SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 296

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 9, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24
Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)
  • Apr/9/24 6:42:59 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois' position will come as no surprise: We will be voting in favour of this bill. First of all, I would like to salute the courage of the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who introduced this bill. I do not know what the future holds for this bill, but first and foremost, I must salute the member's courage. As someone who knows the history of the Acadians, I have a real admiration for him. I wanted to say that before I began my speech. The bill aims to offer the possibility of choosing an oath and no longer forcing people to swear an oath to the King of England or Canada. Usually, we say: “I...do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to [His or Her] Majesty”, followed by the name of the king or queen who is on the throne. With this bill, there is the possibility of introducing a second option, which is to say: “I, A.‍B.‍, do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.” Is that the best solution from the Bloc Québécois's perspective? I would not say so. This is not a bill the Bloc Québécois would have drafted. That does not mean it is not good. It is a step in the right direction. I am not trying to make my colleague sad. We would simply have drafted an oath of allegiance to the people. The people elect us. They are the reason we are here, the reason we make decisions. The people are always the reason we take the most informed action possible. I know it will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is against the monarchy. It is an old system whose glory days are long past, from a time before things such as the airplane and the car were discovered. That was ages ago. We believe in democracy. We believe that the people are sovereign, not the King. What matters to us is the equality of all people, regardless of the colour of their skin, the language they speak, or where they come from. Everyone is equal. When we swear allegiance to someone born into the right family, under a lucky star, no one can claim that everyone is equal. It transgresses the foundations of democracy from the start. Guess what? Democracy is the reason we are here. A person is either a supporter of democracy or not. In 1776, Adam Smith wrote a treatise on the wealth of nations. According to his extraordinary book, people deserve to be treated with respect and on an equal basis. People who succeed by their merit, skill and hard work have earned their success. That is what economic liberalism is all about. I am not saying that we all have to be economic liberals; that is not what I am saying. In the country of today's king, Adam Smith laid the groundwork for an economic system coupled with a political system that upholds the equality of all and reward based on merit. No one can claim that Charles III deserves to have his shoelaces ironed based on merit. Nothing justifies the royal treatment given to this individual, who should be the equal of everyone else. For that reason and others, we therefore object to swearing an oath. That being said, there is something else. The Governor General of Canada, who represents the King, could potentially gain political power even though they are not elected. That is crazy. We cannot accept that possibility. We have power because we are given that power by virtue of being elected. People say that they have confidence in us for certain reasons. They read our platform, they listened to us and they decided that we should represent them. The fact that we are making these decisions is justified. If people are unhappy with my work, we know what will happen. I will have to step down. The people will decide. Before I get into the rest of my remarks, I must say that swearing an oath to the Constitution is problematic. First, the Constitution places a lot of emphasis on God, which is problematic. Second, Quebec did not sign the Constitution. It was shoved down our throats. We would therefore be swearing allegiance to a Constitution that has not been signed by my people. I have a bit of a problem with that. Furthermore, I am looking at Canada's current Liberal government, and it does not respect the Constitution. It will be swearing allegiance to the Constitution while interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. It is simply going to renege on the very foundations of this Constitution. When we talk about a normal country, we are not quite there. Lastly, why are we against swearing allegiance to the King? Because it is the British monarchy. He is the king of another country. We are swearing allegiance to a king who comes from somewhere else and lives somewhere else. He will come and do a little tour once in a while, at taxpayers' expense, of course. Honestly, I think he might as well stay home. That would be a good deal; it would allow us to keep more money to solve our own problems. For Quebeckers, this king is the conqueror. The English won the Seven Years' War, which we call “la guerre de la Conquête” or the war of the conquest. It is funny because, when we talk about the war of the conquest and the Plains of Abraham, we always think about defeat, whereas native-born Canadians think about victory. Then they wonder why we say that we are a distinct nation. Perhaps that is part of the reason. There were moments in history when we were at war. That is because we do not even come from the same people. Before the British Crown came along and conquered Quebec, it crossed the St. Lawrence River and burned down farms belonging to Quebeckers, to French Canadians at the time, all along the river. Incidentally, the British also deported the Acadians. Why? The Acadian population totalled 18,000. The British separated families. They deported 12,000 