SoVote

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Apr/9/24 5:48:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague and I were at a meeting this morning, and one of the things we talked about was the online exploitation of children in the Philippines. Digging into the issue, we can see how far behind Canada is. This issue has received international attention, and other models are out there. I would like my colleague to comment on other such models currently in use around the world that may have inspired his bill.

76 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/9/24 5:49:10 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, there are a number of initiatives around the world that seek to tackle this online content and child safety online. I would point to the work of Baroness Beeban Kidron in the U.K. The U.K. Parliament, in general, has been working to try to tackle some of these things. I know that France, Germany and Spain have all passed legislation trying to tackle the safety of kids online. I think about six American states have passed legislation around keeping kids safe online, and I know that the American Congress has before it right now a bipartisan bill called the kids online safety act, which is proceeding through their legislature. This is something that is being tackled around the world. This morning, the Filipino embassy pleaded with Canada to help prevent sexual predators in Canada from accessing livestreaming content from the Philippines of CSAM, child sexual abuse material. This bill would only be a start to preventing some of the heinous crimes that are being committed on the Internet.

172 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Apr/9/24 5:50:33 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for bringing forward this private member's bill, which directs our attention to some really important problems. Is the member familiar with the report from the Department of Justice on cyber-bullying and non-consensual distribution of images from just a year ago, which takes quite a different approach from his bill and says we need to rewrite the existing offence so it is easier to prosecute and include measures, which are now in Bill C-63, to allow forfeiture, seizure, restitution and peace bonds in connection with these kinds of things?

98 words

Mr. Arnold Viersen

Apr/9/24 5:51:05 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am happy to support that initiative. I would say we can do both of these things. This bill is to try to prevent, in the first place, any of this content from being uploaded, rather than trying to deal with the mess after the fact. What the member is suggesting is more about dealing with something after it has been uploaded. That is an important aspect. Bringing the people who upload this content to justice is an important piece, but this would be put in place to prevent the uploading of this content in the first place.

100 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 5:52:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63 Bill C-270

Madam Speaker, to be very clear, with regard to the issue of non-consensual pornography and child pornography, I like to believe that every member in the House would be deeply offended by any activity that would ultimately lead to, encourage or promote, in any fashion whatsoever, those two issues. It angers a great number of us, to the degree that it causes all forms of emotions. We all want to do what we can to play an important role in making our online world experience a safer place. I must say that I was a little surprised when the member for Peace River—Westlock responded to the issue of Bill C-63. I did have some concerns. When one thinks of non-consensual pornography and child pornography, they are already illegal today in Canada. We know that. I appreciate what is being suggested in the private member's legislation, but he was asked a question in regard to Bill C-63, the government legislation dealing with the online harms act. It is something that is very specific and will actually have a very tangible impact. I do not know 100%, because this is the first time that I heard that members of the Conservative Party might be voting against that legislation. That would go against everything, I would suggest, in principle, that the member opposite talked about in his speech. The greatest threat today is once that information gets uploaded. How can we possibly contain it? That is, in part, what we should be attempting to deal with as quickly as possible. There was a great deal of consultation and work with stakeholders in all forms to try to deal with that. That is why we have the online harms act before us today. I wanted to ask the member a question. The question I was going to ask the member is this: Given the very nature of his comments, would he not agree that the House should look at a way in which we could expedite the passage of Bill C-63? By doing that, we are going to be directly helping some of the individuals the member addressed in his opening comments. The essence of what Bill C-63 does is that it provides an obligation, a legal obligation, for online platforms to take off of their platforms child pornography and non-consensual pornography. For example, the victims of these horrific actions can make contact and see justice because these platforms would have 24 hours to take it off. It brings some justice to the victims. I do not understand, based on his sincerity and how genuine the member was when he made the presentation of his bill. I have a basic understanding of what the member is trying to accomplish in the legislation, and I think that there are some questions in regard to getting some clarification. As I indicated, in terms of the idea of child pornography not being illegal, it is illegal today. We need to make that statement very clear. Non-consensual pornography is as well. Both are illegal. There is a consequence to perpetrators today if they are found out. What is missing is how we get those platforms to get rid of those images once those perpetrators start uploading the information and platforms start using the material. That is what the government legislation would provide. Hopefully before we end the two hours of debate the member can, in his concluding remarks, because he will be afforded that opportunity, provide some thoughts in regard to making sure people understand that this is illegal today and the importance of getting at those platforms. If we do not get at those platforms, the problem is not going to go away. There was a question posed by I believe a New Democratic member asking about countries around the world. People would be surprised at the motivation used to get child pornography on the net and livestreamed. I have seen some eye-opening presentations that show that in some countries in the world the person who is putting the child on the Internet is a parent or a guardian. They do it as a way to source revenue. They do it for income for the family. How sad is that? How angering is it to see the criminal element in North America that exploits these individuals, and children in particular. This is not to mention of course the importance of non-consensual pornography, but think of the trauma created as a direct result of a child going through things a child should never, ever have to experience. This will have a lifetime effect on that child. We know that. We see generational issues as a direct result of it. That is the reason I like to think that every member of the House of Commons would look at the issue at hand and the principles of what we are talking about and want to take some initiative to minimize it. Members need to talk to the stakeholders. I have had the opportunity in different ways over the last number of years to do so. It is one the reasons I was very glad to see the government legislation come forward. I was hoping to get clarification from the member on Bill C-270. He may be thrown off a little because of Bill C-63, which I believe will be of greater benefit than Bill C-270. After listening to the member speak though, I found out that the Conservative Party is apparently looking at voting against Bill C-63. We come up with things collectively as a House to recognize important issues and put forward legislation that would have a positive impact, and I would suggest that Bill C-63 is one of those things. I would hope the member who introduced this private member's bill will not only be an advocate for his bill but be the strongest voice and advocate within his own caucus for the online harms act, Bill C-63, so we can get the support for that bill. It would literally save lives and take ungodly things off the Internet. It would save the lives of children.

