Debates of Oct. 25th, 2022

Opposition Motion—Ties Between the Canadian State and the Monarchy

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I stand corrected. No one is talking about this issue except for the Bloc. We have to ask ourselves why the Bloc party, just the Bloc, the people who want to see Canada fall part, wants to talk about this issue. I will not speculate on that.

Suffice it to say, it is not because of the people of Quebec, the people of Manitoba or any other province. If it were, there would be a better reflection of the issues that we are hearing every day in our communities from coast to coast to coast.

This motion, in essence, just shows how irrelevant the Bloc is when it comes to contributing in a positive way to what is actually being debated and brought to the House. Today is its day. This is the day it gets to pick the issue.

We have a good number of members of Parliament here on the government benches, in the Liberals caucus, who are from the province of Quebec. I do not necessarily need to consult with them because I follow the national news. I have a good sense of what is happening in the province of Quebec. I understand the unique nature of Quebec.

It is one of the reasons I often advocate for important issues, such as the aerospace industry, the agri industries and hydro development in the province of Quebec. These are all issues that Manitoba has in common. It even has in common the issue of the French language because that is such an important issue. Even in the province of Manitoba, where it is doing relatively well as it continues to grow.

These are the issues which people, whether they are in Manitoba, Quebec or any other province, would like to see some dialogue on, let alone the issues of the day. We are still not out of the pandemic, and the Bloc wants to talk about royalty.

When we talk to Canadians, they are concerned about their economic well-being and the cost of living, but the Bloc wants to talk about royalty. I invite them to talk to some of the seniors in the province of Quebec and listen to what they have to say about the cost of living, health care and long-term care, or talk to some of the industries there that we need to continue to support, such as the aerospace industry.

Talk about missing the mark. I think that I, if they would have given me their date, could have come up with a dozen things offhand that would allow us the opportunity to have a more creative and positive debate, which would be of benefit to not only people in Quebec, but also people in Manitoba and, in fact, all regions. That is something which, as a government, we have been focused on virtually from day one.

I understand the monarchy. It is interesting that Bloc members are coming to the chamber to say they want to open up the Constitution and have Canadians from coast to coast to coast to talk about whether we should have a monarchy, elect a head of state or appoint a head of state, but they are not saying what they believe. They just want to open up the Constitution. There is no recommendation, but that is what they want us to talk about.

We are just out of the pandemic, and with the cost of living, we are bringing forward first-time legislation on things such as the creation of a dental plan for children under the age of 12. We are bringing forward legislation to assist people with disabilities. Both of those pieces of legislation are historic, in the sense that it is the first time a national government is moving into those areas. We are listening to what people in our communities are saying and bringing that to the House of Commons, whether to the floor of the House, our respective caucuses, the standing committees or the many different stakeholders we meet with.

The Prime Minister constantly tells Liberal MPs to gauge what is happening in our constituencies and bring those ideas and thoughts here to Ottawa. Obviously, that concept or principle is not being followed by the Bloc party. If it were, it would definitely not be bringing forward a motion of this nature.

In Winnipeg North, my seniors are concerned about their future. They want to know that there is going to be quality long-term health care. They want to know that the federal government will continue to support health care, as it has been. There have been historic amounts of money invested by this government in health care in every region of our country. We have achieved accord with every province.

These are the types of issues that are important to our constituents. They are concerned about the issue of the cost of living. That is why we brought in legislation to enhance the GST rebate, so that there would be more money in their pockets in dealing with the issue of inflation. That is the reason why we have the dental program for children. We want to make sure that children are in fact getting the dental care they need, which will prevent many of those children from having to go into the hospital. These are the types of measures that are making a difference.

The Bloc earlier blocked the idea of a rental subsidy. That rental subsidy would help people across Canada in every region. It is going a long way in providing tangible supporting by putting money in the pockets of Canadians. If the Bloc were genuinely listening and responding by bringing those ideas and thoughts from their constituents, I think they would have a better understanding why individuals, such as myself and others, are questioning why the Bloc would bring forward such a motion in 2022, given that typically they will get three days in any given year. I know the member for Kingston and the Islands will talk a little bit more about those three days in his speech later on this afternoon.

