Debates of April 9th, 2024

Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

The time provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired, and the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.

The House resumed from January 31 consideration of the motion that Bill C-347, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (oath of office), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Constitution Act, 1867

[Damien Kurek, Conservative, Battle River—Crowfoot, AB]

Madam Speaker, as always, it is an honour to rise in this place and talk about the issues that are so important to Canadians. Specifically today, I am rising to talk about Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, specifically in relation to the oath of office that those of us in this place all take prior to our being able to take our seats.

I know the bill was meant to be up for debate a number of weeks ago. Finally having this opportunity, I cannot help but think about so much of our history and its legacy and what this means to our democratic institutions. In speaking to the privilege motion that was debated yesterday and in talking about what some of the privileges of members of Parliament are, I mentioned the mace and some of the other symbols we have in this place and across our country and how so many of those lend to the history we have in this country we are able to call Canada today.

When it comes to the specifics of this institution, there has been more than 800 years of these green carpets. There was a decision on the fields of Runnymede that, instead of fighting a war, there would be deliberation and debate that would take place and the Crown would willingly give authority to the people. That is represented through the mace that sits on the table that our clerks reside at, where it points toward the government side of the House of Commons as a symbolic message to this day that speaks of that history of democracy and the empowerment of the people.

I enter into the debate on Bill C-347 with that history in mind. Here we have something that may seem small, in terms of adding an option for MPs to use instead of swearing an oath or affirming allegiance to the Crown. Members who were sworn in prior to the passing of the late Queen Elizabeth II, as on the two opportunities I have had, swore an oath of allegiance to the late queen, and those who have been elected more recently or will be elected in the future have an opportunity to swear an oath to King Charles III.

What I will attempt to do over the course of my speech is highlight a number of what I find are concerning aspects of the bill

The first is that we have a private member's bill, which has a very limited opportunity for debate in this place. Its provisions are not given the ability to have a fulsome discussion and debate on an issue as important as changing the perspective around the Crown's role in Canada. There is a reason I would say that. Some would say that this would just give another option. Practically, yes, that is what would happen here, but I would urge members of this place to consider this simple giving of a third option to members. Instead of swearing an oath or affirming allegiance to the Crown, they would be able to say that they would uphold the Constitution.

I suggest that members reflect carefully on the significance of that change because it shows a very symbolic shift in the way we approach our relationship with so much of our national history, of which the monarchy and the British Crown have been such a significant part. I have some concerns about doing this in the form of a private member's bill. It would be taking constitutional matters, I would suggest, somewhat flippantly and without acknowledging some of the seriousness with which we should approach these important things.

I know there are debates. In fact, I have heard some debates. There is one political party in the House that is no fan of the monarchy, and there are various opinions as to the future role of the monarchy in both the House of Commons and also in the other place, in the Senate. Those are important discussions that we can have as a country, but to simply provide an out without actually engaging in those fulsome discussions is deeply problematic.

One challenge I have with this bill is that it is somewhat contradictory in nature. While it gives a third option, and I have mentioned what that third option would be, I would suggest that it is very typically Liberal. It adds a third option as a workaround to do the exact same thing that the first two options provide.

On swearing an oath to the Crown, in 1905, there was a solemn affirmation and, in my understanding, significant debate around that at the time. What this change would bring about is basically that people would not have to do either of those, but they would swear to uphold the Constitution. However, by doing that, they are basically saying, indirectly, that they are swearing an oath of allegiance to the monarchy.

My suggestion would be, when it comes to the context of the bill we have before us, that we should have the honest conversation as a nation as to the future of that in the context of our national discourse as opposed to the very limited few hours of debate that it has in a PMB slot. I would just note that one of the ironies I find when it comes to this bill is that we have a Liberal member of Parliament bringing this forward. I understand he has a long history of some of his opposition, and I believe it dates back to some controversy in relation to becoming a lawyer. There is obviously some personal history there. I greatly respect one's personal history and advocacy, even if I do not agree with it. One can respect people they do not agree with, which may be a news flash for many in this place.

I find it interesting that a Liberal would bring forward a bill that includes a mechanism with a very U.S. style of politics. If passed, this type of response would be integrated into something that has been very uniquely Westminster, very uniquely Canada. It already acknowledges that, in some cases, whether it is faith or ideology, some people do not feel they can swear an oath, so they simply affirm their allegiance to the Crown. I understand that.

However, it is ironic, I would suggest, that it is bringing forward some of that American style, because if one was to look at the oath that members of Congress, the U.S. President or members of the U.S. military swear, there is certainly a similarity. Nevertheless, it would not accomplish the same thing, because it is a workaround that still swears allegiance to the Crown; this is upheld through the constitutional values.

What is unique is that, as we undertake some of these significant discussions, it is okay to have disagreements. I am proud to be part of a party that provides a tremendous amount of latitude to be able to discuss and, in many cases, agree. I know that, for my Conservative colleagues and I, the reason we are Conservatives is very clear and straightforward. That is something we often talk about. However, that does not mean that one universally agrees on everything. It is that ability to disagree that is so fundamental to who we are as Canadians.

