44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 25, 2022 10:00AM
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 3:59:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech and her passion.
With regard to the monarchy, I will simply quote the very famous Indiana Jones who said, “That belongs in a museum”.
The Bloc Québécois has talked a lot about the money that could be saved, and it is true that $67 million is a lot of money. We could build a lot of social housing and help community groups with that money. Every little bit counts when it comes to helping people.
Recently, the group Canadians for Tax Fairness reminded us that, for last year alone, tax loopholes cost us $30 billion, so that is $30 billion that was lost.
Why did the Bloc Québécois take all day today in the House to talk about approximately $67 million in savings, when we could have talked about tax evasion and the $30 billion that could potentially be collected?
164 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:12:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the member for Kingston and the Islands just demonstrated that he is incapable of debating an issue that he seems to be passionate about. He seems to be a staunch defender of the monarchy.
I would have liked to hear his arguments in favour of the monarchy instead of listening to his arguments on the relevance of having this debate in the House. He stated his opinion clearly. I would be curious to hear the members in his party from the Acadian region in New Brunswick, for example. Did he ask those members, who represent Acadian populations whose ancestors were deported by the British Crown, how they feel about the monarchy?
I would like to hear the member for Kingston and the Islands do something other than say that we are politicizing an issue. News flash, politics is what we do here. I am glad that he realizes that because that is a win for today.
I would like him to tell us what we gain from spending $70 million a year to maintain a system that, in his own words, is nothing more than a symbol.
190 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:13:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, no, I have not brought it up with any of my colleagues, nor have they, in seven years, brought it up with me, because every time we get together to talk about issues, there are many issues that are so much more important than this.
There are issues so much more important than this that we get together to talk about. Forgive me and my colleagues for not having stood up and asked, “By the way, I know we are dealing with all of this other stuff, and there is a global pandemic, along with everything else that is going on, including inflation, which is all a big deal, but by the way, how do we happen to feel about the monarchy? Is that something we are still good with?”
No, I am sorry. I have not brought that question to their attention.
147 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:14:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, to start off, I am a bit taken aback by the tone of the member. First of all, as parliamentarians, I think we all should respect important debates, whether we agree with them or not, but, second of all, there are many people, including many in indigenous communities, who have been clear that reconciliation involves decolonization and we should be looking at severing ties with the monarchy.
I would encourage the member to actually talk with some folks, perhaps outside of his riding, who have some direct, very horrific experiences with the impacts of colonialism.
The Liberals are the ones who promised electoral reform and promised strengthening our democracy, yet we have seen them renege on all of these promises. Is this not an opportunity to stand up take a look at our democracy and all the ways we can strengthen it, including severing our ties with the monarchy?
151 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:15:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the NDP are now using the politicization of this issue to politicize its own issue of electoral reform. There is an irony in that.
Just for the record, I am not saying that there are no good arguments. I am pretty much indifferent to the position of the monarchy and how that continues on. However, it is not going to be resolved with a supply day motion presented to the House. The supply day motion that has been presented to the House is only coming from a place of politics.
I apologize to the member if my tone does not seem to be in line with what she thinks is respectful, but I do admit that I am extremely frustrated by the fact that the Bloc Québécois, although this might be a very important political issue for them, are using this opportunity just to try to create division and wedge issues within the province their own members are from.
That is the reality of the situation, but I certainly agree with her that there are a lot of problems associated with colonization and what that led to. Let us have real, honest discussions about that. If that means moving away from the monarchy, let us talk about that in a productive and constructive way, not in a supply day motion like this. We all know that it is not going to produce the result that they are looking for.
245 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:25:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the topic of the monarchy relates to our identity as Quebeckers, but it does not reflect who we are and we want nothing to do with it.
The member alluded to the fact that the monarchy represents stability. Can she tell me what catastrophe will befall us the day that we get rid of it? Because that day will come.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:25:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think this is simply not the right time to have a debate about the monarchy. There are people in Quebec who are absolutely committed to it, as we can see from what is happening in the National Assembly. However, this is neither the right time nor the right way.