Suffice it to say, given the environment we are in today, I would suggest the Bloc members start talking beyond their inner caucus, the Bloc caucus, with less focus on separation and more focus on the things that matter most to Canadians, no matter where they live in Canada.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader should focus less on partisanship, which seems to be blinding him.

In yesterday's debate on the Uighur genocide, he spent 20 minutes attacking the Conservative Party because he did not think it was the time to talk about that.

I just want to say to the parliamentary secretary that not a blessed day goes by that we do not talk about health care funding or the gun problem during question period. His government, on the other hand, is doing absolutely nothing.

If he does not care about tossing $67 million out the window, then why is he on the government benches?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the member makes reference to seeing less of my being so partisan. I will consistently advocate for national unity and the importance of Canada as a nation. There is only one political party inside this chamber that ultimately wants to see the demise of Canada as we know it today.

I would never apologize to the separatists who want to see Canada divided, because I believe Canada is the best country in the world to live in. One of the ways in which we can contribute to ensuring that into the future is by reflecting the true understanding and interests of Canadians here on the floor of the House. I can assure the member opposite that the issue of the Crown and the issue of Senate reform are not being debated in our communities in any real and tangible way in comparison to the types of issues I have talked about.

[Robert Gordon Kitchen, Conservative, Souris—Moose Mountain, SK]

Mr. Speaker, very seldom will I agree with the gentleman on most issues, but when he says Canada is the best country in the world to live in, I am 100% behind that, and I appreciate that.

With that said, in Souris—Moose Mountain, throughout my whole riding, I have not had anyone come and talk to me about the monarchy. I appreciate the member's comments on that. What we have heard about is basically the economy, inflation rates and the big cost to individuals in a rural community.

The member touched a bit on how he is hearing similar things, and I am wondering if he could expand upon that for us today.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, when it comes to the issue being brought forward, it is very rare for me to be giving compliments to the Conservative Party, but the question has captured the essence. We may disagree in many ways on many policies, but we understand that what we should be debating is in fact issues that are somewhat relevant, at the very least, to what Canadians want us to be talking about.

I guess I would take the proposal a little differently if the Bloc were to approach it in a different way. Is it suggesting we have an elected president in the future? Is it talking about us appointing a president? There is absolutely nothing more with this particular motion than just being mischievous.

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

Mr. Speaker, on the whole idea of the monarchy, I will give an example. My mother-in-law turned 90 recently. She has lived through three monarchs: King George, Queen Elizabeth and now King Charles. Throughout my riding, when one goes door to door or visits people, people still have pictures of the Queen and her father up on the wall in their houses. The connection to the monarchy in Newfoundland and Labrador is probably stronger than in any other province. I wonder if the member would comment on the fact that Quebec is a province within Canada. It is a part of Canada, and as such—

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[Ken McDonald, Liberal, Avalon, NL]

The member can heckle all he likes about what he thinks he is or what he thinks he is not, but he is a Canadian citizen even though he lives in Quebec. He is a Canadian, a Canadian, a Canadian.

Would the parliamentary secretary agree with that perspective and agree that this is the way Canada is right now?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I am from Manitoba, yet I am a Canadian. People are from all sorts of provinces and territories, but we can see that there is a high sense of pride in being a Canadian. That is probably the best way. We have a system that is in place, and I am not hearing arguments that we should switch this to X or Y. At this point in the game, I do not want to open up the constitutional debate. I do not think Canadians want that. I think we need to get through this period of difficulty, and hopefully, in the future, who knows what might happen?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will note at the outset that I will be sharing my time with my wonderful colleague from Beauport—Limoilou.

I have been listening to my colleagues in the federalist political parties speak since this morning, except maybe our friends in the NDP, who like to make a big show of their Canadian pride by trying to protect a foreign institution at all costs. What is so typically Canadian about the British monarchy?

I hear the Conservatives and Liberals telling us how proud they are of Canada, telling us that it is the best and most beautiful country in the world, and telling us that they want to protect British institutions like the British monarchy. They keep saying that this debate is not important, that no one in their respective ridings wants to talk about the monarchy.

What is the point, then, of spending $67 million a year on an institution that no one in their ridings cares about? That is the real question.