I would simply say this: Earlier today, I met with an organization that talks about media literacy. One fundamental takeaway is that it is okay to disagree in our society. It is okay to have dialogue and debate, to have different opinions on matters. Simply because someone has a different opinion does not necessarily make that person a bad person.

I fear that we have moved down that line, where we simply demonize those whom we disagree with. I would suggest that this is fundamentally incorrect.

To conclude, we may debate what responsibility is particular to the oath of office, which I certainly take very seriously. There may be a debate to have around the role of that responsibility to uphold the more than a century and a half of democratic tradition here in Canada, and prior to Canada becoming a country in 1867, the advent of responsible government with Robert Baldwin and Louis LaFontaine. There is some significant history there. Let us have those serious conversations and not adopt a bill that, I would suggest, is something of a cop-out from having those serious conversations that we should be able to have in this place.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois' position will come as no surprise: We will be voting in favour of this bill.

First of all, I would like to salute the courage of the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who introduced this bill. I do not know what the future holds for this bill, but first and foremost, I must salute the member's courage. As someone who knows the history of the Acadians, I have a real admiration for him. I wanted to say that before I began my speech.

The bill aims to offer the possibility of choosing an oath and no longer forcing people to swear an oath to the King of England or Canada. Usually, we say: “I...do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to [His or Her] Majesty”, followed by the name of the king or queen who is on the throne. With this bill, there is the possibility of introducing a second option, which is to say: “I, A.‍B.‍, do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.”

Is that the best solution from the Bloc Québécois's perspective? I would not say so. This is not a bill the Bloc Québécois would have drafted. That does not mean it is not good. It is a step in the right direction. I am not trying to make my colleague sad. We would simply have drafted an oath of allegiance to the people. The people elect us. They are the reason we are here, the reason we make decisions. The people are always the reason we take the most informed action possible.

I know it will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is against the monarchy. It is an old system whose glory days are long past, from a time before things such as the airplane and the car were discovered. That was ages ago. We believe in democracy. We believe that the people are sovereign, not the King. What matters to us is the equality of all people, regardless of the colour of their skin, the language they speak, or where they come from. Everyone is equal.

When we swear allegiance to someone born into the right family, under a lucky star, no one can claim that everyone is equal. It transgresses the foundations of democracy from the start. Guess what? Democracy is the reason we are here. A person is either a supporter of democracy or not.

In 1776, Adam Smith wrote a treatise on the wealth of nations. According to his extraordinary book, people deserve to be treated with respect and on an equal basis. People who succeed by their merit, skill and hard work have earned their success. That is what economic liberalism is all about. I am not saying that we all have to be economic liberals; that is not what I am saying. In the country of today's king, Adam Smith laid the groundwork for an economic system coupled with a political system that upholds the equality of all and reward based on merit. No one can claim that Charles III deserves to have his shoelaces ironed based on merit. Nothing justifies the royal treatment given to this individual, who should be the equal of everyone else. For that reason and others, we therefore object to swearing an oath.

That being said, there is something else. The Governor General of Canada, who represents the King, could potentially gain political power even though they are not elected. That is crazy. We cannot accept that possibility.

We have power because we are given that power by virtue of being elected. People say that they have confidence in us for certain reasons. They read our platform, they listened to us and they decided that we should represent them. The fact that we are making these decisions is justified. If people are unhappy with my work, we know what will happen. I will have to step down. The people will decide.

Before I get into the rest of my remarks, I must say that swearing an oath to the Constitution is problematic. First, the Constitution places a lot of emphasis on God, which is problematic. Second, Quebec did not sign the Constitution. It was shoved down our throats. We would therefore be swearing allegiance to a Constitution that has not been signed by my people. I have a bit of a problem with that.

Furthermore, I am looking at Canada's current Liberal government, and it does not respect the Constitution. It will be swearing allegiance to the Constitution while interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. It is simply going to renege on the very foundations of this Constitution. When we talk about a normal country, we are not quite there. Lastly, why are we against swearing allegiance to the King? Because it is the British monarchy. He is the king of another country. We are swearing allegiance to a king who comes from somewhere else and lives somewhere else. He will come and do a little tour once in a while, at taxpayers' expense, of course. Honestly, I think he might as well stay home. That would be a good deal; it would allow us to keep more money to solve our own problems.

For Quebeckers, this king is the conqueror. The English won the Seven Years' War, which we call “la guerre de la Conquête” or the war of the conquest. It is funny because, when we talk about the war of the conquest and the Plains of Abraham, we always think about defeat, whereas native-born Canadians think about victory. Then they wonder why we say that we are a distinct nation. Perhaps that is part of the reason. There were moments in history when we were at war. That is because we do not even come from the same people. Before the British Crown came along and conquered Quebec, it crossed the St. Lawrence River and burned down farms belonging to Quebeckers, to French Canadians at the time, all along the river.

