SoVote

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

Oct/25/22 3:12:17 p.m.
Watch

Also with us are the winners of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council's John C. Polanyi Award, Brockhouse Canada Prize for Interdisciplinary Research in Science and Engineering, Synergy Awards for Innovation and the Arthur B. McDonald Fellowships. Some hon. members: Hear, hear!

44 words

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

Oct/25/22 3:14:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a very serious matter. The member for Beloeil—Chambly today made a very disturbing statement when he clearly stated that his oath of allegiance to the Crown was not sincere. If it was not sincere, it is as if he never took it. As such, I believe the Speaker should look into the appropriateness of the member continuing to sit in this place. We all know the Constitution states that each member must take an oath or make a solemn affirmation and that breaching this would be a very serious offence. I would ask you, Mr. Speaker, to reflect on this and come back to the House with a ruling.

116 words

The Speaker

Oct/25/22 3:15:22 p.m.
Watch

If I can have members' attention, it is a very serious item and each and every member does take an oath. However, we do have a precedent set here on page 209, chapter 4 of the 3rd edition of Bosc and Gagnon. Let me quote it. ...the Speaker was asked in 1990 to rule on the sincerity of a Member’s solemn affirmation. Speaker Fraser ruled that the Chair was “not empowered to make a judgement on the circumstances or the sincerity with which a duly-elected Member takes the oath of allegiance. The significance of the oath to each Member is a matter of conscience and so it must remain”.

114 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Oct/25/22 3:16:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, given what was raised by the parliamentary secretary plus your contribution to that, I would strongly encourage you to go back and review this given that you are not being asked to interpret the member's intention. He made his intention very clear. You should go back and consider that and come back to the House at a later time, perhaps, with a ruling on that.

73 words

The Speaker

Oct/25/22 3:16:43 p.m.
Watch

I am not going to stand here and argue back and forth. What I will do is look at it deeper, look at different options and come back to the House should I see fit.

35 words

The Speaker

Oct/25/22 3:18:07 p.m.
Watch

It being 3:16 p.m., pursuant to order made on Thursday, June 23, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded on the motion to concur in the sixth report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration. Call in the members.

47 words

The Speaker

Oct/25/22 3:30:01 p.m.
Watch

I declare the motion carried.

5 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 3:31:36 p.m.
Watch

I wish to inform the House that because of the deferred recorded division, Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

22 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Oct/25/22 3:31:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying that I will be splitting my time with my colleague from Shefford, who is second to none. Here we are discussing the British monarchy, or, rather, the Canadian monarchy, because that is what has our interest today. I am going to rephrase that: That is our “concern” today. All day long, we have heard from the Conservatives and the Liberals—

71 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 3:32:21 p.m.
Watch

Order. I would ask hon. members to please take their discussions to the lobby. We want to hear the debate. The hon. member for Drummond may continue.