1039 words

Ms. Marie-Hélène Gaudreau (Laurentides—Labelle, BQ)

Apr/9/24 6:02:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-270

Madam Speaker, on November 21, 2022, a team from the TV show Envoyé spécial travelled from Paris to my office on the Hill. The France 2 team was there for a major investigation into Pornhub and the tragic experience of women and girls being sexually exploited by massive online pornography companies for profit. The French public television team wanted to see me because, during the 43rd Parliament, I was a member of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where we studied this unbelievable industry. I would actually describe this industry as disgusting, and people can understand why. It exploits and abuses women to create and distribute pornographic content with neither their knowledge nor their consent. I was absolutely shocked by what I heard. The committee heard from Serena Fleites, whose story was reported in a New York Times article. According to the article, the 14-year-old found herself in sexually explicit videos uploaded to Pornhub. It is abominable. I was also shocked by when the administrators of MindGeek, the parent company behind Pornhub, whose office was in Montreal at the time, came before the committee. I was stunned by the administrators' pathological lack of consideration for victims. As far as they were concerned, it was not really their fault if those videos ended up on their platform, and it would not harm their lives. It was appalling. The work we did in committee on Pornhub's practices enabled every member from every party present to understand the dubious mechanisms by which platforms distributing pornographic material get rich by exploiting the flaws in a technological system that is far from being able to control the content being distributed. In fact, it is built and designed to encourage criminal sexual exploitation practices by covering them up. The committee I was on heard about the failure of moderation. We were told that the content was moderated, that people's privacy and reputations were protected. We heard about the failure to prevent the presence of child sexual exploitation material, despite the claims of the MindGeek representatives who testified in committee. The committee made a number of recommendations, including the following: We must now, as a matter of urgency, pass legislation to respond to these crimes and deal with these troubling issues. I would remind the House that this study took place during the 43rd Parliament, which ran from 2019 to 2021. Now it is 2024. We had to wait for a bill from a Conservative member before we could finally talk about it in Parliament. What is the government waiting for? We are talking about human dignity. Young girls are having their reputations tarnished. Young people are committing suicide because they have been manipulated and cheated, because people have abused their trust. This has to stop. I am going to give some figures on what happened from 2014 to 2022. This is important because we will understand the seriousness of the situation. Police reported 15,630 incidents of online sexual offences against children and 48,816 incidents of online child pornography. The rate of police-reported online child sexual exploitation has risen since 2014, reaching 160 cases per 100,000 Canadian children and youth in 2022. Between 2014 and 2022, making and distributing child pornography accounted for three-quarters of child pornography cases, while possessing or accessing child pornography accounted for the remainder. The rate of online child pornography increased 290% in that short period of time. Girls were overrepresented as victims for all offence types over the nine-year period. The majority of victims of police-reported online sexual offences against children were girls, particularly girls between the ages of 12 and 17. Incidents of non-consensual distribution of intimate images most often involved a youth victim and a youth accused. Nearly all—97%—child and youth victims between 2015 and 2022 were aged 12 to 17 years, with a median age of 15 years for girls and 14 years for boys. Nine in ten accused persons were minors. For one-third of youth victims, a casual acquaintance shared the victim's intimate images with others. The goal is that once the image has been uploaded, it can be uploaded again, even months after it has been viewed. I am calling on my colleagues to refer this bill to committee so that it may be improved and become an example to the world. We must no longer allow sexual exploitation. Bill C‑270 “amends the Criminal Code to prohibit a person from making, distributing or advertising pornographic material for commercial purposes without having first ascertained that, at the time the material was made, each person whose image is depicted in the material was 18 years of age or older and gave their express consent to their image being depicted.” To me, that is essential. The voluntary agreement, in writing, of the person whose image is depicted in the pornographic material will be required before the content can be uploaded to the platforms. Makers and distributors who do not comply with the requirements of the legislation will be subject to fines of up to half a million dollars and a prison sentence of up to two years. Alternatively, the offence may be punishable on summary conviction and liable to a fine of not more than $100,000. What is more, convicted distributors or makers will be subject to an order. I could go on at length, but I have only 30 seconds left. I just want to close by saying that this is a serious subject that raises a lot of questions, that this bill must be referred to committee and that the Bloc Québécois will vote in favour of it.