Incidentally, the British also deported the Acadians. Why? The Acadian population totalled 18,000. The British separated families. They deported 12,000 Acadians, and 8,000 of them died of an epidemic before they even reached their destination. It is the British Crown that did that. Am I really supposed to swear an oath to that? It makes no sense.

Then there was Amherst's germ warfare. I think it was in 1760. He decided he wanted to help indigenous people, after a fashion. He infected blankets with smallpox, and then he distributed the blankets to indigenous people. Some say it was the first case of germ warfare. The British Crown did that. I am supposed to swear allegiance to that?

When the patriots were hanged, strangely enough, 12 French-speaking patriots were hanged, and yet some of the people who participated in the patriots' rebellions were English, Irish and Quebeckers or French Canadians. The 12 who were hanged were francophones. How bizarre. I am the member of Parliament for La Prairie. Joseph‑Narcisse Cardinal, who was the member for La Prairie, was sentenced to hang because he had gone to Kahnawake to get weapons and been caught. He had five children, and I think his wife was expecting a sixth. His wife wrote a letter to Colborne's wife. Colborne was Governor General at the time. She begged her to save her husband's life. She did not get a response. She went to see Colborne's wife and Colborne gave her $8. That is the British Crown. They seriously want me to swear an oath to that?

Lord Durham wanted to put a definitive end to problems related to the patriot rebellion. He said that it was not a political war, but an ethnic war because of French Canadians. He said he would fix things. He said they were a people without history, a people without literature. He said they had to be assimilated for their own good. That is why the powers that be set out to unite Lower Canada and Upper Canada. That is how we were treated. There is a member here from Durham. Canadians see Durham as a good person. We see him as a force for assimilation. We can read what Durham wanted to do in the 19th century and look at what is happening today. We know that history does not tire of its own tales. If we do not listen, it repeats itself. As Jacques Parizeau put it, the best way to make someone a separatist is to teach them history.

That is how I know that what would make Quebeckers and the members of the Bloc Québécois truly proud would be to swear an oath to the people of Quebec in the republic of Quebec.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, first and foremost, I lost my flower that acknowledges Cancer Awareness Month, so I do not have it on right now, but I do want to acknowledge that it is Cancer Awareness Month. I do not want to take up too much time, but I want to acknowledge all those who are impacted by cancer.

I recently lost a friend of mine, Cindra, who leaves behind her three children. She also lost her husband just over a year ago, so they have left behind their children as a result of cancer. I want to thank the Canadian Cancer Society and all those who do all the work to do research and provide supports to help all those who are impacted.

With that, I am here today to talk about Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act. This is my very first speech as the new NDP critic of democratic reform, so I am very proud and pleased to speak to this issue.

I want to thank the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for bringing forward this bill. As we know, this bill brings forward the ability for a member of the House of Commons or Senate, before they take their seat, to choose to take and subscribe to the oath of allegiance, an oath of office, or both. We all subscribe to the oath of allegiance, so this would be an alternative for people.

Members would have a choice to swear an allegiance to the monarch, as has always been done in Canada, or to take an oath of office, therefore committing to work in the best interest of our country and in accordance with the Constitution. Members cannot currently legally assume their seat in Parliament until they have taken the oath to the sovereign.

When speaking with constituents in my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, I have heard a mix of responses. Some are very much in favour of such changes, some are very much against and there are others who are quite frankly apathetic to the issue. It is for these reasons my New Democrat colleagues and I will decide individually whether to support this legislation or not.

I respect the member for his creativity in this bill. Whether intended or not, I believe this could be a small, positive step in addressing potential barriers for Canadians in putting their names forward to serve and represent constituents as members of Parliament. I believe this to be a small change but worth discussing, as such decisions can have an impact on the composition of who is elected into the House of Commons.

However, as we all know, this is not an issue I am finding is front of mind for Canadians. This is understandable as Canadians and people in Nanaimo—Ladysmith are struggling to make ends meet. People are unable to afford housing and are unable to keep food on the table. Canadians are feeling the real impacts of the climate crisis.

In my riding of Nanaimo—Ladysmith, for example, “forest fire season” is now a term being used by locals. Forest fire season is now a part of our summer, where the smoke fills the air, kids are unable to go outside to play and people struggle just to breathe.

There are serious problems facing Canadians across the country. Front of mind for most, rightfully so, is not this issue, but we do need to be talking about how to adapt to meet the needs of Canadians to ensure our democracy is strong and representative.

However, I do believe, and I am willing to be proven wrong, but if the Liberals who are currently forming government were serious about wanting to make this change, it would not have come forward today as a private member's bill. They would have instead made it happen. This is a pattern of Liberal behaviour picking off low-lying fruit instead of implementing legislation that would bring forward real democratic reform and the real changes Canadians so desperately need.