27 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Oct/25/22 3:32:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was saying that we have been hearing, all day long, from Conservatives, Liberals and even NDP members that there other priorities to be dealt with today besides talking about the monarchy. That is true, they are quite right and we have never denied it. There are many other topics and there will always be many others. I have two comments to make to that. First, if a party that governs or a party that aspires to govern a country such as Canada is unable to simultaneously deal with different files of varying degrees of importance, for goodness' sake, keep them away from power. That is nothing but a sign of incompetence. We have already had enough of that. We must deal with files of varying degrees of importance. We must deal with inflation. We must deal with the housing crisis. We must deal with the treatment of seniors and the fact that they are being treated unfairly based on their age. We know that the government is not concerned with seniors between the ages of 65 and 74. We must also talk about what Quebeckers and Canadians are concerned about. If we look at the recent polls conducted by reputable firms, we see that the monarchy is an important issue for people. It is something they are concerned about and something they talk about. By way of evidence, let us look at today's news. Is there one media outlet that is not talking about the Bloc Québécois's motion today? Interestingly enough, people are talking about the motion being debated today by the Bloc Québécois. Members cannot tell us that this is not worthwhile. Some may say that the issue does not interest them, but it is untrue to say that it is of no interest to the people we represent. Yes, we can deal with more than one issue at a time. People who are seriously ill still manage to brush their teeth. Yesterday evening I was helping my kids do their homework, but I still took the time to take the garbage out. I therefore do not see why, every once in a while, we cannot talk about something different from the subjects we debate every day, other issues that are also of interest and important to our constituents. The second answer, which is probably a bit more down-to-earth, is that if we really want to help Canadians get through the difficult period they are dealing with right now, with the rise of the cost of living and inflation, what must we do? What would we do if such a situation occurred at home? We would do exactly what the government should do, which is to reevaluate our spending and get rid of what we do not need and what we cannot afford. Over the last three years, countless Quebec and Canadian families have seen their purchasing power diminish because of the pandemic and because of other circumstances, such as inflation. These families made difficult choices. They had to cut down on the luxuries they could no longer afford. When I look at our public finances, I cannot help seeing certain questionable, less essential expenditures. I must say that the monarchy is a difficult expenditure to defend. We spend between $60 million and $70 million on it annually, according to various estimates. I hear my Conservative colleagues say that they want Canadians to have more money in their pockets, so instead of them questioning the relevance of our debate today, I would like to hear them explain how spending $67 million annually on the monarchy is an appropriate use of money. Really, what is in it for us? What do we get out of it other than maintaining a tradition that fewer and fewer people are committed to? According to a recent Angus Reid poll, 71% of Quebeckers want to cut ties with the monarchy and 56% of Canadians oppose swearing an oath to the Crown. According to various estimates, including one recently published in the Journal de Montréal, the monarchy costs us $67 million. That is a lot of money. We could build 670 new social housing units per year. We could put it towards cancer research. We could use it to replenish the employment insurance fund. We could use it simply to reduce the tax burden on the less fortunate. By the way, I would also like to point out a few inconsistencies in the arguments put forward by my Canadian colleagues while defending the monarchy. First, I assume we are all strong defenders of democracy. Let us see where this democracy comes from. My colleague from Trois-Rivières would be proud of me because I am going to give the etymology, and I know he is very fond of etymology, of the word “democracy”. It is no secret. It comes from the ancient Greek demokratia which is a combination of the words demos, the people, and kratein, to command. "Democracy" is therefore a term that refers to a political system in which all citizens make decisions and participate in public decisions and political life. Here I would say we are more in a bureaucratic system. Let me digress for a moment. The word "bureaucratic" comes etymologically from the Quebec word "bureau", the place where one works, and from "cratique", which comes from "crasse", another Quebec word meaning gunk, the gunk which clogs everything. "Bureaucracy", the system we are in, is more of a clogged system that is not working well. I am getting a bit off topic here. Going back to the word "democracy", let us reflect a bit more. When analyzing the origin and real meaning of this word, it is easy to see that one of its antonyms is precisely the word "monarchy", a political system which is the exact opposite of democracy. These are two systems that cannot logically coexist. One is a system that gives power to one person. If you're not happy with that person, you wait for her or him to die and their eldest to take over. So we are a bit stuck. On the other hand, in a democracy, if you are not happy, you wait for an election to be called, and a new government can be elected. Let us look at the inconsistencies I mentioned earlier, such as the values that this government so passionately defends, like multiculturalism and social justice. I will not go so far as to talk about a slight tendency toward wokeism because that could be seen as an insult, and I want to avoid that sort of tone. However, the fact remains that when we see the kowtowing this government does to promote inclusion in pretty much every sphere of public, social and university life, as well as in federal institutions, we feel that perhaps there is a little something it can learn about the monarchy. Let us not forget the role that the British Crown played in the exploitation and trafficking of slaves in the 17th, 18th and 19th centuries. It is estimated that the trafficking of over six million people from the African continent was conducted under the benevolent eye of the British Crown and the British Parliament. I would be remiss if I failed to point out and remind the House of the events of 1755, when the British deported 12,500 of our Acadian brothers and sisters because they refused to submit to the Crown. Two-thirds of them died as a result. The British Crown never apologized to Acadians in any way for that shameful deportation. Today we are talking about the monarchy and tomorrow we will vote on the Bloc's motion. I cannot imagine members for Acadian ridings, for whom I have the greatest respect, expressing support for the monarchy by voting against this motion. If my colleagues from Madawaska—Restigouche, Acadie—Bathurst, Beauséjour and Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe do plan to vote against the Bloc's motion, I have a hard time picturing them going back to their ridings afterward and telling their constituents of Acadian descent that they voted to maintain the monarchy and put an end to this debate. That troubles me. We will be watching. Many countries are reconsidering their ties to the British monarchy. Barbados did so recently. Charles, who was a prince then and is now King, was in attendance and appeared to support Barbados's decision. Why would he do otherwise if Canada were to make that same decision? I am not holding out much hope for the fate of our motion, but, nevertheless, I invite members to be open and, perhaps, as a result of this day of discussion, to start a public debate to talk about this issue honestly and openly with Quebeckers and Canadians, to listen to them and ask them what they think about it. That is what I intend to do, along with my colleagues. Let us do it. Let us start a discussion so we can see that Quebeckers and Canadians are not as attached to this archaic symbol as some people would have us believe. Maybe we could discuss this issue further, more openly, in the near future.