964 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Apr/9/24 6:12:11 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63 Bill C-270 Bill C-13

Madam Speaker, New Democrats support, as all parties do, tackling the important issues that the bill before us seeks to tackle. We also know that there has been an explosion of sexual exploitation of individuals online without their consent and an explosion of child pornography. What we have to do is find those measures that would be effective in bringing an end to these heinous practices. Like the member for Peace River—Westlock, I would like to support and salute the survivors who have told their tales, at much personal sacrifice and much personal anguish, publicly acknowledging what has happened to them and the impact it has had on their lives. We would not be making progress on these issues without that work by those survivors, so I think we all want to salute them for their bravery in taking up this problem. However, the challenge with these issues is to find what will actually work to end sexual exploitation. We know that a lack of resources for enforcement is almost always at least equally important to any gaps in legislation. What we need to see is dedicated funding to specific and skilled police units to tackle these questions because it can become highly complex and highly convoluted in trying to bring these cases to prosecution, and we know that is one of the problems with the existing legislation. It is difficult to prosecute for these offences under the Criminal Code as it now stands. We look forward, as New Democrats, to hearing from expert witnesses in committee on what measures will actually be the most effective in bringing an end to these practices, and whether and how the measures proposed in Bill C-270 would contribute to bringing an end to online sexual exploitation. The bill, in some senses, is very simple. It would require checking ID and keeping records of consent. Some would argue that the existing law already implicitly requires that, so is this a step that would make it easier to prosecute? I do not know the answer to that, but I am looking forward to hearing expert testimony on it. While this legislation is not specific to women, it is important to acknowledge the disproportionate representation of women as victims of both child pornography and of sexual exploitation online without consent. However, I would also note that we have had a recent rash of cases of sexploitation or sextortion of young men who thought they had been speaking to other partners their own age online. They later find out that they were being threatened with the images they had shared being posted online and being asked for money or sexual favours to avoid that. Yes, it is primarily women, but we have seen this other phenomenon occurring where men pose as young women to get young boys to share those images. Obviously, we need more education for young people on the dangers of sharing intimate images, although I am under no illusion that we can change the way young people relate to each other online and through their phones. Education would be important, but some measures to deal with these things when they happen are also important. If we look at the Criminal Code, paragraph 162.1(1) already makes it illegal to distribute an intimate image without consent. Of course, child pornography, under a succeeding subsection, is also already illegal. This was first brought forward and added to the Criminal Code 11 years ago. I was a member of Parliament at that time, and the member for Peace River—Westlock joined us shortly after. It came in an omnibus bill brought forward by the Conservatives. In that bill, there were a number of things, to be honest, that New Democrats objected to, but when the bill, which was Bill C-13 at the time, was brought forward, our spokesperson Françoise Boivin offered to the government to split the bill, take out the section on online exploitation without consent and pass it through all stages in a single day. The Conservatives refused, at that point, to do that, and it took another year and a half to get that passed into law. New Democrats have been supportive in taking these actions and have recognized its urgency for more than a decade. We are on board with getting the bill before us to committee and making sure that we find what is most effective in tackling these problems. What are the problems? I see that there are principally two. One, as I have mentioned before, is the difficulty of prosecution and the difficulty of making those who profit from this pay a price. All the prosecutors I have talked to have said that it is difficult to make these cases. It is difficult to investigate, and it is difficult to get convictions. Are there things we can do that would help make prosecution easier, and are the things suggested in the bill going to do that? I look forward to finding that out in committee. The second problem is the problem of takedown, and we all know that once the images are uploaded, they are there forever. They are hard to get rid of. As members of the government's side have pointed out, there are measures in government Bill C-63 that would help with warrants of seizure, forfeiture, restitution and peace bonds in trying to get more effective action to take down the images once they have been posted. I am not an optimist about the ability to do that, but we seem to lack the tools we need now to make a stab at taking the images off-line. It is also important to remember that whatever we do here has to make our law more effective at getting those who are profiting from the images. That is really what the bill is aimed at, and I salute the member for Peace River—Westlock for that singular focus because I think that is really key. We also have to be aware of unintended consequences. When subsection 162.1(1) became law, in court we ran into a problem fairly early on of minors who share private images between each other, because technically, under the law as it is written, that is illegal; it is child pornography, and it certainly was not the intention to capture 15-year-olds who share intimate images with each other. Whenever we make these kinds of changes, we have to make sure they do not have unintended consequences. Whether we like the practices that young people engage in online or not is not the question. We just have to make sure we do not capture innocent people when we are trying to capture those who profit from exploitation. The second part, in terms of unintended consequences, is I think we have to keep in mind there are those who are engaged in lawful forms of sex work online, and we have to make sure they are not captured under the broad strokes of the bill. Again, I am looking forward to hearing the testimony about what will work to tackle these problems. We know the images are already illegal, but we know we lack effective tools in the legal system both to prosecute and to get the images taken down. New Democrats are broadly supportive of the principles in the bill. We are looking forward to the expert testimony I am certain we will hear at committee about what will actually work in tackling the problem. I look forward to the early passage of the bill through to committee.

1276 words

Hon. Michelle Rempel Garner (Calgary Nose Hill, CPC)