Now, more than ever, we need to be seriously evaluating the ways in which our electoral systems and parliamentary processes create barriers to full participation of Canadians. This is why I brought forward my previous bill calling on the government to implement a national citizens assembly on electoral reform. This would have provided Canadians with the tools needed to develop and form the recommendations to the federal government as to how to best strengthen our democracy.

We all know the Liberals first promised electoral reform in 2015 and continued to make such promises time and time again. The Conservatives, on the other hand, for the most part have been silent on this issue as, let us be honest, the current system benefits them.

Out of 118 elected Conservative MPs, only 21 are women. This is about 18% of the party. Women account for over 50% of the general Canadian population, and yet the Conservative Party is composed of only 18% women. One would think the Conservatives would be eager to make changes to increase representation; instead, they fight to maintain the existing systems and the status quo.

I will say this: This motion, as well as much of the work still required, is an opportunity for all MPs to come together and implement a positive path forward for Canadians, because we cannot keep doing what we have always done. We know that, currently, only 30% of those elected to the House of Commons overall are women. This is the highest it has ever been. However, the rate at which Canada is increasing representation is too slow, and we are falling shamefully behind on the global scale. Those elected to the House of Commons should be representative of our communities. Instead, we have seen an under-representation of so many, including indigenous people, Black Canadians, those living with low incomes, people who identify as part of the 2SLGBTQIA+ community, and I could go on.

We also know that the current first-past-the-post system encourages divisive and adversarial politics. We are seeing more than our fair share of this in this House, and the current system encourages such poor behaviour. It does not have to be this way.

When we look at countries such as Norway, New Zealand and Scotland that have adopted a system of proportional representation, where voter support means better-represented seats in Parliament, we also see increased collaborations among those elected and political parties. This is because, to get legislation through Parliament, working together is the only choice. The winner-take-all approach that we have in Canada, in contrast, results in what we see all around us: division, misinformation and personal attacks rather than respectful debate about the priority at hand.

Instead of providing Canadians with the tools required to ensure those important discussions and solutions were made a priority, both the Liberals and Conservatives, including the mover of this motion, voted against moving forward.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

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

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

The hon. member for Nanaimo—Ladysmith.

[Lisa Marie Barron, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Madam Speaker, I thought perhaps I had not followed a parliamentary rule of some sort. As it turns out, it was a chance to deflect from the truth, which is the voting record of the Liberals in not moving forward on electoral reform and strengthening our democracy.

I appreciate this motion and the need for changes to be made, but let us take a moment to reflect on the work required ahead and commit together to make real changes, to listen to the needs of Canadians and to implement the necessary solutions. I cannot reiterate enough that we no longer have time to wait.

[James Maloney, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to speak to this bill today. The oath of allegiance is one everybody in the House is familiar with because they have taken it. Everybody sitting here has taken it at least once. Some of us have been lucky enough to take it more than once.

The moment a member of this place takes the oath for the first time has a powerful impact. It is a moment filled equally with excitement and solemnity: excitement because it is the start of something, a bit of an adventure, something that the member had been working on for months; and solemnity because of the task ahead. Serving our constituents and Canadians more generally is a serious task and one that is an honour to undertake.

The oath of allegiance is currently required by section 128 of the Constitution Act. The courts have interpreted it as a symbolic oath to Canada's system of government, a constitutional monarchy. The oath of allegiance has been described as an affirmation of Canada's societal values and constitutional architecture and a symbolic commitment to our form of government and the unwritten constitutional principle of democracy.

I do not begrudge the honourable member for wanting to update our oath. He is my friend and he is my colleague. Swearing an oath of allegiance in the 21st century may seem to be a relic of a bygone colonial era. I understand that sentiment. I appreciate where he is coming from. I just do not believe this is the appropriate time to have this debate.

The oath of allegiance is a bond that links members of this place and members of the other place in many ways. Even prior to Confederation, section 35 of the Union Act of 1840 required members of the legislative council and the legislative assembly of the Province of Canada to take an oath of allegiance prior to taking their seats and voting. The oath of allegiance also connects us with our colleagues in the provincial legislative assemblies who are also required by section 128 of the Constitution Act to take the same oath.

The Crown remains an ever-present feature of our system of government and symbolizes the state. The Crown in Parliament participates in the legislative process, most critically in its culmination by granting royal assent. In this sense, the Crown is a unifying symbolic feature of our system of government and of our constitutional order. As the courts have recognized, viewed in this way, the oath to the King of Canada is an oath to our form of government, as symbolized by the King as the apex of our Canadian parliamentary system of a democratic constitutional monarchy.

The oath of office proposed by the hon. member in Bill C-347 would invite us to swear to carry out our duties in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution. I cannot dispute this sentiment. As the courts have held, however, the oath of allegiance, properly construed, is quite similar in meaning. The reference to the King in the oath of allegiance is really a reference to the state and the source of all sovereign authority.

