44th Parl. 1st Sess.
January 31, 2024 02:00PM
Madam Speaker, what is the point of the monarchy? Qu'ossa donne?
I want to apologize to the interpreters. I doubt it is easy to translate those words from Yvon Deschamps, but, in all honesty, that pretty much sums up my thoughts.
In 2024, Canada's head of state is a king. In 2024, Canada's King is represented by the Governor General. In 2024, Canada has lieutenant governors. In 2024, new Canadian citizens must swear allegiance to His Majesty. In 2024, Canada has colonial institutions. Elected officials must swear allegiance to the King, except in Quebec.
Thanks to the stubbornness, determination and insubordination of Parti Québécois MNAs, the members of Quebec's National Assembly, elected by the people, no longer have to swear an oath to the King of England in order to take their seats. It was about time. It has been a year already.
The Canadian monarchy has existed since France took possession of the St. Lawrence lowlands in the name of King Francis 1 in 1534. It is now 2024. That was 490 years ago. The only thing that has changed since then is that, instead of swearing allegiance to the King of France, we now have to swear allegiance to the King of England. We are still talking about the same archaic system based on unequal, hereditary privileges.
Should we be proud of that? Should we be proud of an aristocratic system based on privilege, a system that classes citizens based on their birth? That does not make me proud. It does not make sense that this is still how the head of state is chosen in 2024. I cannot understand why this country celebrates and wants to continue with a system from the Middle Ages.
What we want—what we are fighting for—is greater equality, greater justice and an opportunity for people to rid themselves of the shackles of the past. Meanwhile, we still have a foreign head of state who holds office not because of merit, effort, competence or democratic choice. No, Canada's head of state is a man who was born lucky. That is the only reason we still give him special treatment. He will be on our stamps and our currency. Places and buildings will be named in his honour, even though, at the end of the day, what has he done besides being born?
As I said off the top, “qu'ossa donne?” What is the point of the monarchy? There is not much point at all, to be honest. It is fun when they come to Ottawa with the horses, the army, the carriages and all that jazz, but that is really just for show and a total waste of money, as I saw for myself last year. I was part of a Commonwealth Parliamentary Association mission, and His Majesty Charles III received us at Westminster Abbey. What the heck was a Bloc member doing there? It might have been good fodder for online platforms, but that is all.
Last year, I surveyed people in my riding about being part of a monarchy. My constituency office was flooded with responses from people in Laurentides—Labelle. It was incredible. People are dead set against it. I was really surprised, not to see that people are against it, but to see that this topic mobilized so many people in my riding. People no longer want it. As I see it, the monarchy serves very little purpose, except to mobilize people against it, as we are seeing tonight.
In a democracy, the power of elected representatives comes from the people, the citizens who vote for their representatives. Therefore, as elected officials, it is from these citizens that we derive our legitimacy.
In a democracy, elected officials serve the people, not His Majesty and not a colonialist, paternalistic and downright anti-democratic system.
In Bill C‑347, the new oath would read as follows:
I, A. B., do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.
This makes far more sense than swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch. Members of Parliament and senators could swear an oath to Canada and its Constitution. We also have to keep in mind that Quebec has still not signed the Constitution. A change like this would be a significant democratic improvement. We in the Bloc Québécois oppose all expressions of such an archaic system of government as monarchism and its underlying philosophy.
I mentioned earlier that I belong to the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, which is a genuine forum for nation-to-nation dialogue. Do my colleagues know how many Commonwealth countries are now republics that left the archaic monarchy behind? That would be 37 countries that are now republics and members of the Commonwealth. In other words, 66% of member states deliberately and democratically decided to sever ties with the British monarchy.
Madam Speaker, there is a loud noise, but I will try to focus and continue with my speech.
852 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jan/31/24 7:40:25 p.m.
- Watch
Thank you very much, Madam Speaker.
The newest, most recent republic is Barbados. It became a republic on November 30, 2021, so it is not too late to abandon this system, just like it is not too late for Quebec to become independent.
Quebec's independence would mean the creation of the Quebec republic. I have been speaking about Canada for the past little while and so I want to talk about Quebec, and I am proud to do so. The Quebec republic would be a system of government in which the people would be sovereign. It would be born from the will of its people to emancipate themselves from an archaic, colonial system. The Quebec republic would be founded on democratic principles, principles that are respectful of democracy and the people. Those are the principles that would underpin its legitimacy. The Quebec republic would not have an unelected Senate. The head of state would not be a symbol of the past or a citizen of another country. The Quebec republic is the only way for us to leave the monarchy.
Canada will never be able to sever its ties with its colonial past. Canada was not born of the will of the people. It was born of the will of a handful of men who decided the will and destiny of this land without consulting the people. Canada is a country that, since 1867, has been founded on guiding principles that do not take into account the will of the people.
When Quebec becomes independent, it will not trample on the people. Independence will be achieved by and with the people.
273 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
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