If the monarchy is not important to their constituents, why take that money from them every year and spend it on that, when the $67 million could be spent on essential government services like housing or EI supports, for example? Why continue this wasteful public spending for the benefit of a privileged few?

Some citizens of this country that our colleagues are so proud of will never have the opportunity to go to Rideau Hall to have cake with Her Excellency the Governor General of Canada. They are struggling every day to cover the cost of inflation.

We are talking about the very heart of our democratic institutions, which are founded on the equality of citizens and the rule of law, not the bloodline of a handful of people who, simply by birth, would have the right to rule an entire country.

The monarchy goes against so many principles at the heart of our institutions, from, as I was just saying, the equality of citizens, to sovereignty of the people, to democracy, which is the corollary, and the separation of church and state.

We are told what people in this country think about this. According to a poll conducted by the Angus Reid Institute in April, 71% of Quebeckers are against maintaining the monarchy and want it to disappear from Canada. A majority of my colleagues' constituents, 51%, want the monarchy to be abolished.

The poll also indicates that there is not a single province in Canada where the percentage of people who want to maintain the monarchy is greater than the percentage of those who want us to get rid of it.

Those members who say that their constituents do not talk about this should take note of it. My colleagues must take note of what people think, and the majority of their constituents believe that we should abolish this useless institution.

Another poll conducted in June by Leger indicates that 56% of Canadians oppose the oath of allegiance. In Quebec, that number is as high as 75%. Australia, whose head of state is still His Majesty the King, decided to do away with the oath of allegiance. Why does Canada not do the same?

I would like to share with my colleagues a few words I spoke when I swore the oath for the very first time, in 2005, as a member of the National Assembly of Quebec. I referred to the oaths I had sworn here, in the House of Commons, and said:

Previously, I swore oaths in a very private manner, and in complete anonymity. I never invited anyone to attend, not even my closest colleagues, not even my spouse.... I did so, as they say back home, “on the sly”.

I did not see any reason to celebrate. For me, the swearing-in was just a formality, something I had to do to be able to fulfill my responsibilities. In fact, I found this ritual very difficult because my common sense and my conscience were engaged in a bitter struggle. As I was swearing the oath, I was thinking of our Canadian ancestors who, under British rule, were forced to swear the oath of allegiance to be able to serve in public office. I was thinking of my Acadian ancestors who were stripped of their property and deported in wretched conditions under the false pretext that they supposedly refused to swear unconditional allegiance to prove that they were British subjects, a totally futile endeavour. I was overcome by a deep sense of helplessness and shame at the idea of betraying their memory in that way by performing this official act that was the source of such misfortune for them.

I am once again hearing our colleagues bragging about how proud they are to be Canadian. The parliamentary secretary even said that the Bloc Québécois initiated this debate because it wants to break up this beautiful country. However, some quintessential federalists share our position, not the least of which is John Manley. John Manley, who served as deputy prime minister and minister of finance under Jean Chrétien, made some statements that I would like to share.

I do believe when most people think about it and realize our head of state is foreign when she travels she doesn't represent Canada, she represents Great Britain. I think they kind of realize this is really an institution that is a bit out of date for Canada to continue with.

He went on to say that Prince Charles should not be allowed to become the country's king:

Having the oldest son inherit the responsibility of being head of state, that's just not something in the 21st century we ought to be entertaining. That's why it ought to be a person who is Canadian, who reflects Canadian diversity, and who is chosen by Canadians.

He also said this:

Personally, I would prefer an institution after Queen Elizabeth that is just Canadian. It might be as simple as continuing with just the Governor General as the head of state in Canada. But I don't think it's necessary for Canada to continue with the monarchy.

Here, we are not talking about an evil separatist and someone with ties to the Bloc Québécois, we are talking about a Liberal minister. We are not talking about a junior minister, we are talking about the former deputy prime minister and minister of finance under the Jean Chrétien government.

The Young Liberals, who cannot be suspected of being sovereignist supporters, even tabled a motion in 2012—not in 2002, as was the case in the John Manley era—at the Liberal Party convention to abolish the monarchy in Canada.

