Tuesday, May 13, 2025
Ties Between Canadian State and British Monarchy
• It Is High Time Canada Renounce the Monarchy and
Declare Itself a Republic
• 2022 Debate in Parliament on Oath of Allegiance to Charles III
For Your Information
• Leader of Bloc
Québécois Speaks to Motion to Sever
Ties with British
Monarchy
Ties Between Canadian State and British Monarchy
It Is High Time Canada Renounce the Monarchy
and Declare Itself a
Republic
There is no dearth of propaganda which says that having Charles III as Canada's head of state is symbolic, ceremonial. One argument given is that the monarch does not retain the supreme right to make state policy. In Canada and other places where the English parliamentary system was exported, the monarch or their representative, have no such power. From there opinions diverge. One opinion goes in the direction of saying that a constitutional monarchy is the most stable. The monarch is a unifying factor. It represents the nation, not factional interests or, as Carney puts it, it is a revered symbol of our shared heritage, values, and the like.
Another opinion goes in the direction of questioning what it is a symbol of. If it is an image maintained to give legitimacy to the rule by the cartel party Parliamentary system and to uphold the authority of governance by the present-day elite, it is a huge expensive waste that should be abolished.
Yet another opinion, espoused by the Communist Party of Canada (Marxist-Leninist), is that creating a modern republic in the image of the working class, which vests the decision-making power in the people, is a historic necessity to open society's path to progress. The supreme power, called the sovereign power, must not be incorporated in a person of state which represents the narrow private interests of the bourgeois class in power in a manner designed to keep the people out of power.
Whether the monarch makes state policy or their role is transferred to a Prime Minister which retains the monarch's prerogative powers, as does their Ministry, requires discussion on the significance of these prerogative powers. They operate above the rule of law. Descriptions such as the following which is supposed to explain constitutional monarchy illustrate the need for discussion: "While Canada is a constitutional monarchy with the British monarch as the head of state, this is a symbolic role. The Prime Minister is the head of government and exercises real political power."
CPC(M-L) maintains that power must be wielded by the people based on a modern mass democratic system where the people are the decision makers and the system is accountable to them.
CPC(M-L) calls on Canadians and Quebeckers to engage in discussion on what constitutes sovereignty and where it lies. As it stands, as part of acquiring general knowledge, school children should be armed with coherent arguments which explain what is the state, how it is distinguished from government, how the state is constituted, how it functions, what is the significance of what is called the person of state and, most importantly, how the state as constituted determines the relations people enter into within the country and between the country and other countries.
Even if we take the claim at face value that the monarchy is symbolic, the question arises: what is it a symbol of?
The kind of exchanges Canadians commonly hear about the monarchy disinform the people about the system of rule established in the mid-1600s to make peace between warring factions in the English Civil War and to end foreign wars and how it is faring today. The system of rule established at that time when the capitalist mode of production was replacing the feudal mode of production became the system which informed the European nation-state, perfected in the 19th century as a system which guaranteed "peace, order and good government." It was subsequently imposed on all countries where the colonial powers held sway and then further modified in the conditions of the Cold War in the twentieth century.
Today the anachronistic institutions called democratic not only continue to harbour a ruling class comprised of entitled individuals who wield the economic and political power but they continue to keep the people out of power as they were designed to do. The methods put in place to deprive the people of power do not legitimate a system seen to protect the wealth, corruption, degeneracy and privilege of ruling elites or the oligarchs whose bidding they execute. Attempts to present the state as "neutral," as representative of what is called "the national interest" or "national security" and "national prosperity" lead to not only the militarization of the polity but also its criminalization. Nor can measures taken to silence the working class and peoples and suppress their voice succeed. The polity demands a system which puts the satisfaction of human needs in first place, not the needs of narrow supranational private interests.
One of the myths about the monarchy is that, thanks to its existence, Canada has a peaceful transition of power from one party government to another. Along with this, an impression is created in Canada and also Quebec that to get rid of the foreign monarch as head of state is not a priority. There is no discussion on what those prerogative powers are, how they are wielded, and how the entire thing is presented as legal, legitimate, unassailable.
The fact is the people experience their living proof every day when Prime Ministers take direct control of all decisions either themselves or by putting matters of concern to the entire polity into the hands of appointed cabinet ministers, and when governments are run along the lines of private businesses which must show their decisions turn a profit. The well-being of the people is not the aim of decision-making.