Apr/9/24 6:19:50 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Madam Speaker, I have a lot to say about the bill. I will just start with a brief personal anecdote. I want to be very clear when I say this: I do not do this as victim porn or looking for sympathy. It is an example of how if somebody like myself, in a position of privilege, has a hard time accessing the justice system, what about others? When I was a minister of the Crown, over 10 years ago, I received very explicit sexualized online threats, very graphic descriptions of how somebody was going to rape me, with what instruments, and how they were going to kill me. I was alone in a hotel room. My schedule had been published the day before, and I was terrified. The response at that time from law enforcement, and the process I had to go through as a minister of the Crown, to attempt to get justice in a situation that did not involve intimate images, sticks with me to this day. If I had to go through that at that time, what hope is there for somebody who does not have my position of privilege? What the bill would do is recognize that the forms of discrimination and harassment that, as my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke says, disproportionately impact women, sexual minorities and other persons, have outpaced Parliament's ability to change the law. Here we are today. Briefly, I want to respond to some of the points of debate. First of all, my colleague from the Liberals suggested that we expedite Bill C-63. That bill has been so widely panned by such a variety of disparate stakeholders that the government has not even scheduled it for debate in the House yet. Second, and this is particularly for my colleagues who are looking to support this, to send the bill through to second reading, Bill C-63 would not provide criminal provisions either for any of the activities that are in the bill or for some of the other instances that have been brought up in the House for debate tonight, particularly the non-consensual distribution of deepnudes and deepfake pornography. I raised the issue in the House over seven months ago. The intimate image distribution laws that are currently in the Criminal Code were only put in place in 2014, about a decade after social media came into play, and after Rehtaeh Parsons and Amanda Todd tragically died due to an absence in the law. Seven months have passed, and the government could have dealt with updating the Criminal Code with a very narrow provision that the Canadian Bar Association and multiple victims' rights groups have asked for, yet it has chosen not to. There are so many articles that have been written about what is wrong with what is in Bill C-63 that we now need to start paying attention to what is wrong with it because of what is not in there. There is no update to Canada's Criminal Code provisions on the distribution of intimate images produced by artificial intelligence that are known as deepnudes. I want to be very clear about this. There are websites right now where anyone in this place can download an app to their phone, upload any image of any person, including any person in here, and imagine what that looks like during an election campaign, erase people's clothes, and make it look like legitimate pornography. Imagine, then, that being distributed on social media without consent. Our Criminal Code, the Canadian Bar Association, as well as law professors, and I could read case after case, say that our laws do not update that. At the beginning of February, there was a Canadian Press article that said that the government would update the law in Bill C-63, but it did not. Instead, what it chose to do was put in place a three-headed bureaucracy, an entirely extrajudicial process that amounts to a victim of these crimes being told to go to a bureaucratic complaints department instead of being able to get restitution under the law. Do we know what that says to a perpetrator? It says, “Go ahead; do it. There is no justice for you.” It boggles my mind that the government has spent all of this time while countless women and vulnerable Canadians are being harassed right now. I also want to highlight something my colleague from Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke said, which is that there is a lack of resources for law enforcement across the country. While everybody had a nice couple of years talking about defunding the police, how many thousands of women across this country, tens of thousands or maybe even millions, experienced online harassment and were told, when they finally got the courage to go to the police, that it was in their head? One of those women was killed in Calgary recently. Another of those women is Mercedes Stephenson, who talked about her story about trying to get justice for online harassment. If women like Mercedes Stephenson and I have a hard time getting justice, how is a teenager in Winnipeg in a high school supposed to get any sort of justice without clarity in the Criminal Code if there are deepnudes spread about her? I will tell members how it goes, because it happened in a high school in Winnipeg after I raised this in the House of Commons. I said it was going to happen and it happened. Kids were posting artificial intelligence-generated deepnudes and deepfakes. They were harassing peers, harassing young women. Do members know what happened? No charges were laid. Why were no charges laid? According to the article, it was because of ambiguity in the Criminal Code around artificial intelligence-created deepnudes. Imagine that. Seven months have passed. It is not in Bill C-63. At least the bill before us is looking at both sides of the coin on the Criminal Code provisions that we need to start looking at. I want to ensure that the government is immediately updating the Criminal Code to say that if it is illegal to distribute intimate images of a person that have been taken with a camera, it should be the exact same thing if it has been generated by a deepnude artificial intelligence. This should have been done a long time ago. Before Bill C-63 came out, Peter Menzies, the former head of the CRTC, talked about the need to have non-partisan consensus and narrowly scoped bills so it could pass the House, but what the government has chosen to do with Bill C-63 is put in place a broad regulatory system with even more nebulousness on Criminal Code provisions. A lot of people have raised concerns about what the regulatory system would do and whether or not it would actually be able to address these things, and the government has not even allowed the House to debate that yet. What we have in front of us, from my perspective, is a clear call to action to update the Criminal Code where we can, in narrow provisions, so law enforcement has the tools it needs to ensure that victims of these types of crimes can receive justice. What is happening is that technology is rapidly outpacing our ability to keep up with the law, and women are dying. I am very pleased to hear the multipartisan nature of debate on these types of issues, and that there is at least a willingness to bring forward these types of initiatives to committee to have the discussions, but it does concern me that the government has eschewed any sort of update of the Criminal Code on a life-versus-life basis for regulators. Essentially what I am worried about is that it is telling victims to go to the complaints department, an extrajudicial process, as opposed to giving law enforcement the tools it needs. I am sure there will be much more debate on this, but at the end of the day, seven months have passed since I asked the government to update the Criminal Code to ensure that deepnudes and deepfakes are in the Criminal Code under the non-consensual intimate image distribution laws. Certainly what we are talking about here is ensuring that law enforcement has every tool it needs to ensure that women and, as some of my colleagues have raised here, other sexual minorities are not victimized online through these types of technologies.