This is simply a political gambit, and I do not believe the Bloc Québécois's intentions. Could this not have been discussed in committee instead, or could we even create a committee to discuss it?
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:26:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Hochelaga for her speech.
As a proud democrat and a proud socialist, I do not mind talking about the monarchy, because I can settle the matter rather quickly and move on to another subject.
In talking about other topics, she focused a bit on the fact that our health care system is being strangled, emergency rooms are overflowing and people are really struggling after two years of living with a pandemic. Federal government transfers for health care are at an all-time low, at 22% or 23% of total system costs. All provincial premiers, including the Premier of Quebec, are calling on the federal government to do more and to quickly and permanently increase health transfers to the provinces.
Does she not think that would have been a good topic of conversation for today?
141 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:27:26 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague from Hochelaga on her heartfelt speech. However, I would have liked more substance on the topic.
Indeed, other than criticism of the editorial choice, shall we say, for our opposition day, I have not heard an argument about the value of maintaining the monarchy. I would be interested in that because, even when we are not particularly interested in a certain subject, which is fine, we should at the very least debate it.
What I feel is that people just do not have the guts or the arguments to advocate for something that costs 70 million. My colleague across the aisle would have every reason to want us to get rid of the monarchy, since that would free up another $70 million for, say, social housing, an issue I know she feels strongly about.
Then, there is the fact that the Bloc Québécois proposes subjects such as health transfers, housing, immigration or others, which it raises in the House during debates or oral question period, but to which the government's response sounds like a broken record.
My point is that I would have liked a little more substance in my colleague's speech. My question to her would be to name just one benefit of keeping our ties to the monarchy in place, with its yearly $70-million price tag.
235 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:28:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am not the one questioning democracy in Canada. Democracy in Canada is doing just fine.
My colleague and I were elected to represent people in our respective ridings on important issues. On my ballot it did not say vote for me if you want to get rid of the monarchy. What people want is more housing, better health care, more food on their table, and a full fridge. We could be debating something other than the monarchy right now.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:29:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot.
It always surprises me when the people who are elected to govern tell us, the opposition members, that it is a shame we do not tell them what to do. They should know what to do. For one thing, they could give us transfers for health care and seniors. There are all kinds of things we could talk about, but I think that if they do not know these things already, we have a serious problem.
That said, I want to start by confessing that I am a romantic. I spent my youth of princes, knights, kings and other champions who raced to the aid of princesses held captive by evil characters in the out-of-reach towers of magnificent castles.
I have also done some travelling, and I have marvelled at some grand castles. I will also admit that I was delighted to visit the Schönbrunn Palace in Vienna, the famous Princess Sisi's summer residence. Attending the Christmas concert at the Orangery was an absolute thrill. Being emperor of Austria would have suited me well. As I said, I am a romantic.
I also dreamed of valiant knights from Quebec, who came to the rescue of our great and glorious nation, ensuring its survival and vitality. I dreamed of epic battles where the greatest orators faced off against one another to convince their political opponents not to give up and not to give in to a challenge that initially might seem too daunting, too difficult to face.
Other people before us have met these challenges, and they met them successfully. We have seen examples around the globe of colonies cutting ties with monarchies. However, we are not there yet. The Bloc Québécois is using this opportunity today to propose that we do away with this archaic British institution to which we bow, day after day. We propose that we trade our dependence on the monarch for a simple but noble dependence on democracy, on the will of the people. This is by no means a personal attack on the current King of England, Charles III, or his predecessor, Queen Elizabeth II. I am merely proposing that we make a full, unambiguous and unreserved commitment to our fellow citizens. How about it?
Do we not all believe in the virtues of equality among citizens? Do we not all believe in the sovereignty of the people, in their right to decide their future, their institutions, the laws that govern them, in the inalienable sovereignty of the people?
Do we not also believe in the separation of church and state? No, it is true that this Parliament has already decided to continue saying a Christian prayer before each sitting of Parliament, before pleading before this same Parliament for equality between religions and faiths, and apologizing for having ostracized, even persecuted them in the past. Let us move on.