The people could declare a republic and stipulate in its founding document that in the Republic of Canada sovereignty is vested in the people and that the parliament or legislature must elect a head of state based on criteria established by itself to carry out a mandate it gives. The parliament or legislature would thus hold the head of state to account and recall the person in the event that he or she does not carry out the mandate as given.
It is high time Canada rid the country of the anachronistic arrangements which recognize a foreign monarch as head of state and the raison d'etat according to what this head of state claims to represent. The entire system is designed to keep the people out of power. It is high time Canada finally declares itself free from entanglement with the British monarchy. It is high time the people of Canada elect a Constituent Assembly and found a modern republic whose institutions are created on a modern basis.
As it stands, oaths of allegiance to the new monarch are seriously incongruous and many Canadians want to get rid of these oaths. When the members of Carney's cabinet are appointed, they are to swear an oath of allegiance to Charles III. When the 45th Parliament is convened on May 26, all MPs are to once again swear allegiance to Charles III in order to take their seats in the House of Commons. The Senate continues to be an unelected body of people chosen as representatives of the Crown by the prerogative powers of the Prime Minister.
The question arises: how can those who swear allegiance to Charles III be trusted when, at the same time, they claim they represent their constituents? What does representation mean to them? How do they represent Canadians when their function is to represent the Crown? Are these mere words? What does it mean?
The shameful shenanigans which go on in the corridors of power are intolerable and unacceptable in a modern world. The working people themselves are striving to bring the human productive forces under their control and gain political empowerment so as to be able to take the decisions that affect their lives. The days of the monarch as fictional person of state are over. The days of a system which reduces the citizenry to individuals who cast a ballot in an election to authorize others to represent them, and to rule and speak in their name, are over. Those called representatives represent what the fictional person of state says is legitimate and what is not. It has no connection to what the people want.
Those who are elected or appointed to office can make a contribution to modernizing the democracy by ending the practice of swearing allegiance to a foreign monarch. An honourable people claim the right to represent themselves. Those they elect to govern must be accountable for their actions, not hide behind a rotten system of cartel party rule. Canadians are quite capable of speaking and ruling for themselves.
Today's world is so filled with dangers that only the people themselves can provide the problems with solutions, control their destiny and open up a bright future.
2022 Debate in Parliament on Oath
of Allegiance to Charles III
The death of Queen Elizabeth II on September 8, 2022, brought the issue of Canada's relationship to the British Crown to the fore once again. Discussions took place on the role of the British Crown and its relations with former colonial powers not only in Canada but around the world.
In Quebec, the Parti Québécois (PQ) members of the recently elected Quebec National Assembly took the stand that they would not take their seats in the National Assembly so long as the oath of allegiance to the King of England was mandatory. This raised the serious issue of who Members of the National Assembly, or Members of Parliament, represent — the monarch or the people? No amount of attempts to say that the time was not a good one to raise constitutional matters would make the question go away. Finally, the issue was resolved in December of that year when the National Assembly adopted a historic motion saying an oath of allegiance to the King is no longer required and the members of the PQ were able to take their seats.
In the same context, on October 20, 2022, the issue of the oath of allegiance to Charles III as a prerequisite to sitting in the House of Commons was raised in the House. Yves-François Blanchet, leader of the Bloc Québécois, said that as the debate was taking place in Quebec, he wanted to open the same debate in the federal Parliament.
The other parties in the House of Commons were quick to say that Canadians are concerned about inflation and the rising cost of living. Canada's relationship with the British monarchy is not a priority, they said. Party leaders, except for the Bloc Québécois, said they do not intend to change the oath of allegiance to the British monarch for Members of Parliament.
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said, "There is no intention here in the House of Commons to change the oaths of office."
Pablo Rodriguez, Minister of Canadian Heritage, said, "Canada is a country where there is rule of law, that is the rule. So I'm comfortable with that." He did not attempt to clarify the content of that rule of law.
David Lametti, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, said, "The oath is enshrined in our Constitution and is an ancient tradition of our parliamentary system. It is first and foremost an oath to our institutions and our democracy, of which the Sovereign is a part. Canadian courts have made it clear that it is not an oath to the individual, now King Charles III, but to the state he represents." He had nothing to say about that nature of the state he represents which begs the question of what the oath means.