We can see that this has absolutely nothing to do with being a sovereignist or not, since the majority of my colleagues' constituents across Canada are also opposed to the monarchy.

When they say that their constituents never talk about the topic, I think that this in fact speaks volumes about the $67 million a year we spend on this institution rather than investing it in social housing, for example. There could be 670 new social housing units built each year if that money were invested in social housing rather than in maintaining Rideau Hall and the person who resides there at our expense.

I am not going to mention all the lavish spending that has been reported in the media for far too long in relation to the governors general of Canada and the lieutenant governors throughout the provinces. I will spare the House from having to listen to the list of all such people.

We have been told repeatedly that monarchy provides stability to Canadian democracy, so I will simply conclude my remarks by respectfully reminding the House that many, many democracies in the rest of the world are not monarchies but are nevertheless very stable and work very well.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member across the way gave us some food for thought. However, as the representative of the riding that is also known as the “Royal City”, Guelph has very strong ties to the royal family and has for many generations. The House also has those same ties.

I am thinking that the hon. member might be in the wrong room to think we could change our relationship with the monarchy, particularly with the Governor General. He made passing reference to her, but I wonder if he could he talk about the importance of the Governor General being a Canadian representative who also represents the monarchy.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like my colleague from Guelph to explain to me, just for fun, exactly how the special ties between his community and the British monarchy have changed anything in the life of his constituents. How many times has the monarch bothered to knock on his door and reaffirm the special ties between Guelph and Buckingham Palace?

It is nothing but window dressing. The same goes for the Governor General. Of course, the Governor General is Canadian because we have finally broken with the tradition of having British governor generals. If we managed to break with this tradition, there remains one step to be taken, which is to break with this British institution that has nothing to do with 21st century Canada.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I think that the Bloc Québécois motion is designed to distract attention from what they just did.

Yesterday, they voted in favour of a stronger, tougher federal government that is going to triple the carbon tax for Quebeckers.

However, right now, inflation is the highest it has been in 41 years and the cost of living is rising. I am therefore wondering why the Bloc Québécois moved this motion. Do they not see that their motion does not really affect the daily lives of Quebeckers?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Actually, Mr. Speaker, this motion does affect the daily lives of Quebeckers and even those of my colleague's constituents.

The government is taking money out of the pockets of his constituents and Quebeckers' pockets to maintain this institution. While the Governor General is organizing parties and travelling by plane with fancy dinners for her and her guests on board, the people in my colleague's riding are struggling to make ends meet because the cost of living is too high.

Meanwhile, the privileged are living large on the taxes his constituents pay, as though it were still the 12th century. We need to move into the 21st century. As I just said, we managed to do away with the tradition of British governors general, so let us follow that course of action through to its logical conclusion and abolish the monarchy.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, all day long, both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party have been trying to dodge the issue. They say it is not the right time to talk about this and we should talk about inflation and fighting the pandemic instead.

Over the past few weeks, however, we have talked about bills C‑3, C‑5, C‑9, C‑20 and S‑4, none of which have anything to do with inflation or fighting the pandemic.

Does my colleague think we waste our time in the House every day? Should we talk about nothing but inflation and the pandemic? Can we not walk and chew gum at the same time?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, one of the advantages of having served in the House for a long time is that I can make connections with different eras. I remember that during one era that began in 1993, the Liberal prime minister of the time, Jean Chrétien, told us that we needed to talk about the real issues, about what matters to our constituents on a daily basis.

It took me some time, but I finally realized—another advantage of being in the House for so long—that the real issues are the ones the government does not want to talk about. When the government talks about “real issues”, it is to distract the House from a certain number of subjects that it would prefer not to discuss. However, it just so happens that there are members in the House whose mission it is to discuss the very issues the government wants to avoid, such as the monarchy.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I was asked to give a speech on this opposition day, naturally I agreed. In fact, I was honoured.

Who am I? I have been sitting in the House for three years and I am still thinking about why people voted for me. The difference is that they voted for me, while no one has ever voted for a monarch or for a governor general.

We live in a democracy. People chose us. I was born in a mining town, and here I am today. I am incredibly lucky because we live in a democracy. If Quebec were to become independent tomorrow, I could be the head of state.