Of course we should address the housing problem, balancing the budget, controlling our borders, gun trafficking, the challenges that come with immigration, which we in fact need so much, funding to give all our seniors a decent life, other issues of national and international interest, and so on.
We also need to address this government's troubling reluctance to transfer the necessary funding so that Quebec and the provinces can fund health care services, where costs are increasing while the federal government seems to think it is a joke.
Should we not also be concerned about our position and the state of our institutions? Are we really incapable of managing the nation's affairs and democracy at the same time?
Each one of our challenges needs to be met full on, but none should prevent us from dealing with our institutions. How can we ignore this huge stain on our democracy and claim to serve democratically? Could we not set our sights higher this time and do something honourable that makes Quebeckers and Canadians proud?
When you ask people if they would like to get rid of this subordination to the British monarchy, many answer that they would. In fact, 71% of Quebeckers and 51% of Canadians answer yes. Moreover, 56% of Canadians and 75% of Quebeckers want their elected officials to stop swearing allegiance to the British sovereign.
Certain members of the royal family themselves have dared to question their belonging to this outdated and overly restrictive regime. Is it not time for this Parliament to join the 21st century, the third millennium?
It is outrageous that tens of millions of dollars are spent every year to maintain this useless and outdated body of protocol. Could this money not be better spent? Are we so wealthy that we no longer need to watch our spending?
Without going into the sometimes scandalous details, we know that the office of the Governor General alone spends more than $55 million a year. Let us set aside the issue of cost and ask ourselves what the monarchy has done for us since its conquest of our territory. My colleague put this question to my colleague opposite earlier and she was unable to answer or to name a single benefit that we gain from the monarchy.
There was the infamous bloody war against the rebellion of our patriot ancestors, the deportation of 80% of the Acadian population, the forced annexation of the Métis territories and the hanging of their leader, Louis Riel. What can one say about the ban on speaking French in the predominantly English provinces for more than a 100 years or about the ratification of the agreement on the repatriation of the Canadian Constitution? That agreement was ratified in secret in a hotel kitchen while the Quebec premier was away.
Over the past century, many states have decided to cut ties with the British monarchy. Is it not time that Canada did the same?
Of course, Quebec can always dream of freeing itself from the Canadian yoke. Of course, a referendum, a solemn declaration or other mechanism developed for Quebec sovereignty could also break that rather embarrassing, expensive and restrictive tie. However, could we not think today about a more effective, more cohesive and less embarrassing federation?
Every member of the House had to swear allegiance and loyalty to the British Crown before they could take their seat here and fulfill the mandate given to them by their constituents.
Like everyone else, I swore the oath by thinking of the interpretation we must make of it, that is, that the occupants of the British throne are not its true recipients, but rather that it is sworn to the institutions that govern us. Therefore, is it not high time we honoured our real allegiances? Is there anyone here who would be prepared to ignore the interests and values of the constituents who elected them in favour of the interests and values of the king or the queen? I am not prepared to do that, for my part.
Today, the Bloc Québécois proposes to free us from the monarchy and, thus, from this flawed oath. That would allow us to fully assume, unapologetically and unfettered, our rightful elected mandate to represent our constituents, who are relying on us, our allegiance to their ideals, our courage and our loyalty. Let us be worthy of that trust.
1239 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:38:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a few years back, the Bloc, the NDP and the Liberals boldly went to the Governor General. Reflecting the will of their constituents collectively, the Bloc supported going to the Governor General to replace the Stephen Harper government. At that time, the Bloc recognized the value of the monarchy. Does the member see any irony there? It seems to me that when Bloc members feel it is to their advantage, the monarchy or the Governor General is a good thing. However, now when they seem to feel it is not, they are against the monarchy.
What would they replace it with? Would they give more power to the Prime Minister? Would they elect a president? Would they appoint a head of state? What is the alternative? I would really appreciate an answer to that. What is the alternative to the monarchy? Will the member answer that simple question?
150 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:40:46 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not often I agree with my colleagues across the way, but on this issue I do.