Trudeau later added, despite all evidence to the contrary, "What I can tell you is that there is not one Quebecker who wants the Constitution reopened."
On the question of whether Quebec has the right to change the oath of allegiance required to sit in the National Assembly under the Constitution Act, 1867, Trudeau said, "I don't want to speculate on what the National Assembly can or cannot do. These swearings are governed by the Assembly and Parliament itself. The National Assembly has the right to decide how they want to organize their swearing-in process. It takes a bill, but for that, it takes MNAs who sit, who vote."
The Bloc Québécois announced it would use its opposition day in the Commons on Tuesday, October 25, to introduce a motion calling on the House "to debate and consider ending Canada's relationship with the British monarchy."
On October 25, 2022, the Bloc leader introduced the following motion:
Mr. Yves-François Blanchet (Beloeil—Chambly, BQ)
moved:
That, given that,
(I) Canada is a democratic state,
(ii) this House believes in the principle of equality for all,
the House express its desire to sever ties between the Canadian State and the British monarchy, and call on the government to take the actions necessary to do so.
The same day, the Bloc leader spoke to the motion and a lengthy debate took place on the motion which addressed the ties between the Canadian state and the British monarchy. Blanchet presented several arguments why MPs should not have to swear an oath of allegiance to the British monarch. He was joined by a significant number of MPs who rose to the occasion by arguing why an oath to allegiance to the King of the colonial power which colonized Canada was offensive. For their part, members of the cabinet present were incapable of producing any arguments of substance on the topic at hand.
TML pointed out at the time:
"The meeting culminated with threats issued against the leader of the Bloc Québécois on the grounds that he did not sincerely pledge allegiance to the sovereign when he took his seat in the House of Commons and therefore he should lose his seat. It was a boorish deliberate misinterpretation of the remarks of the leader of the Bloc who was explaining that the oath of allegiance to the King of England is a violation of the conscience of MPs. Some demanded that, since his oath of allegiance to the monarch upon taking his seat in the House was, in his own words, not sincere, he should be thrown out of office. The most hysterical assault on the leader of the Bloc was made by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House Kevin Lamoureux.
About the performance of the government ministers when the Bloc raised a very legitimate motion in the House of Commons, TML pointed out: "[T]heir inability to engage in serious discussion by contributing arguments of substance reveals a lack of respect for the views of those who do not agree with them. It also, one might say, reveals an intolerant and anti-Quebec prejudice towards those who uphold positions of principle important to the constituents they represent."
"The threats issued by the Parliamentary Secretary amount to boorishness, diversion and obfuscation of the issues under debate, which require sound arguments from all quarters, not pot shots. Should the Commons decide to remove the Bloc MP for speaking his mind, it will deepen the constitutional crisis faster than fast can be. As it is, attempts to criminalize opinion in the House of Commons not only brand the likes of the Parliamentary Secretary as unworthy opponents but as cowardly as well," TML pointed out.
"It does not in any way strengthen the Canadian democracy they so loudly claim to be defending," TML said.
TML congratulated Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill--Keewatinook Aski, Manitoba, for intervening in the debate politically and explaining the merits of the Bloc position. She said, in part:
"We must acknowledge the second-ever National Day for Truth and Reconciliation, which has built on the work of the Truth and Reconciliation Commission, making it clear that we must recognize the truth when it comes to Canada's ugly history of colonization. That colonization is rooted in the Crown's control, to its benefit. With the Indian Act, the reserve system, the residential school system, the pillaging of Indigenous resources and the genocide of Indigenous Peoples, the devastating impacts of colonization are still evident today.
"Reconciliation means carrying on a journey of decolonization and this must include ending our ties with the British monarchy. The monarchy is a symbol of colonialism for many Indigenous Peoples and for many people who have come to Canada from around the world. Many people left countries for a better life because of the conflict, impoverishment and repression waged by the British Crown. Many left from countries that had struggles for independence and where resistance was brutally quashed by Britain and those who served the British Crown, including India, Malaysia and Cyprus. The list of countries goes on."
Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, Manitoba, said:
"Madam Speaker, my honourable colleague brought up two words, 'freedom' and 'privilege.'