I can assure members that the Bloc Québécois does not aspire to be in power. However, if that were the case, the Bloc Québécois leader would not be head of state, and the same goes for the current Prime Minister, and future or past prime ministers. In reality, the head of the Canadian state is the British monarch, not a person chosen by the people. There is more. This even affects our own laws, the ones we pass together, work on, reflect on and fortunately reach a consensus on.

These bills actually reflect the voices of our constituents, those who elected us and whom we represent. However, laws cannot come into force without royal assent. An individual who is not elected and does not actually represent the choice of the people must give his or her assent. There is a bit of a discrepancy between our deeply democratic values and what we actually do.

It goes beyond that. If a bill does not have complete unanimity among the population and an election is called, something could be done to delay royal assent. However, if a bill does receive royal assent, it is because a majority has voted in favour of it. Even though the people have spoken through us, royal assent might not be given, it might be delayed because political strategists think that the time is not right.

Doing that, however, is like saying that the voices of 338 members are less important than that of one person. It is as though the voices of 338 representatives of 38 million people are less important, less considered and less insightful than that of one person. I have been reflecting carefully on what the monarchy means to me, beyond what I have just explained.

Monarchy is an intellectual curiosity for me. I am a history teacher by trade. Monarchy is a curiosity for me, because I do not know that world. I will never live in that world, and I was not born with a silver spoon in my mouth. When I was born, my path was not yet set. My parents and the education system helped me, and I helped myself, get to where I am. I feel sorry for the princes and princesses of this world who, from the moment they are born, are told what path they must take and what they must become. I find that sad.

I, for one, was fortunate enough to be able to choose the path I wanted to take, so monarchy is a curiosity for me. I wonder why, at some point, human beings needed to gather behind a monarch who would be there for the rest of his life before giving way to his children, his grandchildren, his great-grandchildren, and so on until the end of time. I would have to consult anthropologists and just about every library in the world to find out why we reached that point in our history, or even in our prehistory.

Then, I wondered why people in the House, in Canada and around the world are so attached to the monarchy. It is important to me to see both sides. Why are there people in the House who are so attached monarchy? It is kind of a mystery.

Then, I dove into my own history books and learned that many anglophones today are close or distant relatives of American loyalists who left what is now the United States because it was separating from the British Crown. It is worth noting that the United States functions fairly well without the Crown. It is fair to say that the United States is a mature country, a little like France, capable of functioning without a monarch. In general, things are going well. That system is worth thinking about. Those people were royalists, loyal to the Crown. They came here, bringing with them their values system as it pertained to the monarchy. I can see how the tradition was passed down from one generation to the next. I do wonder why the Scots and the Irish, who suffered so much under the monarchy, are so attached to it. I do not have an answer yet, but I may get one eventually.

It is important to understand that all of the statements I make and questions I ask today are meant as delicately as possible. I do not mean to offend anyone for the values they espouse. I am simply trying to explain the other side of the argument, knowing that 56% of Canadians and over 70% of Quebeckers are against the oath of allegiance to the Queen and King of England, although now it is a king, and those percentages are increasing all the time.

As my colleague mentioned earlier, no one can say that this idea came from us sovereignists, or as some call us, separatists. This did not come from sovereignists. If that were the case, then 56% of the Canadian population and 70% of the Quebec population are separatists. With 70% of the Quebec population, we would have a new country in North America, and Canada would have a new neighbour. This is not about independence. It is about democratic evolution, about political maturity. We are capable of making our own laws, deciding for ourselves and being reasonable. Once laws have gone through all the necessary procedures, and there are many, we can then say that we approve and enforce them, although it could end up being a judge who enforces them.

We are talking about a symbolic function that costs us $67 million a year, every year.

Earlier, I listened to my colleagues asking if there were other issues we should be discussing instead. Is there nothing else as urgent as the monarchy? Yes, there are more urgent issues, such as the fact that $67 million represents over three times the amount of money we need for infrastructure. From an economic standpoint, this has a real impact. It costs three times as much as an infrastructure program that we want to implement. It costs as much as 670 housing units. That is the reality and those are urgent needs right now. By having access to this money, we would really help people, and our laws would represent us.