However, this proposed oath of office, well intended though it may be, does not reflect our system of government. Changing shared rituals like the oath of allegiance involves changing the Constitution. This is not something that should be done lightly or without careful reflection. Having expressed my own reservations about the hon. member's proposal, I and the government would oppose this measure and vote against the bill.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Madam Speaker, Bill C-347 seeks to give members of Parliament and senators a choice regarding the oath they take. They can choose to swear allegiance to a foreign monarch, take the new oath of office or both. I want to commend the member for Madawaska—Restigouche for this bill. He is also the chair of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, of which I am one of the co-chairs.

Of course, the Bloc Québécois opposes any expression of this system of monarchism and its underlying philosophy. When a people does not know its history, it is a bit like when an individual has amnesia. It is important to remember the actions and decisions of the British monarchy, the deportation of the Acadians, and the horrors of the siege of Quebec and the Seven Years' War, which resulted in the death of 15% of the population of New France. It is also important to remember the military suppression of the Patriotes rebellion of 1837-38.

In the wake of the Durham report, England declared the union of Upper Canada and Lower Canada to assimilate the francophones and keep them in the minority. In the 19th century, in the name of the Queen of England, for the supremacy of the English race, the Anglo-Protestants pushed the provinces outside Quebec to ban all Catholic schools and any form of French teaching in the schools. In April 1982, Queen Elizabeth II came to Ottawa to give royal assent to the 1982 Constitution, which was an anti-Quebec and anti-Bill 101 constitutional power grab that has never been signed by any government of Quebec.

If we do not remember, as my colleague said, and if we do not learn from history, it will repeat itself. We see again today the Canadian government interfering in Quebec's jurisdictions to constantly impose and promote English. Some 94% of official languages funding goes to English-language institutions and interest groups in Quebec. The decline of French continues in Quebec and Canada.

The change established by Bill C-347 is also a significant democratic improvement, because in a democracy the collective will of the people is the source of political power. In a democracy, as the Patriotes used to say, elected officials serve the people and the laws. The people are the true source of sovereign power. It is only fitting that elected officials pledge their loyalty to their true sovereign, the people.

For the Bloc Québécois, the reference to the Crown expresses a profoundly anti-democratic idea, namely that the Crown is the guarantor of democratic institutions and that the power of these institutions exists only by virtue of that of the Crown. The Bloc Québécois rejects both royalism—that is, loyalty to the individual person of the monarch—and modern monarchism. Our political goal is to create a democratic Quebec republic.

Historically, Canada's institutions have retained characteristics specific to former monarchist regimes. This continues to have a major influence on the development of democracy in Quebec and Canada. Our head of state is the king of another country. We have an unelected Senate that exercises some of the legislative power. The recognition of peoples’ right to self-determination has not been enshrined in our institutions. The Crown has repeatedly used executive powers. The prerogatives of the Crown are still present, written down in black and white. The tradition of the Crown not exercising its prerogatives can be broken, as it was in 2007. In Canada, the monarchy is the institution entrusted with the sovereignty and continuity of the state. Canada is an unfinished democracy, in large part because of its undemocratic institutions, the Crown and the Senate.

In a democratic republic, the people have sovereignty over their institutions and laws, including the foundational law, the Constitution. All legislators are elected and can be removed.

Fundamental freedoms are guaranteed, including freedom of religion and its corollary, the separation of church and state. As long as the suggested oath of office contains a reference to the Constitution and the Constitution enshrines the power of the Crown, this new oath is not completely free of monarchical references. Still, the absence of explicit reference is considered to be at least an improvement over previous versions.

That being said, the oath of office suggested by Bill C‑347 may appear to be at odds with the founding principles of the Bloc Québécois and our political vision, namely Quebec's independence. Indeed, the oath commits the oath-taker to perform their duties in the best interests of Canada, a country we wish to leave, and in accordance with its Constitution, which was forcibly imposed on the people of Quebec and to which the state of Quebec has never subscribed. Nevertheless, it is easy to show that these two aspects, the best interests and the Constitution, are not contradictory to the political action of the Bloc Québécois, because the new formula is an improvement. For the Bloc Québécois, it is in Canada's best interest that Quebec become an independent country.

The Bloc Québécois is a democratic political party that respects the rule of law. Its political agenda is already carried out in compliance with the law and the Constitution. We believe that the current Canadian system fails to accurately reflect Canada's sociological reality. Canadian society is made up of nations: the English Canadian nation, the Quebec nation and all indigenous nations. Canadian multiculturalism defines the Canadian people as an aggregate of individual identities and cultural communities, with no regard for their national identity. Acadians, we must remember, are also a nation and a people.

Naturally, Quebec and the people of Quebec do not subscribe to this multicultural view, and the federalist camp has repeatedly failed to offer the people of Quebec an acceptable solution that would lead them to participate voluntarily in the Canadian federation. All attempts to bring the Quebec nation into the fold with honour and enthusiasm, as it was once said, have fallen by the wayside.

For all these reasons, the oath of office would enable Bloc Québécois members to solemnly undertake to carry out their duties in the best interest of Canada.

