SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 117 - Oct/25/22

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Oct/25/22 12:05:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I entirely and completely agree with the first bit of the speech of the member when he talked about much more pressing needs and that people were not coming into his office to talk about the monarch. However, he then went on to talk about electoral reform and tried to convince me that people were coming into his office to talk about that. I will leave that aside for a second. Let us assume that this motion were to pass and in some way we could, as of tomorrow morning, be free of the monarch, how would life change for any average ordinary Canadian on a day-to-day basis?

112 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Oct/25/22 12:06:08 p.m.
Watch

That is the crux of the matter, Mr. Speaker. How would it change? People are far more concerned with their immediate needs right now, with how they are going to make it through the month on their paycheques, trying to balance the rent, the food and other household expenses. To take my answer to the member's question a bit further, if we were to look at other countries that have politicized heads of state, an elected president, such as France and the United States, that can come with its own set of problems, where that office is highly politicized and, in some cases, even has negative consequences for the elected legislatures of those countries. It is about priorities. There are more pressing priorities and that is why I will stay focused on those for my constituents.

137 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Oct/25/22 12:07:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very curious about something my colleague said at the end of his speech when he talked about modernizing the monarchy. I have to say I find that very intriguing. What is a monarch? At some point in time, God gave power to someone and said that person's descendants would continue to hold power until the end of time. That person and their descendants would govern until the end of time. We now live in a democracy. I am genuinely curious about how this wacky idea from the Middle Ages can be modernized.

97 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Oct/25/22 12:07:36 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if my hon. colleague is going to borrow from history, he need only look at the Magna Carta or the English Bill of Rights. The struggle in British history, and even in Canadian history, has been between the executive power lodged in the form of the Crown and the will of the people, and we have evolved. It started back in the 1200s in England when the barons demanded the king share more power. That spread more. Now England has a fully modern democratic state where power is entirely vested in the elected government, the same as it is in Canada. These two things can exist. We can have a modern Crown that acknowledges past injustices, while we continue to take steps to strengthen democratic accountability and the power of the people in electing members to this place.

140 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Oct/25/22 12:08:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that the member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford again mentioned electoral reform in his speech. Some have inferred that electoral reform is separate from the pressing priorities of Canadians. I put it forward that for those who want meaningful action on climate, for example, it will be far more difficult to do so if we do not have the views of all Canadians represented in this place. Could the member comment on that?

78 words

Mr. Alistair MacGregor

Oct/25/22 12:09:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I could not agree more. The way we elect members to the House has a very real consequence for what is debated and the types of policies that are enacted. Instead of seeing regional power blocks that all political parties have, we have to realize that every province has a variety of views and those are not always honoured in how their provinces vote. Saskatchewan is entirely Conservative based on this vote, but we know that not all people in Saskatchewan are Conservative voters. The New Democrats and Liberals there do not have a voice in this Parliament, and that is an important part of the province of Saskatchewan that is not getting a voice in the House of Commons. I absolutely agree with the member that if we were to tackle and improve electoral reform, it would have much better positive consequences for how policy is enacted in this place and would be much more representative of the true will of the Canadian people.