1559 words

All Topics

Mr. Anthony Housefather (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Services and Procurement, Lib.)

Oct/25/22 3:42:37 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for his speech. He is a good friend, and I find that he always has relevant things to say. I completely agree that we should not block the motion by saying that it is not an important issue. We can indeed chew gum and walk at the same time. For me, this is a constitutional issue, which makes it very complicated. Even if I agree that we should be asking ourselves some questions about the future of the monarchy and even if the member suggested we hold a national debate on this, I would note that the constitutional process is a very arduous one. The motion mentions taking necessary actions. How does the member see this process unfolding? Does he believe we should engage in a constitutional process that would involve the federal government and all of the provinces?

148 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Oct/25/22 3:43:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Mount Royal for his question. I also thank him for asking a real question that allows for discussion and dialogue. I think that is very important. Besides, if one believes that the House will overwhelmingly support the Bloc Québécois motion and allow this split with the British Crown, that is just wishful thinking. However, I must candidly admit that it was after discussing with my colleague from Mount Royal that I added to my speech today the possibility of reaching out to our fellow citizens to take part in this dialogue. I do not think we are going to solve this issue in the House, but we are nonetheless triggering something. We are initiating a discussion which could generate more interest in the public space. I fully agree with my colleague and we can talk about it again as soon as possible after consulting the citizens, the provinces and everyone involved. Maybe we can have a debate that will lead us somewhere.

173 words

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Oct/25/22 3:44:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. As a left-leaning man or woman or as a socialist, you fight against inequality and privilege. No system gives more privileges to a family than the monarchical system. It is an absurd, archaic and undemocratic system. We agree on that. However, when we participate in debates in the House, we must use time wisely and set priorities. Still, the Bloc Québécois chose to speak on this topic, which has little impact on ordinary people. Earlier today we welcomed representatives of the interprovincial alliance of the unemployed, who are concerned about the lifting of temporary employment insurance measures. Some people will be left out in the cold in January and February. They will not get a cheque and will fall into poverty. I personally would have preferred such a topic rather than one that, while important and symbolic, is still pretty far from the immediate concerns of the people.

162 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Oct/25/22 3:45:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie has enough weight within his caucus to be able to contribute to the choice of topic for his party's next opposition day. In the meantime, in the Bloc Québécois, we saw that there was a debate on this topic in Quebec. I am sure that my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie read about it in one of our many newspapers or heard about it from one of our many broadcasters. There is a lot of discussion on the issue of swearing an oath to the King at the National Assembly of Quebec and the monarchy's place in our political system in general. I think this is a topic that affects, concerns and interests Quebeckers, which absolutely does not stop us from talking about other things that are more urgent. In fact, we asked two questions about it today during question period. That is what I had to say about it.

170 words

Mr. Luc Desilets (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, BQ)

Oct/25/22 3:46:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his presentation. Antigua and Barbuda, the Bahamas, Jamaica and Saint Kitts and Nevis have undertaken steps to cut ties with the monarchy, or at least distance themselves from it. I have a question for my colleague. New Zealand and Australia set aside the monarchy through a referendum. Is that not the path the Canadian government should take?

64 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Oct/25/22 3:46:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles for his question. Australia opened the debate. People are being heard at present and they are mainly talking about the place that first nations must have in those discussions. I completely agree that we must listen to what is being done elsewhere, to what is already starting to be done elsewhere and we must follow suit. As my colleague from Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles said, we could hold a referendum, however we could also move motions to be adopted by the House of Commons. I also want to say that the Bloc Québécois ensured that the House of Commons unanimously passed a motion to increase EI sickness benefits to 52 weeks. There was unanimous consent of the House, but nothing was done afterwards. Thus—

152 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Oct/25/22 3:47:38 p.m.
Watch

Resuming debate. The hon. member for Shefford.