1429 words

Mr. Ben Carr (Winnipeg South Centre, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 6:30:03 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-270

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to join the second reading debate with respect to Bill C-270, an act to amend the Criminal Code on pornographic material, which was introduced on April 28, 2022, by the member for Peace River—Westlock. I want to take an opportunity off the top to thank an organization that has played a critical role in advocacy in terms of dealing with so many of the challenges that the members opposite have raised. This organization, the Canadian Centre for Child Protection, is located in the heart of my riding in Winnipeg South Centre. I want to thank Lianna McDonald, Signy Arnason, Noni Classen and the entire team at the Canadian Centre for Child Protection for the work that they have done and continue to do in helping to protect children across this country. I know we all agree that non-consensual distribution of intimate images, child sexual abuse, sexual assault and human trafficking, as well as any images of such conduct, are among the most heinous crimes. I know that we are all deeply concerned that depictions of these crimes have been uploaded and shared on online platforms. Ensuring that our policies and legislation effectively address this serious issue is a priority for our government. Victims must be protected, and digital platforms have a critical role to play in protecting them. I know we all agree that non-consensual distribution of intimate images, child sexual abuse, sexual assault and human trafficking, as well as any images of such conduct, are among the most heinous crimes. I know that we are deeply concerned—

269 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 6:31:57 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have eight minutes the next time this matter is before the House. 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.

46 words

Mr. Damien Kurek (Battle River—Crowfoot, CPC)

Apr/9/24 6:32:51 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-347

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place and talk about the issues that are so important to Canadians. Specifically today, I am rising to talk about Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically in relation to the oath of office that those of us in this place all take prior to our being able to take our seats. I know the bill was meant to be up for debate a number of weeks ago. Finally having this opportunity, I cannot help but think about so much of our history and its legacy and what this means to our democratic institutions. In speaking to the privilege motion that was debated yesterday and in talking about what some of the privileges of members of Parliament are, I mentioned the mace and some of the other symbols we have in this place and across our country and how so many of those lend to the history we have in this country we are able to call Canada today. When it comes to the specifics of this institution, there has been more than 800 years of these green carpets. There was a decision on the fields of Runnymede that, instead of fighting a war, there would be deliberation and debate that would take place and the Crown would willingly give authority to the people. That is represented through the mace that sits on the table that our clerks reside at, where it points toward the government side of the House of Commons as a symbolic message to this day that speaks of that history of democracy and the empowerment of the people. I enter into the debate on Bill C-347 with that history in mind. Here we have something that may seem small, in terms of adding an option for MPs to use instead of swearing an oath or affirming allegiance to the Crown. Members who were sworn in prior to the passing of the late Queen Elizabeth II, as on the two opportunities I have had, swore an oath of allegiance to the late queen, and those who have been elected more recently or will be elected in the future have an opportunity to swear an oath to King Charles III. What I will attempt to do over the course of my speech is highlight a number of what I find are concerning aspects of the bill The first is that we have a private member's bill, which has a very limited opportunity for debate in this place. Its provisions are not given the ability to have a fulsome discussion and debate on an issue as important as changing the perspective around the Crown's role in Canada. There is a reason I would say that. Some would say that this would just give another option. Practically, yes, that is what would happen here, but I would urge members of this place to consider this simple giving of a third option to members. Instead of swearing an oath or affirming allegiance to the Crown, they would be able to say that they would uphold the Constitution. I suggest that members reflect carefully on the significance of that change because it shows a very symbolic shift in the way we approach our relationship with so much of our national history, of which the monarchy and the British Crown have been such a significant part. I have some concerns about doing this in the form of a private member's bill. It would be taking constitutional matters, I would suggest, somewhat flippantly and without acknowledging some of the seriousness with which we should approach these important things. I know there are debates. In fact, I have heard some debates. There is one political party in the House that is no fan of the monarchy, and there are various opinions as to the future role of the monarchy in both the House of Commons and also in the other place, in the Senate. Those are important discussions that we can have as a country, but to simply provide an out without actually engaging in those fulsome discussions is deeply problematic. One challenge I have with this bill is that it is somewhat contradictory in nature. While it gives a third option, and I have mentioned what that third option would be, I would suggest that it is very typically Liberal. It adds a third option as a workaround to do the exact same thing that the first two options provide. On swearing an oath to the Crown, in 1905, there was a solemn affirmation and, in my understanding, significant debate around that at the time. What this change would bring about is basically that people would not have to do either of those, but they would swear to uphold the Constitution. However, by doing that, they are basically saying, indirectly, that they are swearing an oath of allegiance to the monarchy. My suggestion would be, when it comes to the context of the bill we have before us, that we should have the honest conversation as a nation as to the future of that in the context of our national discourse as opposed to the very limited few hours of debate that it has in a PMB slot. I would just note that one of the ironies I find when it comes to this bill is that we have a Liberal member of Parliament bringing this forward. I understand he has a long history of some of his opposition, and I believe it dates back to some controversy in relation to becoming a lawyer. There is obviously some personal history there. I greatly respect one's personal history and advocacy, even if I do not agree with it. One can respect people they do not agree with, which may be a news flash for many in this place. I find it interesting that a Liberal would bring forward a bill that includes a mechanism with a very U.S. style of politics. If passed, this type of response would be integrated into something that has been very uniquely Westminster, very uniquely Canada. It already acknowledges that, in some cases, whether it is faith or ideology, some people do not feel they can swear an oath, so they simply affirm their allegiance to the Crown. I understand that. However, it is ironic, I would suggest, that it is bringing forward some of that American style, because if one was to look at the oath that members of Congress, the U.S. President or members of the U.S. military swear, there is certainly a similarity. Nevertheless, it would not accomplish the same thing, because it is a workaround that still swears allegiance to the Crown; this is upheld through the constitutional values. What is unique is that, as we undertake some of these significant discussions, it is okay to have disagreements. I am proud to be part of a party that provides a tremendous amount of latitude to be able to discuss and, in many cases, agree. I know that, for my Conservative colleagues and I, the reason we are Conservatives is very clear and straightforward. That is something we often talk about. However, that does not mean that one universally agrees on everything. It is that ability to disagree that is so fundamental to who we are as Canadians. I would simply say this: Earlier today, I met with an organization that talks about media literacy. One fundamental takeaway is that it is okay to disagree in our society. It is okay to have dialogue and debate, to have different opinions on matters. Simply because someone has a different opinion does not necessarily make that person a bad person. I fear that we have moved down that line, where we simply demonize those whom we disagree with. I would suggest that this is fundamentally incorrect. To conclude, we may debate what responsibility is particular to the oath of office, which I certainly take very seriously. There may be a debate to have around the role of that responsibility to uphold the more than a century and a half of democratic tradition here in Canada, and prior to Canada becoming a country in 1867, the advent of responsible government with Robert Baldwin and Louis LaFontaine. There is some significant history there. Let us have those serious conversations and not adopt a bill that, I would suggest, is something of a cop-out from having those serious conversations that we should be able to have in this place.