167 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Oct/25/22 12:10:08 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. What we are discussing today centres around our principles and our ideals, so I do not think this debate is unwarranted. I would like to thank everyone who is taking part in it, including those who just spoke before me. As a matter of principle, I often look back at my roots. Everything we have experienced has helped shape the elected officials we are today. I was born to a working-class father and a mother who was a nurse. I was born female and that is the way it is. I was born a Quebecker and that is also the way it is. Because of what we are discussing today, like all Quebeckers and Canadians, I cannot even aspire to become the head of the Canadian state, even if I wanted to. I have barely spoken three sentences, and we are already deeply entangled in something that makes absolutely no sense to someone like me with democratic ideals. After all, what kind of state deprives its entire population of the possibility of becoming head of state? It is certainly not a democracy. At most, I would say that it is masquerading as a democracy and trying to imitate its form. It is a bit of smoke and mirrors. As some of my colleagues have done, I often like to recall the past and dwell on the meaning of words we use ad nauseam that sometimes might escape us. The word “democracy” derives from demos, the people, and kratos, to rule. Democracy is sharing power between the people. Democracy is the power of the people. Canada, as we know, and that is what we are talking about today, embraces a constitutional monarchy. That means that the true head of state cannot be an MP, not me or anyone in the House, but a monarch such as an Elizabeth or a Charles, someone who through fate or arbitrary alliances and births, inherited a crown. That bears repeating because it is important, not only symbolically, but because it also has tangible and potential implications. The word “monarch” derives from monos, one, and archon, ruler, and therefore refers to a single ruler, a single person who rules. Literally and absolutely antithetically, Canadian democracy does not rest in the hands of everyone, but in the hands of a single person, namely the monarch. I say this with all due respect, but, to me, this is a ceremonial democracy. I spoke just a moment ago about appearances and form. Appearances are not the only reason why the Bloc Québécois wants to sever ties once and for all with the British monarchy. In fact, this situation goes against Quebeckers' very values. I spoke of the people earlier because I work for them. Indeed, we need to think about values such as equality. In the Bloc Québécois, we affirm that all citizens are equal; we promote and we defend equality. There needs to be equal rights, as well as equality in fact. Not only is the monarchy hereditary by nature, the order of succession attributes preference to male heirs and to Protestants above all others. We can therefore infer that the primary role in the Canadian state is preferably, and we truly are talking about a preference or arbitrary choice, assigned to an individual on the basis of their sex and religion, not to mention bloodline. A democracy that has preferences and that excludes half of humankind is not a democracy and is practising discrimination. The monarchy discriminates both literally and figuratively and takes away the very sovereignty of its people because the monarch is not a Quebecker or a Canadian. The monarch is British, only British. As a legislator, it is my job to create laws. As a member of Parliament elected by the people, I and the people I represent are supposed to accept a monarch from overseas, whose legitimacy is arbitrary, and who has the power to make or unmake laws that we vote on in the House of Commons and also in my own National Assembly in Quebec. The public proposes, Great Britain disposes. The potential British—and patriarchal, I might add—veto belies any claims of sovereignty by the people. The sovereignty of the people is a value that is important to the Bloc Québécois. It requires another element that is important to the Bloc, another value that we have had the opportunity to debate, the separation of state and religion. We are talking about the leader of another country not only being subject to a foreign state, but also, as I mentioned earlier, to a church, the Anglican Church. The Canadian head of state is also the head of the Anglican Church. For those of us in Quebec who decided a few decades ago to separate church and state, this is a relic of an idea that is completely outdated in terms of the sovereignty of peoples, the sovereignty of ideas and the matter of the state itself. I do not have much time left, so I would like to very quickly talk about the status of women, colonialism and accountability, which is also important to me. Of course, the status of women is an issue that is particularly close to my heart. I will let my colleagues talk more about colonialism because that is what the monarchy's wealth is built on. We too have a story to tell here. With regard to accountability, we hope that elected representatives will no longer be subject to anyone above them or look to anyone else to save or decide for them. We are fully responsible for our own decisions. As I was pondering what to say today, I smiled to myself because I remembered thinking about these same things back when I was a young teenager. That is when people begin to think critically, question conventional thinking, question authority and throw off the shackles of beliefs that do not stand up to reason. I went through my own quiet revolution as a young woman. For me and for Quebeckers, our desire to cut ties with the British monarchy goes back a long way. It is centuries-old. It is an intense desire to sever a connection, seek emancipation and empowerment for our society as a whole and affirm the deeply held values I mentioned earlier: democracy, equality and separation of church and state. The majority of Quebeckers want to cast off the trappings of another world and a long-ago time so alien to who we are. I am one of them. As a democratic woman of no religious affiliation, I reject this inequitable, arbitrary and colonialist form of power. My faith and my loyalty lie with Quebeckers.