7 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Oct/25/22 3:47:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is with great humility that I rise to speak on this Bloc Québécois opposition day. To begin, I would like to reread the motion: That, given that, (i) Canada is a democratic state, (ii) this House believes in the principle of equality for all, the House express its desire to sever ties between the Canadian State and the British monarchy, and call on the government to take the actions necessary to do so. I may not be a constitutionalist, but I am deeply democratic. All over the world, people are condemning the fact that democracy is ailing. I have just returned from a week in Kigali, where the Inter-Parliamentary Union expressed concerns about the rise of authoritarianism and the loss of interest in democracy. If we want more representative parliaments, we must certainly avoid having heads of state who are disconnected from their people. I will approach my speech from three angles: the cost of governors general, the wastefulness of lieutenant governors, and the symbolism of the British monarchy. Current events are bringing this issue back into the spotlight with the accession of Charles III. Our opposition day is part of our desire to modernize and democratize our institutions. First of all, what is that $70 million used for? That money may not be enough to change the world, but it shows that it is expensive to remain a British subject. On average, the government spends just over $67 million a year on honours and awards, ceremonial events and travel. That is almost as much as some of the measures set out in the most recent federal budget. For example, the budget provides for $75 million in 2022-23 and $75 million in 2023-24 to support affordable housing and related infrastructure in the north. More might be required given how needs are growing. It is also a lot more than the $26 million a year over seven years as of 2022-23 for the National Research Council Canada so that it can conduct research and development on innovative construction materials, such as wood, and revitalize national housing and building standards to encourage low-carbon construction solutions. It is also more than the $20.7 million per year over three years as of 2024-25 for Infrastructure Canada to launch a new veteran homelessness program. I send my regards to my colleague from Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles. By way of comparison, we could build 670 new housing units per year with $67 million. While we have been told since this morning that we are far out in left field with our motion, these figures bring us back to the day-to-day struggles of our constituents. Furthermore, the Liberal-Conservative Deputy Prime Minister recently announced that the next few months would be difficult, with austerity measures, but not for the monarchy. There is a double standard there. The population will be asked by the government to tighten their belts. Who will pay for that? I am not telling colleagues anything they do not already know when I say that it is the federal government, and by extension, us, that will pick up most of the tab. This includes costs associated with the position of governor general and with visits from members of the royal family. Second, it should be noted that governors general receive a very generous pension for life when they retire, as set out in the Governor General's Act. They receive almost $150,000 a year indexed to the cost of living. For example, Michaëlle Jean, who was governor general from 2005 to 2010, has already received $1.5 million. What about Julie Payette, who voluntarily left her position and will still pocket an annual amount of $150,000 for life as the Queen's former representative in Canada? Former governors general are also entitled to the reimbursement of expenses related to their former position of up to $206,000 a year. However, the federal government does not disclose the exact amounts paid out. There is a glaring lack of transparency. It does not stop there. The provinces and Quebec are responsible for the expenses associated with the lieutenant governors, of which there are ten. In 2020, total compensation amounted to $1.48 million. In 2019-20, the Quebec government paid $717,000 for the expenses of the lieutenant governor's office. Based on the premise that governors general never really retire, in addition to their pensions, they receive lifetime government funding for office and travel expenses through a program that has been in existence since 1979. Third, there is the whole symbolism behind the monarchy. Let us not forget that the British Crown derived its wealth from centuries of plundering and slavery. Let us not forget that the involvement of the Crown goes back to Elizabeth I's support of Sir John Hawkins, a navigator who in 1560 led three expeditions that would set the stage for the famous triangular trade. She was so impressed that she gave him a ship as a reward for the 300 slaves he had brought back from his first voyage. The Crown became more involved during the reign of Charles II, from 1660 to 1685. The Crown as well as members of the royal family were heavily involved in human trafficking in Africa for the express purpose of enriching and consolidating the power of the royal family. In short, while it is impossible to estimate how much the monarchy owes its fortune to the slave trade, the fact remains that it was the plundering of gold, ivory, pelts and slaves on the African coast that was the source of its fortune. For the Bloc Québécois, it is contrary to our values that a handful of