"Cassidy Caron, president of the Métis National Council, is calling on the Crown to apologize for its participation in residential schools. Paul Andrew, a residential school survivor, said the Queen was also a treaty member and had an obligation to live up to agreements that the Crown has never lived up to, such as the participation of the monarchy in slavery. Not everybody in this place we now call Canada has had that freedom and privilege we are talking about. In fact, many of us, in real time, are still fighting for freedom, still fighting for our rights, still fighting for our privilege, an erasure of genocide and colonial history that the Crown has participated in globally.
"I would ask the honourable member if he agrees with me that the Crown has participated in the violent genocide of groups of peoples across the globe."
During a debate on Aboriginal affairs during the same day, Lori Idlout said:
"For too long, First Nations, Métis and Inuit were ignored when they shared their stories about the loved ones they lost to the residential school system. All these decades of being ignored have stifled the path to healing. It is outrageous that Indigenous communities must beg and plead for funding. Delays on delivering the promises made must stop. Inuit, Métis and First Nations have been given far too many promises that have not been acted on.
"The Minister of Crown-Indigenous Relations said, 'Some have said it could take up to 10 years, and the worst thing to see would be for any government to step away from that commitment. We will keep doing it, but at their pace.'
"In Budget 2022, there was one curious line item. It said the budget would provide $5.1 million to Public Safety Canada to ensure the Royal Canadian Mounted Police could support community-led responses to unmarked graves. By funding the RCMP instead of supporting Indigenous-led organizations, such as Survivors' Secretariat, the government is supporting further practices of colonialism. Why are these funds not directly funding Indigenous Peoples to heal from the shameful legacy of residential schools and colonialism?"
Joël Lightbound, Liberal Party, Louis-Hébert, Quebec, said, among other things:
"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." He later told Le Devoir that federal MPs should in future have the choice of whether or not to take the oath to the British monarch.
These speeches and the vote contributed to the opposition to threats that were made in the House of Commons, in particular by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government. He said that the leader of the Bloc should be stripped of his seat in the House because he said that the oath of allegiance to the King of England was coerced and violated the conscience of MPs and that therefore his pledge of allegiance was not sincere.
The vote on the Bloc motion took place the next day, October 26. It was voted down, by 266 votes to 44, but a significant number of MPs other than those of the Bloc voted in favour of the motion. TML pointed out: "About all one can say about the low-level calibre of the majority of MPs was that, the more it goes, the more the need for the democratic renewal of the political process and modernization of the constitutional foundation of Canada is revealed."
In addition to the 31 Bloc Québécois MPs present at the vote (out of a total 32 MPs) the 13 other MPs voting for the motion were:
- Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins--James Bay, Ontario
- Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill--Keewatinook Aski, Manitoba
- Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont--La Petite-Patrie, Quebec
- Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC
- Don Davies, NDP, Vancouver Kingsway, BC
- Blake Desjarlais, NDP, Edmonton
Griesbach, Alberta
- Leah Gazan, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, Manitoba
- Matthew Green, NDP, Hamilton Centre, Ontario
- Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut
- Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, British Columbia ;
- Alain Rayes, Independent, formerly Conservative, Richmond--Arthabaska, Quebec
-
Joël Lightbound, Liberal Party, Louis-Hébert, Quebec and
- Mike Morrice, Green Party, Kitchener Centre, Ontario.
(TML Daily, Vol. 52, No. 34, October 25, 2022; TML Monthly, Vol 53, No 6, June 2023)
For Your Information
Leader of Bloc Québécois Speaks to
Motion to
Sever Ties with British
Monarchy
On October 25, 2022, the leader of the Bloc Québécois Yves-François Blanchet spoke to his motion to sever ties between the Canadian State and the British Monarchy. He said:
Mr. Speaker, I must admit, reluctantly, that I am disappointed. I hope no one informs Charles III that his subjects are so slow to rally because he would be disappointed. One would have thought that there would be a massive assembly of MPs primed to protect the British monarchy. I get the feeling that the Bloc members are more passionate about it.
Parliament is a democratic institution. In principle, this means that it is the citizens of Quebec and Canada who, through their elected representatives, one riding at a time, make the decisions. The voters choose who is elected. Then again, it is hard to believe that the voters chose His Majesty King Charles III. Still, even though the monarchy is the very pinnacle of power in the structure of Canada's Constitution, we are being told that it is no big deal, it is not the most important issue, it is not a priority and we could be doing other things.