The hon. member was asked what he would replace our constitutional monarchy with. The U.S. News, and the last time I checked the U.S. was a republic, combined with a UN world report, surveyed countries with 76 attributes and determined that seven out of the 10 top-lived countries in the world had constitutional monarchies.
If a constitutional monarchy is good for seven of the top 10, why would my hon. colleague from the Bloc want to go away from that system, which seems to work not only in Canada but in other places?
116 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:44:06 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the great journalist and pamphleteer Arthur Buies made the following forceful statement in 1869: “A republic is the government for men; a monarchy is the government for children”.
A government for children indeed, or a system of governance that fully acknowledges it has never reached maturity in the democratic sense. It is a system of government that states loudly, clearly and shamelessly that it holds power not because of the polls but because of divine right. This power derives its legitimacy solely from the transmission of privilege from one generation to the next. This system is openly opposed to the sovereignty of the people and in favour of royal sovereignty, which is hereditary and, to top it off, religious.
Many people do not realize that the House of Commons, despite purporting to be the seat of “Canadian” democracy, begins its daily work with a prayer in honour of the current monarch, who is also, lest we forget, head of the Anglican Church.
Even now, in 2022, many people do not realize that elected representatives must take an oath not to those who bestowed upon them the honour of representing them in Parliament, but to His Majesty, to whom they must swear allegiance.
Many people do not realize that the British monarch is also Canada's head of state, or that the bills that we vote on in the House have to be approved by the Governor General, who represents the monarchy. In fact, it is this same Governor General who presents the new policy directions in what is known as the “Speech from the Throne”, and who must be consulted before the Prime Minister can call an election.
I would add, as the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie suggested, that many people do not realize that new Canadians must pledge allegiance to the King.
The well-publicized antics of some of those who have held the position of Governor General are an apt reminder of the hubris of the royal lifestyle. I am also reminded of the words of the Marquis de Sade: “The end of this so very sublime reign was perhaps one of the periods in the history of the...empire when one saw the emergence of the greatest number of these mysterious fortunes whose origins are as obscure as the lust and debauchery that accompany them.”
Monarchism is an undemocratic regime that systematically separates the state from the community, strips the people of their decision-making levers, and removes their collective rights. It also establishes opacity as a political system, a system that is based on centuries of plundering and slavery. The British monarchy is embodied by Elizabeth I's support of John Hawkins, a navigator who was given a ship as a reward for the 300 slaves he brought back from his first voyage.
The British monarchy is also synonymous with the intensification of human trafficking in Africa in the name of the power and wealth of the royal family under Charles II, through the Company of Royal Adventurers Trading into Africa which was granted a 1,000-year monopoly on the African coast. In 1663, this monopoly was extended to trading slaves captured in Africa.
The British monarchy is synonymous with the Royal African Company of England, which, between 1672 and 1731, transported more than 187,000 slaves, all for gold, ivory, and pelts.
The Prime Minister, despite being a champion of maudlin political apology ceremonies, does not mention this often. Worse, he tells us it is not a real issue. The British monarchy in reality has never been anything but a vampiric system where a clique of rich and greedy privileged people have been able to fuel many disasters, for the strict purpose of enjoying even more benefits and privileges.
The monarchy in Canada meant the deportation of 12,500 Acadians, nearly 80% of the population, in 1755, without the slightest apology from the Crown to this day.
The monarchy in Canada meant the suppression of the Patriotes rebellion, resulting in many hangings.
The monarchy in Canada meant the hanging of Louis Riel following the annexation of the Métis territories.
The monarchy in Canada meant the forcible annexation of Lower Canada, with the explicit aim of assimilating francophones and developing Upper Canada at the expense of Lower Canada.
The monarchy in Canada meant the abolition of French-language instruction in all provinces for over 100 years.
The monarchy in Canada means astronomical costs over which its loyal subjects have no power and no opportunity or right to refuse to pay. We are shelling out an average of $67 million a year for purely symbolic activities, ceremonies and trips.
As several of my colleagues have pointed out today, $67 million is roughly the amount allocated to affordable housing in the last federal budget.