1433 words

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

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron (Nanaimo—Ladysmith, NDP)

Apr/9/24 6:53:22 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-347

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I lost my flower that acknowledges Cancer Awareness Month, so I do not have it on right now, but I do want to acknowledge that it is Cancer Awareness Month. I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to acknowledge all those who are impacted by cancer. I recently lost a friend of mine, Cindra, who leaves behind her three children. She also lost her husband just over a year ago, so they have left behind their children as a result of cancer. I want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society and all those who do all the work to do research and provide supports to help all those who are impacted. With that, I am here today to talk about Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act. This is my very first speech as the new NDP critic of democratic reform, so I am very proud and pleased to speak to this issue. I want to thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for bringing forward this bill. As we know, this bill brings forward the ability for a member of the House of Commons or Senate, before they take their seat, to choose to take and subscribe to the oath of allegiance, an oath of office, or both. We all subscribe to the oath of allegiance, so this would be an alternative for people. Members would have a choice to swear an allegiance to the monarch, as has always been done in Canada, or to take an oath of office, therefore committing to work in the best interest of our country and in accordance with the Constitution. Members cannot currently legally assume their seat in Parliament until they have taken the oath to the sovereign. When speaking with constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I have heard a mix of responses. Some are very much in favour of such changes, some are very much against and there are others who are quite frankly apathetic to the issue. It is for these reasons my New Democrat colleagues and I will decide individually whether to support this legislation or not. I respect the member for his creativity in this bill. Whether intended or not, I believe this could be a small, positive step in addressing potential barriers for Canadians in putting their names forward to serve and represent constituents as members of Parliament. I believe this to be a small change but worth discussing, as such decisions can have an impact on the composition of who is elected into the House of Commons. However, as we all know, this is not an issue I am finding is front of mind for Canadians. This is understandable as Canadians and people in Nanaimo—Ladysmith are struggling to make ends meet. People are unable to afford housing and are unable to keep food on the table. Canadians are feeling the real impacts of the climate crisis. In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, for example, “forest fire season” is now a term being used by locals. Forest fire season is now a part of our summer, where the smoke fills the air, kids are unable to go outside to play and people struggle just to breathe. There are serious problems facing Canadians across the country. Front of mind for most, rightfully so, is not this issue, but we do need to be talking about how to adapt to meet the needs of Canadians to ensure our democracy is strong and representative. However, I do believe, and I am willing to be proven wrong, but if the Liberals who are currently forming government were serious about wanting to make this change, it would not have come forward today as a private member's bill. They would have instead made it happen. This is a pattern of Liberal behaviour picking off low-lying fruit instead of implementing legislation that would bring forward real democratic reform and the real changes Canadians so desperately need. Now, more than ever, we need to be seriously evaluating the ways in which our electoral systems and parliamentary processes create barriers to full participation of Canadians. This is why I brought forward my previous bill calling on the government to implement a national citizens assembly on electoral reform. This would have provided Canadians with the tools needed to develop and form the recommendations to the federal government as to how to best strengthen our democracy. We all know the Liberals first promised electoral reform in 2015 and continued to make such promises time and time again. The Conservatives, on the other hand, for the most part have been silent on this issue as, let us be honest, the current system benefits them. Out of 118 elected Conservative MPs, only 21 are women. This is about 18% of the party. Women account for over 50% of the general Canadian population, and yet the Conservative Party is composed of only 18% women. One would think the Conservatives would be eager to make changes to increase representation; instead, they fight to maintain the existing systems and the status quo. I will say this: This motion, as well as much of the work still required, is an opportunity for all MPs to come together and implement a positive path forward for Canadians, because we cannot keep doing what we have always done. We know that, currently, only 30% of those elected to the House of Commons overall are women. This is the highest it has ever been. However, the rate at which Canada is increasing representation is too slow, and we are falling shamefully behind on the global scale. Those elected to the House of Commons should be representative of our communities. Instead, we have seen an under-representation of so many, including indigenous people, Black Canadians, those living with low incomes, people who identify as part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, and I could go on. We also know that the current first-past-the-post system encourages divisive and adversarial politics. We are seeing more than our fair share of this in this House, and the current system encourages such poor behaviour. It does not have to be this way. When we look at countries such as Norway, New Zealand and Scotland that have adopted a system of proportional representation, where voter support means better-represented seats in Parliament, we also see increased collaborations among those elected and political parties. This is because, to get legislation through Parliament, working together is the only choice. The winner-take-all approach that we have in Canada, in contrast, results in what we see all around us: division, misinformation and personal attacks rather than respectful debate about the priority at hand. Instead of providing Canadians with the tools required to ensure those important discussions and solutions were made a priority, both the Liberals and Conservatives, including the mover of this motion, voted against moving forward.