Let us be mature, let us move forward with this, and let us think big.

[Joël Lightbound, Liberal, Louis-Hébert, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I think this is a rather interesting debate we are having in the House this morning.

I share many of the sentiments of my colleagues across the way. To me, swearing an oath to the British Crown after every election is not a fond memory. It is something that I would certainly forego. I think my attachment to the British Crown is likely as strong as theirs.

However, I also understand the argument of my colleagues on this side of the House who say that if we decide to abolish the monarchy in Canada, that involves reopening the Constitution and that is not necessarily a priority.

I would like to know how my colleague reconciles these two things especially given the challenges we are facing as a country with, as members know, the economic situation in Canada and around the world.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone here today knows, Quebec did not ratify the Constitution. Despite that, the monarchy said that was not a problem and that the Constitution would apply against Quebec's will.

I am going to make a religious reference that everyone will understand. Correct me if I am wrong, but the Constitution is not like Moses' 10 commandments, carved in stone. We are able to amend it and it makes sense to do so in order to make the Constitution an accurate portrait of society. It can and must be amended for the good of the people, the advancement of values and to represent what we truly are now and what we aspire to become.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since arriving in the House, I have often heard my colleagues opposite give speeches of contrition for violations of human rights.

Since this morning, we have heard all sorts of things and it seems that due to ignorance, complacency or lack of courage, they are content to defend the status quo without feeling any embarrassment about what the Crown did to the Acadians, which is literally a genocide.

Can my colleague explain why the members opposite are not embarrassed with respect to Acadian descendants when they swear allegiance to the Crown?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his very pertinent question.

This is not just about Acadian descendants but also about the Métis of Alberta and the first nations in general, who have been cast aside, crushed and reduced to silence. I could also talk about conscription in Quebec, which resulted in deaths because people simply did not want to go to war. I could talk about the 1832 election in Montreal, when the army charged and killed francophones who were defending themselves. We could make a list of these representatives of the Crown who attacked minorities.

How then can we defend minorities today while ignoring those who suffered for decades, centuries, even, without ever acknowledging their suffering or apologizing?

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to know why today's discussion is on this issue.

Canada is facing a lot of problems, such as inflation, immigration, and the war between Ukraine and Russia. Why did the Bloc Québécois choose to talk about this issue today when there are so many more important issues to talk about?

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I already answered that question.

In practical terms, $67 million, the amount I was trying to think of earlier, is more than the budget of the National Research Council Canada, an organization whose research helps all our citizens.

[Joanne Thompson, Liberal, St. John's East, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.

Canada is unique in our status as a parliamentary democracy and constitutional monarchy, with His Majesty King Charles III as sovereign. As a constitutional monarch, the King is Canada's head of state but must still abide by the decisions of the Canadian government. This element of our Constitution ensures that it is the Canadian people who determine the laws that govern us.

The Canadian Crown is a reminder that the power to govern our country is shared. Our democratic system allows us to push for the change desired by our people, while the presence of the Canadian Crown offers stability and respect for due process.

Over the years, the Canadian Crown has brought prestige and tradition to our celebrations. Royal tours have enhanced milestones in Canadian history, such as Canada's centennial anniversary, celebrated by Queen Elizabeth II, or the 75th anniversary of the Canadian Rangers, celebrated by the then Prince of Wales. Even our Canadian honours system, officially created by our last sovereign, enables us to recognize extraordinary people for their tremendous contributions to our country in a merit-based, apolitical and accessible way.

The year 2022 marked Queen Elizabeth II's Platinum Jubilee. As of February 6, Canada's longest-reigning sovereign was the first to celebrate this historic milestone marking a 70th anniversary on the throne. Canadians across the nation used this momentous occasion to celebrate Canada's achievements over the past seven decades and participate in initiatives organized by the government, a true partnership among federal departments and agencies, Crown corporations, viceregal offices, provincial and territorial governments and non-governmental organizations.