individuals continue to live off these past exactions. Here is a rundown of more historical facts. The British Crown was responsible for deporting over 12,000 Acadians, nearly 80% of the population. In 1755, between 7,500 and 9,000 Acadians died as a result of this genocide. To this day, the Crown refuses to apologize. It mercilessly crushed the Patriotes' resistance movement in 1837-38, hanging many of its leaders. The Crown annexed Métis territory and hanged their leader, Louis Riel, to ensure western Canada would be English speaking. It united Lower Canada and Upper Canada in 1840 to accelerate Upper Canada's development using Lower Canada's resources and to make francophones a minority in order to assimilate them. The Crown also banned public instruction in French in all provinces with anglophone majorities for over 100 years. It was not until 1968 that French public high schools opened in Ontario. The Crown oversaw the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982 against Quebec's wishes, stabbing us in the back. The Crown lay low when the federal government did a number on the 1995 referendum process. It said nothing when the federal government set out to destroy our Bill 101 by giving millions of dollars to the Quebec Community Groups Network, which has hacked away at this critical piece of our legislation over 200 times since 1977. The royal family has never officially apologized for any of this. The British monarchy in the Americas represents 260 years of anti-French hostility, while Quebec's values of secularism and neutrality are in direct conflict with those of the monarchy, since, let us not forget, the King of England is also the head of the Church of England. Quebeckers believe strongly in the separation of church and state. In other words, the neutrality of the Quebec state and keeping the monarchy here in Canada are completely at odds with this foundation of the state. The Bloc Québécois supports the need to separate religion and government. That is why we recently proposed doing away with the prayer and replacing it with a moment of personal reflection. Quebeckers do not identify with Canada as a constitutional monarchy. The monarchy simply has no place in a democracy, which must be held to a high standard in terms of respect for the principle of the separation of church and state. When it comes to openness and secularism, the federal government would do well to follow the example set by Quebec, which is well ahead of the curve. In conclusion, we are not the only ones who are reflecting on this issue. In the past, as my colleagues have said, there was the Republic of South Africa, which was founded in May 1961. Afterward, Barbados also removed the Queen as its head of state. Other countries could follow suit. We could talk about Australia, which is considering the question. In closing, severing ties with the monarchy is justified not only by its utter uselessness, but, mostly, by the realization of the real power the monarchy wields in our institutions. Not a single bill from the National Assembly of Quebec or the House of Commons is valid without royal assent. Therefore, through his representatives, King Charles III participates in the exercise of legislative power. The monarchy goes against several principles that are at the heart of our institutions, such as equality among citizens, the sovereignty of the people, democracy and the separation of the government and religion. In fact, no matter how deserving, no Canadian and no Quebecker can ever hope to become head of state. No one is democratically elected to that high office. The title is inherited. The polls are also clear about Quebeckers wanting to get rid of the monarchy that is collectively costing millions of dollars a year. The Bloc Québécois thinks that this is a good opportunity to stop wasting public money on a completely archaic institution. The Bloc Québécois stands with Quebeckers and has been concerned about the cost of living for a long time. Our election platform attests to that. One last thing: the Conservative leader seemed out of touch when he began his victory speech after the leadership race by praising the Queen, as though outside the monarchy there is no salvation. If we were that disconnected from the will of Quebeckers, they would not be talking to us about it so much. It is not opportunistic to have this debate today about our ties to the monarchy. It is a natural part of the context where Canadians and Quebeckers have been disinterested in and questioning this for many years. Finally, to hear the exchanges today, does that not confirm that we are a nation that aspires to what is most natural for a people, its liberty and independence?

1803 words

All Topics

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

Oct/25/22 3:57:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I believe the members of the Bloc are completely out of touch with the communities they represent. When I look at the things we have been talking about, whether in Winnipeg North or throughout all regions in Canada, they are things such the cost of living, health care and long-term care. People want to talk about a wide variety of issues. Then the Bloc brings forward a motion that does not talk about what it would replace it with, just that it does not want the Crown. This is my question for the member. Could she indicate to the House what she would replace the monarchy with? Would she say that the Prime Minister should become more powerful? Would she say that we should have an election to elect a president? Is she saying that we should appoint one? What would the Bloc do?

147 words