Furthermore, $67 million is more than twice the budget allocated for seven years to the National Research Council of Canada. The monarchy is an unjust, archaic and expensive system. It is also a regime that is irrelevant to the values and political culture of Quebec and the Quebec nation.
The Quebec nation believes in a political system where the head of state does not inherit their power, but shares it with other authorities within a balanced and transparent system in which the people have a say and religious authorities are relegated to private life.
A republic implies equality for citizens, who are fully recognized as such, with their own rights and duties, before secular institutions. In other words, it is the antithesis of Canada.
The Quebec nation boasts a republican tradition firmly rooted in its history. It is with pleasure that the Bloc Québécois honours that tradition today. In a remarkable 2012 book, political scientist Marc Chevrier even believed he had detected in New France a fascinating seed of the modern republic. It is interesting. I recommend that everyone here read it.
In the 19th century, our republican heritage was that of pamphleteer Louis‑Honoré Fréchette and that of patriots such as Louis‑Joseph Papineau and Robert Nelson, who courageously fought against the Crown. This was also the struggle of author Clément Dusmesnil in his fight to abolish seigneurial and feudal rights, the struggle of Montreal mayor Honoré Beaugrand and the struggle of the great premier and great statesman Honoré Mercier, who was also an MNA from Saint-Hyacinthe. This struggle is also that of Louis‑Antoine Dessaules, from Saint-Hyacinthe, and his fight against the excesses of clericalism, and that of Maurice Laframboise, former mayor of Saint-Hyacinthe and member from Bagot.
I am very proud to remind this House that the republican struggle has deep roots in Saint-Hyacinthe.
During the talks that were to result in the misnamed Confederation, this republican heritage was also that of the members belonging to what was then known as the “Red Party”, who warned against the fundamentally reactionary nature of the regime that was being established. In 1866, Red member Jean‑Baptiste‑Éric Dorion made a comment that deserves to be remembered: “They want to create a monarchy, an aristocracy, a viceroy and a shiny replica; I am alarmed at the position they want to put us in, as all these ridiculous and absurd plans will be extravagant folly.”
This reminds us how completely the Liberal Party of Canada has forgotten its roots, or if it does remember them, how it has betrayed them. In the 20th century, our republican heritage was that of journalists and writers like Godfroy Langlois, Ève Circé‑Côté, Olivar Asselin, Jules Fournier and André Laurendeau.
Today, we must pick up the torch of this republican struggle once more. Let us choose the sovereignty of the people rather than royal sovereignty. Let us abolish the monarchy. Long live the republic.
1338 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:53:45 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is because that is not what the motion says. The motion calls on the House to mandate the government to initiate the process. It is as simple as that. Deciding what form this will take will come later.
I know that the very idea of a republic is a bit foreign to a Canadian government that is proud of its monarchy, that it is a rather alien concept that may be hard to understand. There is also the idea of consulting the public, deferring to the sovereignty of the people, where the people get to write their own Constitution, make their own choices and decide which institutions they want.
However, I guess that can be hard for a descendant of British colonialism to understand.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:54:22 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the conversation today, although I may not agree with it or with having it at this time. This is not necessarily the time.
One thing that I keep questioning myself about as we debate this motion, which we will be voting on at some point, is what a lot of the people in my riding will think about this. I think about the veterans whom I talk to on numerous occasions. In the next few weeks, we are going to be commemorating and remembering what they provided to this country in fighting for freedom. I think of how incredibly proud they are as part of our democracy in fighting for that within the institutions, whether one agrees with them or not, and how they link that to the monarchy.
How would the member have me explain that to veterans who put so much emphasis and pride into fighting for what Canada represents, including the monarchy?
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 4:55:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very simple.
Honestly, I think that most veterans did not go to war ready to die for royalty. I do not think that was the main motivation. That being said, I personally know some veterans who are proud of their past service but who do not think that this institution is still relevant in 2022. I am not trying to tell them that they need to renounce their past oaths or military service. As of now, we no longer consider the monarchy to be part of our political system. It is as simple as that.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