The Department of Canadian Heritage received hundreds of applications from communities and organizations wishing to celebrate the Platinum Jubilee, and in turn provided $2.14 million in funding for 363 projects, many of which gave Canadians the opportunity to learn about the history and role of the Crown in Canada. They highlighted how Canada has evolved over the last seven decades and made special efforts to engage youth and indigenous peoples. Many Canadians also took advantage of national programs offered by the Platinum Jubilee. For example, about 26,000 teachers and four million viewers took part in the education program developed by the Royal Canadian Geographical Society that taught students about the constitutional role of the Crown, with environmental and indigenous connections.

The Rideau Hall Foundation held a symposium of Queen Elizabeth scholars and high-profile Canadians, which consisted of about 2,000 speakers and participants who discussed topics of significance that shaped Canada and the Commonwealth. A Canadian Platinum Jubilee website was created, with information on the historic milestone, celebratory initiatives throughout the year and a newly developed Canadian Platinum Jubilee emblem. The website garnered well over one million views and social media posts in both official languages and received over 113,000 impressions on the Crown in Canadian platforms.

The Royal Canadian Mint issued four commemorative coins for the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, all of which received tremendous response. Likewise, Canada Post issued commemorative stamps for the Queen's Platinum Jubilee, which saw very successful sales.

Each country has symbols and peoples that establish its identity and culture and represent its history and priorities. The Canadian Crown, especially in the context of the royal tours, is a means of promoting those Canadian symbols and people at the national level, helping Canadians get a better understanding of and sense of attachment to their shared values and, on an international level, showing what it is that sets Canada apart from other nations. Royal visits give us the opportunity to highlight Canadian issues, people, places and institutions of importance, and add special significance to the way we honour Canadians and their achievements.

During their most recent tour, the King and Queen Consort engaged with small businesses and discussed innovative solutions and the impacts of the pandemic. They met with youth groups and discussed the importance of literacy. They discussed sustainable financial measures in combatting climate change and learned about the impacts that climate change has had on northern Canada and its cultures. They met many indigenous people of Canada, including in my riding of St. John's East, visiting the Heart Garden, participating in national and traditional ceremonies, meeting with indigenous leaders across the Northwest Territories and learning about efforts made to preserve indigenous languages.

Through media coverage on the tour, Canadians were given the opportunity to learn about current events in their own country, as well as the nation's history. The organizations and people whom the King and Queen Consort met also benefited from the publicity, raising awareness of Canadians' work.

Finally, upon Queen Elizabeth II's passing, a series of commemorative initiatives over a 10-day mourning period were held, ending with a national commemorative ceremony on September 19. Initiatives included a half-masting of the national flag of Canada on all federal buildings and establishments in Canada and abroad, the illumination of several key Canadian landmarks in royal blue and the launch of a commemorative website, which included resources for Canadians to learn about and celebrate the Queen's life and her years of service to Canada.

Among those resources was an online book of condolences, where all Canadians were invited to share their personal stories of the Queen, send messages of condolence to her family and thank her for seven decades of service to Canada. Almost 60,000 Canadians signed the online book of condolences and thousands more signed the physical books of condolences that were available for in-person signing at Rideau Hall in Ottawa, the Citadelle of Quebec in Quebec City and multiple community institutions across the country. This was a remarkable demonstration of collective mourning and gratitude by Canadians across the nation.

The Prime Minister proclaimed a national day of mourning on September 19, 2022, the day the national commemorative ceremony for the Queen took place in Ottawa, which coincided with her state funeral in London. This designated holiday was an opportunity for Canadians to honour the Queen's life and service. The national ceremony took place at Christ Church Cathedral in Ottawa and highlighted key moments of the Queen's life related to Canada and Canadians, featuring prayers and readings, an indigenous tribute, addresses by prominent Canadians, musical interludes by a wide variety of Canadian artists and a video montage of her 22 official tours in Canada.

Attendees reflected a broad selection of Canadian society, including former prime ministers and governors general, representatives at each level of government, multi-faith representatives and notable Canadians and individuals who hold special ties with the Queen or the Crown. The ceremony was broadcast live across the nation and garnered millions in viewership.

The Canadian Crown is an institution whose grandeur and dignity clearly contribute to our collective identity, and it has stood the test of time despite the challenges and changes that Canada and the world have faced in recent years. It has overseen our nation's growth and guided us through our evolution as we have learned from past mistakes and looked to a brighter future.