1151 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Oct/25/22 12:20:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but wonder why this is the most important issue for the Bloc Québécois. There are so many other things going on right now, and it has very limited number of opposition days. Between now and last spring, it has had a total of three, and it has consumed two of those supply motions on, one, a motion that we remove the prayer from the beginning of our daily proceedings and, two, that we somehow override the Constitution and abolish the monarchy. Is life that good in Quebec that this is the most important thing to be focused on? Could the member provide some insight as to why this is deemed to be more important than some of the other pressing issues Canadians are facing today?

134 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Oct/25/22 12:21:09 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member that he does not need to put words in my mouth. I am perfectly capable of saying what I think. In a sense, that is a form of patriarchy. I never said anything was more important or less important. I should hope the government is able to walk and chew gum at the same time. We are talking about principles, values and democracy. The fact that the head of state is a man and that men are given preference over women in this democracy is an important and crucial issue to me, and most likely to half the population.

108 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Oct/25/22 12:22:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, since this morning, we have been hearing the Conservatives and Liberals basically singing the same tune, one after the other. They are wondering how the Bloc Québécois could have chosen such an unimportant subject when there are so many more important things to talk about than the monarchy. However, the monarchy is the head of state, the person at the very top of the pyramid. Is that not important? We are talking about the person under whose authority we vote on all of our laws. Is that not important? I would like to know what my colleague thinks about what those two parties are saying on this subject and, more importantly, what that means. Does this not mean that that they are unable to defend their position because it is not really defensible?

139 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Oct/25/22 12:22:41 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell my colleague that I absolutely agree with him. I think we have an opportunity here to talk about this. Rather than repeating over and over that we could have come up with more important things to talk about, my Liberal colleague could stand up and state, once and for all, where he stands on the prayer, for example, or on severing ties with the monarchy. It would be very simple. I would not tell him what to say, but it would take two minutes and it would be done. I think that we can talk about any subject in the House, and my Liberal colleague could definitely do that. I hope he will use his time to answer that question.

127 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/25/22 12:23:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I have no problem telling the Bloc my position. I have no issue with the prayer. We can continue doing it because it does not affect anything, other than using up about 15 seconds of the House's time. I have no problem with the current form of our parliamentary system, which includes a monarch in it. Quite frankly, I do not see life being any different. Let me ask my previous question, which the member did not answer, in another way. Could she explain to the House, if the monarch were suddenly abolished at midnight tonight, when Quebeckers and Canadians woke up tomorrow morning, how would their lives be so different from what they are right now?

120 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Oct/25/22 12:24:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must say that praying to a god, the Christian God, and having a head of state who is a man, and ideally a man, are significant concerns for me. I would point out that not everyone in the House prays to the Christian God, and some people do not pray at all. I would also point out to my colleague that I am a woman, not a man, like him. I am not saying that everything is going to change tomorrow morning, but this is about taking a stance. Keeping these medieval holdovers is a choice, as my colleague said, and it impacts me as a woman who chooses not to be religious.