Acadians, and 8,000 of them died of an epidemic before they even reached their destination. It is the British Crown that did that. Am I really supposed to swear an oath to that? It makes no sense. Then there was Amherst's germ warfare. I think it was in 1760. He decided he wanted to help indigenous people, after a fashion. He infected blankets with smallpox, and then he distributed the blankets to indigenous people. Some say it was the first case of germ warfare. The British Crown did that. I am supposed to swear allegiance to that? When the patriots were hanged, strangely enough, 12 French-speaking patriots were hanged, and yet some of the people who participated in the patriots' rebellions were English, Irish and Quebeckers or French Canadians. The 12 who were hanged were francophones. How bizarre. I am the member of Parliament for La Prairie. Joseph‑Narcisse Cardinal, who was the member for La Prairie, was sentenced to hang because he had gone to Kahnawake to get weapons and been caught. He had five children, and I think his wife was expecting a sixth. His wife wrote a letter to Colborne's wife. Colborne was Governor General at the time. She begged her to save her husband's life. She did not get a response. She went to see Colborne's wife and Colborne gave her $8. That is the British Crown. They seriously want me to swear an oath to that? Lord Durham wanted to put a definitive end to problems related to the patriot rebellion. He said that it was not a political war, but an ethnic war because of French Canadians. He said he would fix things. He said they were a people without history, a people without literature. He said they had to be assimilated for their own good. That is why the powers that be set out to unite Lower Canada and Upper Canada. That is how we were treated. There is a member here from Durham. Canadians see Durham as a good person. We see him as a force for assimilation. We can read what Durham wanted to do in the 19th century and look at what is happening today. We know that history does not tire of its own tales. If we do not listen, it repeats itself. As Jacques Parizeau put it, the best way to make someone a separatist is to teach them history. That is how I know that what would make Quebeckers and the members of the Bloc Québécois truly proud would be to swear an oath to the people of Quebec in the republic of Quebec.
1520 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 296 - Apr/9/24
Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)
Madam Speaker, I am grateful to speak to this bill today. The oath of allegiance is one everybody in the House is familiar with because they have taken it. Everybody sitting here has taken it at least once. Some of us have been lucky enough to take it more than once. The moment a member of this place takes the oath for the first time has a powerful impact. It is a moment filled equally with excitement and solemnity: excitement because it is the start of something, a bit of an adventure, something that the member had been working on for months; and solemnity because of the task ahead. Serving our constituents and Canadians more generally is a serious task and one that is an honour to undertake. The oath of allegiance is currently required by section 128 of the Constitution Act. The courts have interpreted it as a symbolic oath to Canada's system of government, a constitutional monarchy. The oath of allegiance has been described as an affirmation of Canada's societal values and constitutional architecture and a symbolic commitment to our form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy. I do not begrudge the honourable member for wanting to update our oath. He is my friend and he is my colleague. Swearing an oath of allegiance in the 21st century may seem to be a relic of a bygone colonial era. I understand that sentiment. I appreciate where he is coming from. I just do not believe this is the appropriate time to have this debate. The oath of allegiance is a bond that links members of this place and members of the other place in many ways. Even prior to Confederation, section 35 of the Union Act of 1840 required members of the legislative council and the legislative assembly of the Province of Canada to take an oath of allegiance prior to taking their seats and voting. The oath of allegiance also connects us with our colleagues in the provincial legislative assemblies who are also required by section 128 of the Constitution Act to take the same oath. The Crown remains an ever-present feature of our system of government and symbolizes the state. The Crown in Parliament participates in the legislative process, most critically in its culmination by granting royal assent. In this sense, the Crown is a unifying symbolic feature of our system of government and of our constitutional order. As the courts have recognized, viewed in this way, the oath to the King of Canada is an oath to our form of government, as symbolized by the King as the apex of our Canadian parliamentary system of a democratic constitutional monarchy. The oath of office proposed by the hon. member in Bill C-347 would invite us to swear to carry out our duties in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution. I cannot dispute this sentiment. As the courts have held, however, the oath of allegiance, properly construed, is quite similar in meaning. The reference to the King in the oath of allegiance is really a reference to the state and the source of all sovereign authority. However, this proposed oath of office, well intended though it may be, does not reflect our system of government. Changing shared rituals like the oath of allegiance involves changing the Constitution. This is not something that should be done lightly or without careful reflection. Having expressed my own reservations about the hon. member's proposal, I and the government would oppose this measure and vote against the bill.
597 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border