1166 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Apr/9/24 7:00:53 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I appreciate what the member is saying, but we need to keep it relevant to the legislation at hand. That would be nice.

32 words

Rise

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 7:01:04 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that, as he is aware, there is some latitude in the debates and speeches in the House. I am sure the hon. member will ensure that her speech is related to the matter, but it flows in different ways sometimes and then it is brought back. I would remind members to make sure they are speaking to the motion before the House. The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

76 words

Ms. Lisa Marie Barron

Apr/9/24 7:01:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thought perhaps I had not followed a parliamentary rule of some sort. As it turns out, it was a chance to deflect from the truth, which is the voting record of the Liberals in not moving forward on electoral reform and strengthening our democracy. I appreciate this motion and the need for changes to be made, but let us take a moment to reflect on the work required ahead and commit together to make real changes, to listen to the needs of Canadians and to implement the necessary solutions. I cannot reiterate enough that we no longer have time to wait.

104 words

Mr. James Maloney (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 7:02:26 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-347

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

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Apr/9/24 7:06:13 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-347

Madam Speaker, Bill C-347 seeks to give members of Parliament and senators a choice regarding the oath they take. They can choose to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch, take the new oath of office or both. I want to commend the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for this bill. He is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, of which I am one of the co-chairs. Of course, the Bloc Québécois opposes any expression of this system of monarchism and its underlying philosophy. When a people does not know its history, it is a bit like when an individual has amnesia. It is important to remember the actions and decisions of the British monarchy, the deportation of the Acadians, and the horrors of the siege of Quebec and the Seven Years' War, which resulted in the death of 15% of the population of New France. It is also important to remember the military suppression of the Patriotes rebellion of 1837-38. In the wake of the Durham report, England declared the union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada to assimilate the francophones and keep them in the minority. In the 19th century, in the name of the Queen of England, for the supremacy of the English race, the Anglo-Protestants pushed the provinces outside Quebec to ban all Catholic schools and any form of French teaching in the schools. In April 1982, Queen Elizabeth II came to Ottawa to give royal assent to the 1982 Constitution, which was an anti-Quebec and anti-Bill 101 constitutional power grab that has never been signed by any government of Quebec. If we do not remember, as my colleague said, and if we do not learn from history, it will repeat itself. We see again today the Canadian government interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions to constantly impose and promote English. Some 94% of official languages funding goes to English-language institutions and interest groups in Quebec. The decline of French continues in Quebec and Canada. The change established by Bill C-347 is also a significant democratic improvement, because in a democracy the collective will of the people is the source of political power. In a democracy, as the Patriotes used to say, elected officials serve the people and the laws. The people are the true source of sovereign power. It is only fitting that elected officials pledge their loyalty to their true sovereign, the people. For the Bloc Québécois, the reference to the Crown expresses a profoundly anti-democratic idea, namely that the Crown is the guarantor of democratic institutions and that the power of these institutions exists only by virtue of that of the Crown. The Bloc Québécois rejects both royalism—that is, loyalty to the individual person of the monarch—and modern monarchism. Our political goal is to create a democratic Quebec republic. Historically, Canada's institutions have retained characteristics specific to former monarchist regimes. This continues to have a major influence on the development of democracy in Quebec and Canada. Our head of state is the king of another country. We have an unelected Senate that exercises some of the legislative power. The recognition of peoples’ right to self-determination has not been enshrined in our institutions. The Crown has repeatedly used executive powers. The prerogatives of the Crown are still present, written down in black and white. The tradition of the Crown not exercising its prerogatives can be broken, as it was in 2007. In Canada, the monarchy is the institution entrusted with the sovereignty and continuity of the state. Canada is an unfinished democracy, in large part because of its undemocratic institutions, the Crown and the Senate. In a democratic republic, the people have sovereignty over their institutions and laws, including the foundational law, the Constitution. All legislators are elected and can be removed. Fundamental freedoms are guaranteed, including freedom of religion and its corollary, the separation of church and state. As long as the suggested oath of office contains a reference to the Constitution and the Constitution enshrines the power of the Crown, this new oath is not completely free of monarchical references. Still, the absence of explicit reference is considered to be at least an improvement over previous versions. That being said, the oath of office suggested by Bill C‑347 may appear to be at odds with the founding principles of the Bloc Québécois and our political vision, namely Quebec's independence. Indeed, the oath commits the oath-taker to perform their duties in the best interests of Canada, a country we wish to leave, and in accordance with its Constitution, which was forcibly imposed on the people of Quebec and to which the state of Quebec has never subscribed. Nevertheless, it is easy to show that these two aspects, the best interests and the Constitution, are not contradictory to the political action of the Bloc Québécois, because the new formula is an improvement. For the Bloc Québécois, it is in Canada's best interest that Quebec become an independent country. The Bloc Québécois is a democratic political party that respects the rule of law. Its political agenda is already carried out in compliance with the law and the Constitution. We believe that the current Canadian system fails to accurately reflect Canada's sociological reality. Canadian society is made up of nations: the English Canadian nation, the Quebec nation and all indigenous nations. Canadian multiculturalism defines the Canadian people as an aggregate of individual identities and cultural communities, with no regard for their national identity. Acadians, we must remember, are also a nation and a people. Naturally, Quebec and the people of Quebec do not subscribe to this multicultural view, and the federalist camp has repeatedly failed to offer the people of Quebec an acceptable solution that would lead them to participate voluntarily in the Canadian federation. All attempts to bring the Quebec nation into the fold with honour and enthusiasm, as it was once said, have fallen by the wayside. For all these reasons, the oath of office would enable Bloc Québécois members to solemnly undertake to carry out their duties in the best interest of Canada. We believe that as soon as Quebec becomes independent, it will give the other nations and peoples of Canada an opportunity to begin a new dialogue on the nature and components of their political ties. With that in mind, this bill is a small step in the right direction and constitutes a significant democratic improvement that would enable us to swear an oath more in line with our freedom of conscience.

