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.
