Within the heated rhetoric over the government’s massive and inappropriate budget bill now in the Senate, there was a small but entertaining sideshow that was all so very Canadian.
It exposed the French-English and class cleavages that have been with Canada since the beginning, making it astounding that this country works as well as it does and has survived long enough to be on the cusp of its 145th birthday.
It was about the role of the monarchy in Canada, particularly the Queen’s representative, governor general David Johnston. Yes, this was in the “budget” bill.
Read Also
Farmer ownership cannot be seen as a guarantee for success
It’s a powerful movement when people band together to form co-ops and credit unions, but member ownership is no guarantee of success.
Here’s how it unfolded.
Amid the sweeping changes to environmental regulations, fisheries legislation and dozens of other significant policies that are improperly embedded in a bill that has little to do with the actual budget tabled in March, the Conservative government inserted a clause that will change the tax status of the governor general.
Until now, the GG has been given sumptuous living space in Ottawa and Quebec City, a bevy of servants and a salary of more than $100,000 that has been tax free.
The government decided to end the income tax-free bit, but to compensate by doubling the soon-to-be-taxable salary to well over $200,000.
Amid the far more important issues in the budget debate, few even noticed.
Thank heavens for the four MP remnants of the Bloc Québecois, the sovereignist party decimated in the 2011 election but still vigilant about Canadian or royal slights to the Quebec “nation.”
They spotted it and demanded that the salary increase be cancelled so that Johnston pays tax like the rest of the working stiffs in Canada and Quebec, as they like to say as if they were two different countries.
Bloc MPs made the pitch days after they announced they would not be in the House of Commons when other parties were paying tribute to Queen Elizabeth for 60 years on the job. She, of course, represents to them almost 250 years of British colonial occupation of Quebec.
In the Commons debate, NDP MPs who routed the BQ last year generally sided with the separatist MPs but not necessarily because they agreed with the analysis about British occupation (though it is easy to suspect that some do).
No, the NDP objected on the basis of tax fairness.
What other Canadian would face a tax increase and have his employer double his salary, they thundered.
This was another case of the rich getting tax favours and the poor getting the shaft.
And so it went with the Conservatives and Liberals eventually voting the Bloc proposal down.
It was a small blip on a much larger debate about government policy but it still managed to expose a long-festering debate about whether Canada is truly independent while being nominally led by a British monarch.
This must be all very confusing (and probably irrelevant) to the millions of immigrants with no ties to either Britain or France.
And the 2012 version of the royalty debate was done with such lack of humour.
At one time, the same topic produced one of the truly funny House of Commons exchanges in recent years.
John Manley, a senior member of the Liberal government at the time, is a republican and had opined that he hoped when the Queen dies, the monarchy in Canada will die with her.
An outraged opposition MP rose to chastise him for suggesting that Prince Charles should not become king.
“I’ve always considered Elvis the King,” Manley shot back.
Then it was Reform MP Deb Grey’s turn to ask a question.
Looking across the aisle at the wrinkly-faced Liberal cabinet minister John McCallum, she said: “Speaking of hound dogs (which no one was but it had been the subject of an Elvis hit record), I have a question for the junior minister of finance.”
The House erupted. Even McCallum smiled.
Now that was funny.