1138 words

Mr. Sean Casey (Charlottetown, Lib.)

Apr/9/24 7:15:08 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-347

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, oath of office, which was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I want to thank the hon. member for the work he has put into this piece of legislation. Like any experienced lawyer, he has left no stone unturned. He has anticipated every argument and every detail. It is a simple enough change that would have no impact outside of Parliament Hill, but it has the potential to revitalize the institution itself, arguably helping Parliament evolve and usher in a new era. This bill would see future parliamentarians have the choice to swear allegiance to the monarch, as is presently the case, or take an oath of office swearing to act in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution before taking their seat in Parliament. Some may choose to both swear allegiance and take the oath of office. This is the important principle on which the bill rests, and that is the principle of choice. It is my belief that all parliamentarians, both in the House and in the other place, and yes, including Conservatives, work day in and day out for the betterment of this great nation. Whether it be in our respective ridings, in committee or in this chamber, we strive to act in the best interest of Canadians. We might not always agree on what that looks like, but we have a shared goal of supporting Canadians now and setting the stage for a positive future. The oath of office proposed in Bill C-347 would remind us of this shared goal and would set the stage from the get-go that we are here for Canada. This would not in any way diminish the role of the monarchy in our Constitution, but it would allow for future members to celebrate their purpose in Parliament and remember that they are accountable to Canadians in everything they do. Having sworn the oath of allegiance on four instances now, I know that an oath of office, in addition to or instead of the oath of allegiance, would serve as a powerful motivator for new parliamentarians as they take their seats. Then there is the matter of inclusivity. The oath of allegiance itself emerged in the 16th century due to political and religious conflicts in Great Britain. The Act of Supremacy established the Crown as the head of the Protestant Church and members of Parliament had to swear allegiance to the sovereign in their capacities as both the head of state and the head of the church. The goal at that time was to exclude based on religious belief as Roman Catholics and Jewish people would not recognize the Crown as supreme in all matters and thus would not have access to public office. In Canada, we have shaped things since then in a uniquely Canadian way, with the oath not only reflecting allegiance to not only the Crown but also the institutions it represents in our country. The aim here is to ensure that members remember that they are acting in the best interests of Canada and to impress upon them the serious responsibilities they are assuming. These same goals can be achieved by an oath of office. In an increasingly diverse Parliament, we must reflect on the necessity of asking first nations, Métis and Inuit members to swear allegiance to a system of monarchy that has long disadvantaged them. Understanding that the Government of Canada has long affirmed that its most important relationship is the one with indigenous peoples, we must work toward reconciliation and allow indigenous self-governance to exist on Parliament Hill as it does elsewhere across the country. This also rings true for other potential members who, for historical or ethnic reasons, might hesitate to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. This hesitancy does not make anyone less Canadian, nor does it make them less suited for public office. In fact, some of these perspectives are essential and may serve as lessons to us as we debate legislation, undertake studies and make important decisions that affect Canadians. We must find ways to allow members to take their seats without compromising their identities. I know that talk of amending the Constitution is justifiably met with skepticism, but this is where the simplicity of the bill makes it effective. It proposes that the Constitution Act, 1867, be amended to give every federal parliamentarian the option to take and subscribe the oath of office contained in the act instead of, or in addition to, the oath of allegiance. If the bill had included provincial legislative bodies in the proposed amendment, we would indeed have to go through the general procedure, as outlined in section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, the amendment specifically refers to the House of Commons or Senate, thereby having no impact on provincial or territorial affairs. By limiting the scope of the bill to Parliament, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is triggered, which reads: 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. Hence, Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over decisions that impact only its affairs. Thus, by a simple act of Parliament, we can modernize both chambers without going through the general procedure for amending the Constitution. This amendment does not in any way change the Constitution's architecture or spirit, nor does it jeopardize the democratic institutions of Canada. In fact, it improves them. This is also not the first time in history that our democracy has been modernized in Parliament. As was stated earlier in debate, from 1905 onward, members have been able to make a solemn affirmation of allegiance instead of an oath, acknowledging the religious diversity of our country. Let us reflect on that for a minute. In 1905, we made it optional to make any reference to God in our oath. Here we are in 2024, debating whether we should make it mandatory to include the monarch in the oath. This 1905 development is in line with the living tree doctrine in Canadian law that the Constitution must be read in a progressive manner, allowing it to adapt to changing times. It must reflect the realities of Canadian society and evolve with it. This, once again, is a simple, meaningful change. I thank the member for introducing the bill, which brings a modern, inclusive and uniquely Canadian perspective to our institutions, and I will be proud to stand with him in support of it.

1130 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Apr/9/24 7:23:22 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche has five minutes for his right of reply.

15 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 296