116 words

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Oct/25/22 12:25:03 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers and Canadians now have a historic opportunity. I am choosing my words carefully. With the recent death of Queen Elizabeth II, the British crown will be placed upon a new head. The last time this took place was 70 years ago. It is as rare as a comet. This makes it the ideal opportunity to reconsider our symbolic tie to this foreign Crown. It is a tie that is problematic for Quebeckers like myself, despite what my colleague says. Just maintaining archaic institutions like the Governor General and the lieutenant governors costs millions of dollars that we could use to fulfill other, more essential government duties. We could trade a crown for social housing, a sceptre to finally provide drinking water to reserves that do not currently have any, but no, that is not happening. We even have to provide more resources than usual for this transition of royal power. We must change Canada's official letterhead and change the die for stamping coins that bear the portrait of our monarch. The portrait of Elizabeth II must be replaced with that of her son, Charles III, at considerable expense, especially because additional zinc is required to depict his ears. Furthermore, this transition comes at a time when the tide of public opinion is increasingly turning against these archaic ceremonial trappings, if I may talk like my colleague from Trois-Rivières for a moment. Every poll confirms it. It is especially true in Quebec, but even in Canada, a majority of respondents agree with ending all ties with the monarchy in our political institutions. In the days of Elizabeth II, at least, we could understand. She was an old woman. No one wanted to hurt her feelings. It might have done her in to be told that we no longer wanted her as head of our country. It was nothing personal. Now that the crown is sort of suspended between her and Charles III, it is the best time to say enough is enough, we are leaving. There needs to be a modicum of consistency. Canada cannot support truth and reconciliation with the first nations while continuing to require each MP to swear an oath to the Crown that endorsed the worst lawful violence against them. Canada cannot claim to recognize the Quebec nation while continuing to require each MP from Quebec to swear that same oath to the same Crown that hanged patriots and sanctioned the violent repression of villages that supported them. Ten thousand people died. That happened here. Throughout history, the British Empire has been responsible for untold atrocities. It is estimated that, in India alone, the British Crown is directly responsible for between 12 million and 30 million deaths, and yet we continue to invoke its name. That is crazy. There is an old expression in Quebec that is not heard much anymore but that always intrigued me. When someone was disturbing everyone in a group by yelling or trying to boss them around, he or she was taken to task by someone else yelling, “Hey, leave the people alone”. In this case, “the people” means everyone who happens to be around, but this could also be read through a nationalist lens. It is important to leave “The People” alone, which means not humiliating them, badgering them, bugging them, insulting them or hassling them. Communities deserve respect just as much as individuals. Leaving the people alone means not adopting common symbols containing images that remind them of historical traumas. Leaving the people alone means not asking the representatives of a secular society to swear allegiance to a king who is also the head of a church. Leaving the people, my people, alone means not making us watch a Crown corporation spend astronomical amounts of our own money force-feeding us the funeral of a queen who agreed, without batting an eye, to sign a Constitution that Quebec did not want. To top it off, my hockey team, the Montreal Canadiens, the closest thing French Canadians have to a national team, must now sport a jersey sullied by a reference to the monarchy, “Royal Bank of Canada”, in English only. What more could they possibly do to make me thoroughly sick of it all? I have no problem with the word “king”. Quebeckers have their french fry kings, their hot dog emperors and their frozen sub princes. When my daughter was little, she loved princes and princesses, just like millions of little girls around the world. Not once in her entire childhood did I try to take that away from her because the monarchy is dirty. However, every stamp and every quarter bearing the image of the English crown is a reminder that I am still subject to a political regime that neither I nor my ancestors ever chose. That is a loaded symbol for a Quebecker like me to swear an oath to, never mind for first nations and Acadians, as others said earlier. I do not recognize this Parliament, which reminds me of a defeat and symbolizes 260 years of oppression and attempts to assimilate my people. Although I do not recognize it, I agree with what is happening here. I accept the idea that people who represent different schools of thought and who have had the courage to face the electorate are meeting here and spending their days together debating and trying to come up with bills that will improve the lives of their constituents. That is what we call democracy, and I accept that. I would like to confess to members, however, that there is one thing I do not understand and do not accept. I would even say that it fills me with shame every time I think about it. This mandate that I am trying to fulfill with honour and conviction is based on a vile lie. Mr. Speaker, I am talking about a serious matter, but my colleagues are chatting about cooking and TV shows. In order to fulfill the mandate given to me by the people, I had to meet an unavoidable condition when I arrived here. I was asked to pledge allegiance to a queen I do not recognize, to power by divine right. It is a power that supposedly comes from God himself, whereas I do not believe in God. It is an immense fraud. We have a responsibility to abolish the monarchy, if only to prove to ourselves and to the world that democracy can work, that sometimes things can change without violence, and that democracy, through parliamentary dialogue, can deliver what the people want. People want to break ties with the monarchy. This is especially true in Quebec, but it is true across Canada. Barbados did it two years ago, so why not us? Is it because Quebec truly wants it to happen and because the Bloc Québécois proposed it? Is the secret to Canadian unity to simply hold on to everything that upsets Quebec for as long as possible? I vote for representatives who take an oath in accordance with their true convictions, in my case, to the people of Quebec. I vote so that members can work under symbols that reflect their values and true beliefs. I vote for a democracy based on a true will of heart and soul. I vote for sincerity and truth in political commitment. I vote for the abolition of the monarchy, its oaths and its symbols. I vote for Quebec independence.