Just a few minutes ago, I was telling the media that I can breathe, talk and hold my phone at the same time. I can even stand on one leg if I have to. I can do everything at the same time. We are capable of discussing several subjects. There are parliamentary committees that will be sitting this week to discuss a whole bunch of subjects at the same time. We can debate the most and the least important. I would like to show that today's topic is important.
Parliament is required to decide everything, namely budgets, laws and positions, which are often just principles. The motions we vote on after question period, on unanimous consent, are merely statements of principle. The best evidence of this is that, when the House gives the government a directive, the government usually disregards it. Perhaps the principles we state as principles already have an intrinsic value.
There is also the whole question of international relations and perception. There must be people all around the world who are looking at us and wondering what is happening because Canada is supposed to be a modern state. However, its leader is a foreign king, and a conqueror at that. This already presages something deeply serious.
They say that the monarchy is symbolic. A $70-million a year symbol, that is not bad. That is quite a symbol. We need to take into account the allocation of these $70 million a year, which, in general, go to lemons and airplane tickets; the monarchy is not on its last lemon. That is a lot of money. There is the distribution of all that in the provinces and Quebec, but we are told that that does not matter.
The constitutionalists have at least finished third grade. They are extremely intelligent people who have been debating since the Parti Québécois opened the debate in Quebec on the oath of allegiance. They debate what is necessary and what is not, what is important and what is not, and how to do it or not to do it. I think that these people do not have time to waste. It is because they think that what they are doing is important.
What could we do with $70 million? Seniors between the ages of 65 and 75, whom the government stubbornly refuses to help, could use $70 million. People with social housing challenges could use it, too. We realize that the government's housing measures will help pretty much everybody, but far less in Quebec, because it had already taken action. I have colleagues who would like to hear that we were getting $70 million. For the transition to green energy, $70 million would go a long way. Forestry, fishing, the restoration of ports in eastern Quebec transferred from the federal government to Quebec, all need far more than $70 million. Can we spend the money there? No, but we are pleased to make arrangements for the royal family to visit western Canada on the taxpayer's dime.
We are being told we would have to reopen the Constitution. My God, having to reopen the Constitution to change this. That means it must be really important. In general, when we say the word "Constitution", especially with a French accent, English Canada goes into a panic. It must be a very important issue, I cannot think otherwise.
We need the unanimous consent of the provinces, the Senate and Parliament. That is how important it is. When someone puts 14 locks on their shed, it is because they really like their lawnmower. They are terrified of reopening the Constitution because, in my opinion, no one is comfortable with what is in there. It must be because it is important to keep it just the way it is. They are afraid that reopening the Constitution will lead to Alberta claiming independence or Indigenous Peoples claiming real rights. For now, we are protecting the British Crown at the expense of our First Nations. That must be important.
According to the polls, neither Quebeckers nor Canadians want a monarchy. It is not a question of votes. In general, people do not wake up at night -- although I know two or three who do -- to say that we need to get rid of the monarchy. However, if they are asked, they will say that it is over, that it is a thing of the past, that we need to get rid of it, that it is expensive and that we do not need it. As the magnificent Yvon Deschamps would say, "The monarchy, what is the point?" The people want us to get rid of it. That has to be important.
It is the people's preference. That means that this idea that, on some level, defines who we are, who Canadians and Quebeckers are -- and please do not confuse the two -- must be something fundamental. It is especially fundamental for Quebeckers because, for Quebeckers and for all those of French descent or who adopted the identity, to varying degrees, of French ancestry, the King of England is the king of the conquering empire.
They tell us that that was in 1760, and that we should stop talking about the conquest. They tell us that the Patriotes rebellion was in 1837-38, and that we should stop talking about the Patriotes. However, if we are swearing an oath today to the King of England, it is because we are still a conquered people, who had to swear an oath to the then king of the conquering British Empire, an empire that was incredibly racist and engaged in slavery. That is not trivial. Can we start adding the word "important" to the sentence?
I feel like asking what they are afraid of when it comes to reopening the Constitution, but I think I have already answered that question: No one can identify with Pierre Trudeau's Constitution.
There are 338 ridings in Canada and, when we add more, it will be to the detriment of Quebec. There are approximately 100,000 people in each riding and around 60,000 to 70,000 electors, so if not everyone votes, only 50,000 or so voters per riding vote in elections. They never choose a king. They always choose a member of Parliament and, as a result, the leader of the country. They never voted for a king. I do not know anyone who said they voted for Charles, for example. I have not seen that happen, and yet, at the top of Canada's food chain, there is the Crown. That must be important.