We believe that as soon as Quebec becomes independent, it will give the other nations and peoples of Canada an opportunity to begin a new dialogue on the nature and components of their political ties. With that in mind, this bill is a small step in the right direction and constitutes a significant democratic improvement that would enable us to swear an oath more in line with our freedom of conscience.

[Sean Casey, Liberal, Charlottetown, PE]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise in the House today to speak in favour of Bill C-347, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, oath of office, which was sponsored by my friend and colleague, the hon. member for Madawaska—Restigouche. I want to thank the hon. member for the work he has put into this piece of legislation. Like any experienced lawyer, he has left no stone unturned. He has anticipated every argument and every detail.

It is a simple enough change that would have no impact outside of Parliament Hill, but it has the potential to revitalize the institution itself, arguably helping Parliament evolve and usher in a new era. This bill would see future parliamentarians have the choice to swear allegiance to the monarch, as is presently the case, or take an oath of office swearing to act in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution before taking their seat in Parliament. Some may choose to both swear allegiance and take the oath of office. This is the important principle on which the bill rests, and that is the principle of choice.

It is my belief that all parliamentarians, both in the House and in the other place, and yes, including Conservatives, work day in and day out for the betterment of this great nation. Whether it be in our respective ridings, in committee or in this chamber, we strive to act in the best interest of Canadians. We might not always agree on what that looks like, but we have a shared goal of supporting Canadians now and setting the stage for a positive future.

The oath of office proposed in Bill C-347 would remind us of this shared goal and would set the stage from the get-go that we are here for Canada. This would not in any way diminish the role of the monarchy in our Constitution, but it would allow for future members to celebrate their purpose in Parliament and remember that they are accountable to Canadians in everything they do. Having sworn the oath of allegiance on four instances now, I know that an oath of office, in addition to or instead of the oath of allegiance, would serve as a powerful motivator for new parliamentarians as they take their seats.

Then there is the matter of inclusivity. The oath of allegiance itself emerged in the 16th century due to political and religious conflicts in Great Britain. The Act of Supremacy established the Crown as the head of the Protestant Church and members of Parliament had to swear allegiance to the sovereign in their capacities as both the head of state and the head of the church. The goal at that time was to exclude based on religious belief as Roman Catholics and Jewish people would not recognize the Crown as supreme in all matters and thus would not have access to public office.

In Canada, we have shaped things since then in a uniquely Canadian way, with the oath not only reflecting allegiance to not only the Crown but also the institutions it represents in our country. The aim here is to ensure that members remember that they are acting in the best interests of Canada and to impress upon them the serious responsibilities they are assuming. These same goals can be achieved by an oath of office.

In an increasingly diverse Parliament, we must reflect on the necessity of asking first nations, Métis and Inuit members to swear allegiance to a system of monarchy that has long disadvantaged them. Understanding that the Government of Canada has long affirmed that its most important relationship is the one with indigenous peoples, we must work toward reconciliation and allow indigenous self-governance to exist on Parliament Hill as it does elsewhere across the country. This also rings true for other potential members who, for historical or ethnic reasons, might hesitate to take an oath of allegiance to the Crown. This hesitancy does not make anyone less Canadian, nor does it make them less suited for public office. In fact, some of these perspectives are essential and may serve as lessons to us as we debate legislation, undertake studies and make important decisions that affect Canadians. We must find ways to allow members to take their seats without compromising their identities.

I know that talk of amending the Constitution is justifiably met with skepticism, but this is where the simplicity of the bill makes it effective. It proposes that the Constitution Act, 1867, be amended to give every federal parliamentarian the option to take and subscribe the oath of office contained in the act instead of, or in addition to, the oath of allegiance. If the bill had included provincial legislative bodies in the proposed amendment, we would indeed have to go through the general procedure, as outlined in section 42 of the Constitution Act, 1982. However, the amendment specifically refers to the House of Commons or Senate, thereby having no impact on provincial or territorial affairs.

By limiting the scope of the bill to Parliament, section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, is triggered, which reads:

Subject to sections 41 and 42, Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons.

Hence, Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction over decisions that impact only its affairs. Thus, by a simple act of Parliament, we can modernize both chambers without going through the general procedure for amending the Constitution. This amendment does not in any way change the Constitution's architecture or spirit, nor does it jeopardize the democratic institutions of Canada. In fact, it improves them.

This is also not the first time in history that our democracy has been modernized in Parliament. As was stated earlier in debate, from 1905 onward, members have been able to make a solemn affirmation of allegiance instead of an oath, acknowledging the religious diversity of our country. Let us reflect on that for a minute. In 1905, we made it optional to make any reference to God in our oath. Here we are in 2024, debating whether we should make it mandatory to include the monarch in the oath.

This 1905 development is in line with the living tree doctrine in Canadian law that the Constitution must be read in a progressive manner, allowing it to adapt to changing times. It must reflect the realities of Canadian society and evolve with it. This, once again, is a simple, meaningful change.