1266 words

All Topics

Mr. Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 12:35:06 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, if I just heaved a big sigh, it is because the Bloc Québécois seems to live in a somewhat theoretical reality. They were talking earlier as if the monarchy held all that power. However, it has no executive power and no legislative power. For example, looking at the United Kingdom, one could say that the monarchy protects democracy. If a government loses the confidence of the House, the monarch can insist that the public be consulted and that an election be held, unlike in the United States, where the President holds office for four years, whether or not he is a good president. Does the member prefer the Westminster model or the American one?

120 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Oct/25/22 12:35:58 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the monarchical model may not be the one my colleague is referring to, but it is still a rather sickening model. I find that a bit sad. There has not really been any debate all day. People were chatting on the other side. Still, the monarchy is important. We are talking about the head of state. I said earlier that when I took the oath, it was bullshit. I was not telling the truth. When we come here, we are asked to be truthful, to speak. We are told that it is important to tell the truth in the House, to not make things up. We do research, we work hard to create bills that help people. However, the day I came here, the first thing I was asked to do was to talk nonsense, to tell lies, to be silly, to act out, as my colleagues have been accusing me of doing since then. All of this is theatrics. Me coming to Parliament is theatre. My colleagues are laughing. I cannot believe it.

176 words

The Deputy Speaker

Oct/25/22 12:36:48 p.m.
Watch

I want to make a little point about words that are parliamentary and unparliamentary. I think the member used something that is unparliamentary. The next time he stands up, I would love for him to take back his words and say something else. There are other words that are similar to what he said that are parliamentary.

57 words

Mr. Ted Falk (Provencher, CPC)

Oct/25/22 12:37:19 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I did listen with great interest to the theatrics coming from the member from the Bloc. The question that kept going through my mind was this: Are any of my constituents really concerned about this issue today? The answer is no. The issues my constituents are concerned about today are the cost of living, the huge inflation and the tripling of the carbon tax. Those are the tabletop issues that are first and foremost in my constituents' minds, and I am wondering if the member's constituents do not feel the same way.

95 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Oct/25/22 12:38:04 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-31

Mr. Speaker, I am laughing my head off. Our colleagues have gone on and on all day about how there are more important things in life and we need to work on solving problems. They seem to think this is a place where problems get solved. That is the joke of the year for sure. Bill C‑31 gives renters $500. There are 87,000 people in Quebec who will not benefit from that. Organizations in Quebec tell us that inadequately housed renters do not need $500; they need bricks and mortar. That is what will fix the problem. Bill C‑31 will not fix climate change. Canada is one of the worst countries in the world. This morning, members said we should be talking about climate change. That would be fine if we actually fixed problems, but we never fix anything here. My Conservative friend knows all about wasting time. I remember one evening when the Conservatives wasted a whole hour of the House's time on a vote and on figuring out which of two Conservative members would do the talking. That was an incredible waste of time. The Conservatives are in no position to lecture us.

201 words

Mr. Xavier Barsalou-Duval (Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, BQ)

Oct/25/22 12:39:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Longueuil—Saint‑Hubert for his passionate speech, above all a speech full of conviction. It is good to be shaken up once in a while, to have someone who speaks their mind, lays it all out on the table and tells it like it is. Some members seem to be promoting the status quo, the old British Crown colonialism, with its symbols and history that is fraught with horror stories. Those members pretend that nothing is the matter, that there is no problem. They behave as if everything is fine. After all, they do not think about the monarchy every morning as they get up. We have a historic opportunity to change that and we are not doing it. Does my colleague not think that there is something that members are not aware of, something that is perhaps in their subconscious? One of the big differences between Canada and the United States is that the very foundation of Canada is the attachment to the monarchy. At the end of the day, is there not a little bit of that in the fact that they do not want to get rid of it? I wonder, because I cannot think of any other reason.

214 words