Are not the tens of thousands of people in every riding more important than an expensive, frivolous monarchy? Are they not more important than a foreign king who knows nothing about us -- I am not sure that he would pass the test immigrants have to take in Canada, not to mention Quebec -- and who is a descendant of the king who crushed us with his cannon balls and muskets? That must be important.
The Prime Minister says that the state is democratic and secular, and he is protecting a king who is the head of a Church. That must be important for the Prime Minister.
It is important, but it is unjustified. It is obsolete, not to say archaic, reactionary, paleontological, backward and humiliating. It will anger some people that I call the monarchy backward. The people who are angry prove that I am right. It makes no sense. We need to get out from under it because it is important.
There are more important things. To name them one at a time, it is true that it is more important to go to the Supreme Court to fight Quebec's secular values. It is true that it is much more important to go to the Supreme Court to fight Quebec's efforts to strengthen the promotion of French. It is true that it is much more important to open new maritime territories to oil drilling when we know that the North Atlantic right whale is endangered. It is true that it is much more important to hand out contracts to Liberal friends for Roxham Road. It is true that it is much more important to meddle in Quebec's and the provinces' jurisdictions, especially when it comes to health transfers.
If I am wrong and it is not important, why do we not get out from under it quickly, easily and light-heartedly and move on enthusiastically to something else?
The Liberal Party's Quebec lieutenant worked himself up to such a fever pitch that he now has a sore throat. Neither he nor the Prime Minister have answered any of the basic questions. Canadians and Quebeckers nevertheless have the right to know whether, when the Prime Minister and his Quebec lieutenant swore the oath, they swore it to a foreign king, a conqueror, a spoiled, ridiculous man. I have had a good life, but no one has ever ironed my shoelaces. With great discipline, not only did I learn how to tie them, but I also learned to put toothpaste on my toothbrush. It took a while, but I succeeded.
Canadians, Quebeckers and Quebec voters in the case of the lieutenant and the admiral, have the right to know whether they swore the oath to the British Crown or the Canadian people.
The monarchy is not important. However, is an oath important? Swearing loyalty and allegiance is a serious matter. What is there more important than a solemn oath of allegiance? Let us say it is not important. Does that mean that the commitments these people make to their voters are not important? Does it mean that they can frivolously ignore their commitment to their voters, like they frivolously ignore their commitment to the sovereign? Is it not important? It seems important to me.
On the other hand, the Bloc Québécois says that an oath given under duress is meaningless. If it does not come from the heart, it has no value. The Bloc's members swear an oath under duress in order to be able to enter Canada's Parliament to expose to Canada what, in many ways, is a lack of respect for Quebec, for the French language, and for the values of secularism and equality, the hypocrisy of a system created to drown us slowly in institutions where our space and our weight is almost inexorably dwindling.
That is no small matter. We come here to speak out against the fact that the government is not doing anything about environmental issues, despite the threat looming over the entire planet. We are here to speak out against the fact that the government's ultimate allegiance is perhaps to the lobbies.
Spoiler alert: The Bloc Québécois is not sincere in swearing allegiance to the Queen. However, the Bloc Québécois is irrevocably sincere, heart and soul, in its pledge and commitment to Quebeckers, and to the Quebec nation alone. If the Liberals, the Conservatives and the NDP are not sincere, then their constituents have the right to know. For our part, we are stating that we no longer want to be subjects of the empire that conquered us, because we live in a democracy. A foreign king and religious leader: That is as important as it is unacceptable.
We invite members to free themselves and us from the monarchy; otherwise, we will show Quebeckers who we are and who they are. I invite all members to think carefully about this before praying for the English King tomorrow, just a few hours before voting on the Bloc Québécois's motion.
This motion is a test of the sincerity of this solemn oath. It is a test of loyalty to our citizens and constituents. It shows that an oath to a foreign monarch and religious leader takes precedence over a pledge to members' constituents. There is no question that the Bloc Québécois is at the service of Quebeckers and only Quebeckers.
To read the House of Commons Debates Official Report (Hansard) on the discussion on the motion, click here.
(To access articles individually click on the black headline.)
Website: www.cpcml.ca • Email: editor@cpcml.ca