I thank the member for introducing the bill, which brings a modern, inclusive and uniquely Canadian perspective to our institutions, and I will be proud to stand with him in support of it.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

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

[René Arseneault, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Madam Speaker, I thank all those who spoke to my bill.

The purpose of Bill C‑347 is to amend the constitutional requirement to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch following the election of a federal member or the appointment of a senator. As we know, this requirement appears in section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

My bill proposes to make this oath of allegiance to the monarch optional while allowing, for the first time in the history of our country, an oath of office by which we swear to carry out our duties in the best interests of Canada while upholding its Constitution.

A person can choose to swear both oaths. What could be more inclusive? The current option of a single oath of allegiance to the British monarch no longer really reflects the modern Canada of today.

In this regard, I would like to reassure my colleagues and Canadians who are listening that my bill is neither monarchist, anti-monarchist nor republican. This bill is inclusive and 100% Canadian.

As I said, and as my colleague from Prince Edward Island noted, the constitutional amendment I am proposing affects only members who are elected to this Parliament or members who are appointed to our Senate, period.

Section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allows us to make the constitutional amendments I am proposing. It states that “Parliament may exclusively make laws amending the Constitution of Canada in relation to the executive government of Canada or the Senate and House of Commons”. These words are legally robust, significant and unambiguous.

In its 2014 reference on Senate reform, the Supreme Court supports my claims. We are all lawmakers here, so I invite all my colleagues to read this decision and get to know it.

My bill in no way affects the roles and functions of the cornerstones of our country's constitutional architecture, such as our two levels of government with their own areas of jurisdiction and our Parliament, which is made up of an elected House and a Senate. Any changes to this constitutional architecture would have required the unanimous consent of the provinces, Parliament and the Senate.

Similarly, my bill in no way affects the interests of Canada's provinces or their areas of jurisdiction. If that had been the case, the government would have had to open up the Constitution, as some like to say, and ask seven out of 10 provinces, representing 50% of the Canadian population, for their consent.

To the contrary, Bill C-347 is much simpler. It is specifically designed to limit the effect of its constitutional amendment to Parliament Hill. It has no ambition to interfere with the constitutional architecture of our country or even the interests of the provinces.

At the risk of repeating myself, Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to make the constitutional amendment that I am suggesting in my bill.

There is no doubt in my mind that this Parliament has exclusive jurisdiction to amend our Constitution to make this bill a modern, inclusive and one hundred per cent Canadian law.

I therefore invite my colleagues to support my all-Canadian, all-inclusive bill, Bill C‑347. May never again one of our own, for historical, ethnic or religious reasons, have to feel less than fully Canadian before sitting in the seat he or she has earned in this quintessential place of democracy called the Parliament of Canada.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, we request a recorded vote, please.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Pursuant to Standing Order 93, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, April 10, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Carbon Pricing

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to follow up on a question I asked the government in December about the carbon tax and Bill C-234. Notably, the question I asked got over 13 and a half million views on Instagram; clearly, many Canadians are very interested in the issue. It also might have had something to do with the hearty laughter from the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman, who was sitting behind me at the time.

The issue is with Bill C-234, which we continue to champion today in this House. Conservatives are fighting for farmers to be exempt from the carbon tax.

We believe in axing the tax completely. However, in this Parliament, in order to make some incremental progress, we have put forward a bill that has gained the support of a majority of the House of Commons, seeking to exempt farmers from the carbon tax.

This bill was on the verge of passing in the Senate when the government started to lean into their supposedly independent senators, making personal phone calls to try to pressure them to change their vote. The bill is now back in the House of Commons, and Conservatives are pushing to pass it in its original form, to exempt our hard-working farmers from the carbon tax.

Applying the carbon tax to farmers does not make any sense even if one believes in the carbon tax in general. The carbon tax is designed to be a Pigovian tax, that is, a tax on something that is believed to generate a negative externality in order to try to discourage that behaviour. That is the theory behind the carbon tax.

It seeks to make gasoline and airplane travel more expensive in the hopes that people will drive less, fly less, etc. That is the theory of the government's carbon tax. However, on what basis is it applied to our farmers?

Does the government hope that people will farm less if it makes farming more expensive? Does it think that farmers should do the essential work of farming less in response to the Pigovian tax that they are applying? It does not make any sense.

Farming is not an activity we want to discourage. Farming is an activity we should be encouraging. We should be making it easier for people to go into farming, to work in farming, to continue with this critical livelihood, feeding people across the country wherever they live.

Why is the government applying a punitive tax on farmers? What possible rational policy objective could taxing farmers in this way have? It just does not make any sense.

To be clear, Conservatives oppose the carbon tax in general. We will axe the tax after the carbon tax election. At a minimum, the Liberals should understand that, even in theory, the carbon tax makes no sense. Even on its own justification, the tax makes no sense when applied to farmers. That is why Conservatives have championed and will continue to champion the passage of Bill C-234, to push the government to pass the bill in its original form.

