(Ottawa) Whether there are other higher priority issues or not, federal elected officials will have to individually vote on a Bloc Québécois motion asking the Trudeau government to take steps to sever ties between Canada and the British monarchy.
Posted at 6:00 p.m.
On the occasion of their first opposition day of the parliamentary session, Tuesday, the Bloc Québécois will force their colleagues to reflect on the fact that on the 21e century it is still necessary to lend oneself to “the wacky exercise” of reciting an oath of allegiance to “a foreign king who is also a religious leader” in order to be able to sit in the House of Commons, explained their leader, Yves-François Blanket.
“Why don’t we make an agreement – the provinces, the federal government – then we take that out of the constitution of what should be a democratic republic”, he summarized in an interview with The Canadian Press.
But Mr. Blanchet has no illusions and admits to expecting a defeat in the vote since the federal government “above all does not want” to open the constitution – a necessary step to sever ties with the crown and which requires the approval of the ten provinces, the House of Commons and the Senate – lest everyone draw up their list of demands and the “cane” then be difficult to close.
The “real” priorities
Moreover, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau quickly closed the door to any constitutional change last week in the wake of the refusal by members of the Parti Québécois and Quebec solidaire to take the mandatory oath of allegiance to King Charles III.
“There is not a Quebecer who wants us to reopen the constitution,” Mr. Trudeau told reporters, explaining that Quebecers want their government to worry about the cost of living, jobs and climate change.
The Minister of Canadian Heritage and Lieutenant for Quebec, Pablo Rodriguez, added during heated exchanges in the Commons last Thursday that the Liberals want to fight for “the real priorities of all Quebecers”. He had not answered the question of Mr. Blanchet who asked him if his loyalty was “to Charles III or to the people.”
The other opposition parties are no more keen on the idea of modifying the oath of allegiance, which is a much simpler step than transforming the country into a republic.
Among the Conservatives, the lieutenant for Quebec, Pierre Paul-Hus, had indicated last week that his political party was not keen on the idea of modifying the oaths at the federal level. The New Democrat leader, Jagmeet Singh, for his part mentioned being “open to this discussion”, but that his priority was to help Mr. and Mrs. Everybody cope with the rising cost of living.
“He is the head of state”
To MPs who feel that there are other fish to fry and that the time of the Commons could be better invested, the Bloc leader replies that this is nevertheless a fundamental subject, that we can “walk worse chewing gum at the same time” and that it costs Ottawa 70 million every year to maintain the constitutional monarchy, funds that could be used for social housing, to help the elderly and for the energy transition.
“When we say: ‘it’s not important’, it’s the head of state. When we go to an election, we vote for who will lead us. So we assume it’s important. There are tens of thousands of people in every county going to vote. It must be important. And yet, we admit that the real leader at the end of the line is a gentleman in London who is not at all interested in us, ”he pleaded.
According to Mr. Blanchet, a failure in the vote on Tuesday’s motion would nevertheless show Quebecers that they live “in a Canadian institution that is obsolete” and they could conclude that “well, this country does not look like us”. Voters will “take notice” of their MP’s decision and take it into account when making a choice in the next election, he said.
In this regard, the Bloc leader notes a difference between Quebecers and other Canadians. “Whether you are federalist, nationalist, sovereignist, the fact remains that we know very well in Quebec that we were conquered by England, […] while in Canada as a whole, we are the conqueror, we are the ones who beat the French in 1760. It starts a long way off, but it leaves a mark,” said Mr. Blanchet.
Rubber stamping
Does Charles III have power in Canada? “Immensely, in theory. In practice, not at all,” replies constitutional law professor Patrick Taillon.
Mr. Taillon explained that the king is the head of state and the chief of the armies. It is therefore in his name that power is exercised in the country. For a law to pass, it needs Royal Assent. In other words, a law becomes law because the king wants it to.
However, the reality is that the governor general, who represents the king and who grants this royal assent, has come to do “rubber stamping” over time, he explained.
Canadian history is shaped by “constitutional conventions” which have become politically binding over the years and which have caused the monarchy to lose power in the country.
“Conventions ensure that the king does nothing in Canada unless [le premier ministre] Justin Trudeau asks him to ask one. And in practice, the only gesture Justin Trudeau asks of him is once in a while. […] proceed with the appointment of a new Governor General,” he explained.
The fact remains that it is not so complex to abolish the monarchy and transform Canada into a republic, argued Mr. Taillon. The “easy” way would be to “cut the cord” which makes the Governor General a representative of the King.
The procedure for appointing the Governor General could be “Canadianized” by entrusting it to the House of Commons, to the two houses of Parliament or even to the premiers of the provinces.
Mr. Taillon also described the “complicated” method which brings together “many people, especially the provinces”, to determine whether they want a two-headed executive, that is a head of government and a head of state as in a parliamentary system, or if they prefer a presidential system, and what type, where one person combines the two functions.