needed.
I am asking members to remember, for those reasons; to learn our lessons; to look at how we apply those lessons to preventing future pandemics; and to make sure we always mark this day.
This is a Senate bill. It was brought in by a senator who was previously a family physician, Dr. Mégie. As a physician, like I am, she understood the need to apply science to things like pandemics. Science is clear and evidence-based. Science will learn from the things we made mistakes on and from the things we learned how to do to deal with future occurrences. Let us be mindful of science. Let us not apply ideology to pandemics. Viruses do not particularly care whether one lives in Ontario or in Newfoundland. COVID-19 did not did not care; it did not understand or respect provincial boundaries. Let us remember that when we talk about how we deal with scientific evidence in order to protect ourselves and others.
Again, as parliamentarians, our own duty is to remember to be aware of science and our duty of care to all the people we represent in the House, all of Canada. We have a duty to care for them in the same way we care for them when they do not have good drinking water or when they are suffering from poverty and say that food prices are too high. Those are the ways we care. Let us continue to care.
When I hear of people who continue to debunk science and say that it is nonsense and that politicians make decisions, I say that politicians should make informed decisions based on good knowledge and good information. Therefore, they need to look at that information and what it tells them they should do, and look at whether they may get results from what they are doing because they are following good, evidence-based decision-making.
There is not too much else I can say about the bill, but I would ask members this: Why do we have Remembrance Day on November 11 every year? It is because we want to remember the wars. We want to remember the number of people who died. We want to remember the damage. We want to make sure it does not happen again. We want to commit ourselves to peace. We want to commit ourselves to preventing war.
Similarly, we want to commit ourselves to preventing pandemics that kill people. We need to be aware that the deaths of 57,000 Canadians could have been prevented if we had known and understood the pandemic when it first started. We now know what the pandemic did. We now know how to stop it. We now know the steps we need to take to remedy it. Let us remember this every year so we do not repeat the same mistakes we made and so we learn our lessons and use evidence-based, scientific methods to help protect the Canadian population.
It is a simple bill, and I hope all members will support it.
1252 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:10:11 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank and commend my colleague for introducing this bill and initiating this discussion. In her speech, she mentioned the probable causes of a pandemic. She said that there were going to be other pandemics because people travel a lot between countries and they could bring back viruses.
I have another theory on that subject, which involves the loss of biodiversity and the fact that people are living in closer and closer proximity—
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:10:46 p.m.
- Watch
I am sorry to interrupt the member. She will have to start again because the interpretation was not working.
Now that it is fixed, the hon. member has the floor.
30 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:11:20 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will start over.
In her speech, my colleague mentioned the possibility of other pandemics linked to the spread of viruses resulting from frequent travel to different countries. However, science tells us that many links could be made to the loss of biodiversity, because of human proximity to animal species that normally have no contact with humans.
What does my colleague think about the possibility that more epidemics could result from the loss of biodiversity?
77 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:12:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think that is a very important point, and I think we know that zoonoses are on the rise. Once again, it is that people are in contact with the animal world more than we used to be in contact with them. We are visiting game farms. We have the ability to meet wild animals in the wild.
What we learned and must remember in this pandemic remembrance day is that zoonoses are very important. The transmission of viruses, bacteria and other diseases from animals to human beings is actually very possible.
I am glad the member asked that question because that is a reason for pandemic observance day. It is to remember that we have learned some things, and that is one of them.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:12:56 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my hon. colleague for this bill. If we are remembering the pandemic, one particularly critical fact to remember is that Canada had the terrible distinction of having more deaths per capita than any other country on earth in long-term care homes. Part of the confidence-and-supply agreement between the New Democrats and the Liberals is for the government to introduce a long-term care act.
Does my hon. colleague agree with the New Democrats that it is time we have mandatory standards in long-term care homes in this country? Those would be to have minimum standard hours of care for people in those homes, to have set care aid-to-patient ratios and, more importantly, to make sure that the conditions of work and the conditions of care are much better and that we treat the workers in those homes much better so we can reduce infection rates.
Does she agree with the NDP that it is time to put those mandatory standards in law in this country?
178 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:13:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, once again, I think that is a good question, and I want to thank the member for bringing it up.
We need to remember one very important thing. While it is very important to look at standards of care, with the huge death toll we saw in long-term care homes, in fact, it is not a federal jurisdiction to do those things. Long-term care is provincial jurisdiction. We are, at the moment, negotiating with provinces to look at how we could get that done so we do not trample on provincial jurisdiction.
At the same time, we can work on standards and research through the Canadian Standards Association to see what it could look like, as soon as provinces decide to set those standards and set the kinds of decision-making available to the provinces to be able to deal with long-term care.
148 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:14:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, this is a very important bill because this is also a wake-up call for policy-makers every single year. The next time a pandemic hits, we cannot say it was unexpected. It is a wake-up call for us once a year to check whether we have taken enough measures to secure Canadians by identifying the critical items that are affected when the supply chains are disrupted and to find out what things we have done for senior citizens.
On the second point, the pandemic remembrance day is also important for the next generation of Canadians. The current students in the elementary schools and the future students at elementary schools should be made aware of what their elder siblings, their parents and their grandparents went through so that they are aware that they, too, one day, may be affected by this.
I would like the hon. member's comments on that.
154 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:15:53 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am getting very good questions here.
I want to point out that we are talking about the COVID pandemic, but let us remember that measles, mumps, rubella, diphtheria and small pox had all gone and died. They were not occurring anymore. They are coming back now because of vaccine deniers, people who are not vaccinating themselves. We are going to see polio once again, with children sitting in iron lungs because they have polio.
We must remember that we cannot deal with any disease unless we are bound by scientific knowledge. Right now, many people are walking away from the scientific knowledge that we got from learning about vaccines and—
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 8:16:32 p.m.
- Watch
We are unfortunately out of time.
Resuming debate, the hon. member for Battlefords—Lloydminster.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