We have also called on the government to meet with the premiers; along with the Canadian public, they overwhelmingly oppose the carbon tax. Liberals are afraid to gather and meet with the premiers to have a carbon tax conference. I am sure that, if they did, they would clearly hear a call from the premiers to axe the carbon tax on farmers and on all Canadians.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Environment and Climate Change and to the Minister of Sport and Physical Activity]

Madam Speaker, it is nice to be back in adjournment debate with my friend from Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan.

The member spoke about pressure on senators. I think it is relevant to the debate to talk about what pressure on senators actually made the news, with respect to the failed former Conservative leader from Regina—Qu'Appelle's bullying tactics towards some non-Conservative senators, which actually resulted in their feeling extremely unsafe. People were showing up at their private residence. That kind of bully politics is unbecoming of any member. It should not be part of how we come to decisions, how we debate in the House and how we put forward good ideas.

I would say that the only senators who are partisan in the other place are Conservative senators. The Liberals do not have senators at our caucus meetings. There are independent senators. There are senators who have their own views. That is the way it should work. For the member to suggest that pressure was put on any senators, other than the pressure that was very clearly documented in the media, from the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle and other Conservatives, was totally unbecoming of the offices they hold. They should have apologized for that.

On the topic of farmers and agriculture, farmers are the backbone of our country. Their work is essential. It is difficult, especially with climate change heavily impacting their livelihood. The number one risk and the number one impact that farmers are experiencing is our changing climate and severe weather. Drought, floods, very focused precipitation and wildfires are having a devastating impact on the agriculture sector, with people having to evacuate their homes and communities in the summer, during wildfire season. Last year, I think 1.5 million acres of our forests burned; actually it was much more than that, but I do not remember the total number off the top of my head. Farmers face climate change's harsh realities every single day, whether it is through drought, wildfires, floods or invasive species. They are all becoming more prevalent.

Our government supports agriculture, farmers and their families, and the practice of farming. We subsidize innovations. We ensure that farmers are made whole. It goes without saying that they are the breadbasket of Canada. It is absolutely essential that we make sure farmers can continue their important work. I meet with my local farmers in Milton on a frequent basis, and I am very grateful for all of the work they do.

That is why 97% of on-farm fuels are exempt from carbon pricing altogether. It is also worth mentioning that farmers in Quebec and British Columbia are not subject to the federal backstop of carbon pricing, because those provinces have a plan to fight climate change and lower their emissions. It is up to the provinces of Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Alberta and Ontario, if they do not want to continue to have Canada carbon rebates go to their constituents, or if they do not want to have the federal price on pollution, to come up with their own plan.

In the last federal election, the last time my colleague from Alberta went to the doors, he ran on a commitment to price carbon. With Erin O'Toole as their leader, the Conservatives ran on a promise to have a carbon pricing scheme. It was called “The more you burn, the more you earn”, because every dollar would get deposited in some kind of green bank account. However, they did not win the last election. In a hypothetical alternate universe, if the Conservatives had won the last election, farmers would be paying the price on pollution.

It is clear to me why they made such a big deal about the April 1 hike, and that is because in Alberta, Danielle Smith increased the price of gas by 4¢ on April 1. That was not a rebatable increase; it was just an increase in provincial tax, and it had an impact on the cost of living in Alberta. However, we do not hear about that from the Conservative Alberta MPs.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, the member began with a ridiculous and irrelevant attack on the Conservative House leader. I want to be very clear about what happened. The Conservative House leader made a post on social media with the names and photos of senators, in terms of how they voted, with their publicly available office phone numbers, and invited people who disagreed with the public votes of senators to contact their office and share their views.

I would just say that if any citizen has a concern or an opinion about how an elected official voted, they should have the ability to phone their office and share their perspective. If anyone disagrees with anything I say or do in the House, they can call my office at 780-467-4944. I am not afraid of accountability. No minister, no member of the government nor a senator should be afraid of people calling their publicly available office number in order to share their perspective.

What farmers want and need in this country is the ability to grow their food without the punitive carbon tax. That is why the government should axe the tax.

[Adam van Koeverden, Liberal, Milton, ON]

Madam Speaker, Canadians do not need to hear it from me. They can hear it directly from the senators in question. Three independent senators said they were bullied by the Conservative leader in the Senate, in the red chamber, after a member from their group attempted to put off debate on a controversial bill. Police and the Senate had also investigated the matter, and the Conservative leader in the Senate did concede that he got a little angry over the matter.

The Conservatives can stand over there and justify that behaviour if they would like, but there are senators who did not go home that weekend. They stayed in a hotel because they feared for their safety due to the bullying of the Conservative Senate leader. That is unbecoming of the office they hold. Certainly, there is lots of time for debate, but instructing people to harass senators, or any other elected or non-elected official, is wrong.

[An hon. member]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I would remind the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan that there are no more opportunities for him to reply.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Order. If the hon. members want to continue having their conversation, they should take it outside.

I would also ask members to stick to the subject matter they brought before the House, as opposed to trying to expand into other debates and issues.