That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.
He said: Mr. Speaker, you have inspired me to read the motion again, as I find it rather poetic.
That the House agree [the use of the word “agree” was no accident] that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.
Although it has been 30 years since the Bloc Québécois was created, there are still people in the nation next door who think they need to rewrite their own laws to enshrine French, and only French, as Quebec's official language. This is because, 30 years later, there is still that much to be done, not to mention gaining independence.
Quebec is totally and entirely entitled and justified to tell anyone listening and anyone else, in every forum and soon every forum around the world, that it is a French nation whose only official language is French. I would remind all these fine people that this has been the case since 1974. When I was a boy in short pants French was already the only official language of Quebec. It feels like some members of the House just discovered that the Earth is round, although I am told that a few people here are not so sure. The common language has more weight than the official language. The common language is the one we use when we are walking down the street and we encounter someone we do not know.
The great tragedy of the French language in Quebec is when a young francophone encounters another young francophone at the corner of Peel and Sainte‑Catherine and they carry on in English without understanding the history behind that reality, without understanding what brought them there, without understanding the sometimes uncertain compromises made, the humiliations of history, the strong affirmations and the emergence of an extraordinary culture. Two young francophones speaking to each other in English in the street is the antithesis of recognizing the wonderful contribution of a Leonard Cohen to Quebec culture. What makes us who we are completes us. We can never give up who we are.
Today is a very special day. Some would say that it is rather singular to be celebrating it in this place, but that is where our friendly struggles have brought us. This day will be celebrated in the hearts of the millions of Quebeckers who recognize themselves in our cause. We are celebrating the 30th anniversary of the creation of the Bloc Québécois.
In this day and age, it is no longer appropriate to see individuals as being more than human, especially if they are still living. However, I am in a position to speak to, as humbly as possible, the stature of a certain Lucien Bouchard and to assess all that he relinquished, all the courage he showed 30 years ago to create what one day history will call one of the essential tools for making Quebec a full sovereign nation. We have an obligation to be humble, each one of us in this place, in Parliament, online, all the workers, the hardworking men and women here and elsewhere, the supporters, the Quebeckers engaged in this desire to complete a journey that began with the Quiet Revolution.
Although we recognize that we must be humble, we also have the right to show our pride. We are a fine bunch; we are the bunch who cheerfully refuse to disappear. We are those they say will not exist. We are told over and over that the Bloc Québécois is finished, just as we are told over and over that independence is finished. Well, these naysayers keep having to roll up their sleeves because our objective is sound, noble and legitimate.
However, it will never be more and it will never be better than what has been done by those who came before us in Parliament's House of Commons, which, I say with no enmity, will always be foreign to us. If we wish it, it will be temporary.
Today Parliament is going to properly debate a very important motion, not just surreptitiously dispose of it. Quebec is navigating through the maze of documents that were designed to make it wither away. Those same documents indicate that it is time to acknowledge and note down the fact that Quebec is a nation.
Quebec is not a nation within a united Canada. That does not mean anything. Quebec is a whole, entire, thriving, complete, vibrant, beautiful, and up and coming French nation. No other language can even begin to compare to the heritage, beauty, allure and poetry of French. No wonder there was a baby boom in Quebec. These things start with flattering words, and French has much to offer in that regard.
Members were able to refuse the motion that we moved at the end of May with a simple “nay”, but today it will not be so easy. We are pleased to make two observations. First, we think that the motion will be adopted. We will be pleased to accept it because it is very good thing.
Second, without this great group of 32 passionate people, the motion never would have been adopted. It would have never even existed, and Quebec would have never been able to identify with it to this extent. This group decided to make this proposal to Ottawa. It did not want to be received with indifference and actions that would later go against it. This is not a legal approach that we have initiated, not at all. It is also not an approach that involves interpretation, a scope of interpretation or “interpretativity”. It is a political approach. Take it or leave it. It is political.
We are putting this Parliament in a position where it will be forced to effectively take note of the fact that Quebec is affirming that we are a French nation. I would dare say that Parliament should do that in a humble way, which is not something it is often known for.
There will be consequences. The government cannot go on forever hiding behind an assortment of judges who have also been hidden behind a charter that was designed to counter the will of Quebec and the Quebec National Assembly. Beyond all of that, there is the will of elected officials from across Canada and Quebec.
When the time comes to do something, someone will have to show some consistency. The government cannot recognize the French-speaking Quebec nation, take money from Quebeckers and give it to people who want to challenge and oppose the French-speaking Quebec nation. Now, it does happen, and there have been some inconsistencies, but we will expose the people who deserve to be exposed.
I want to say something that might sound a little harsh, but that is not my intention. The government's new, multi-page slogan is called the modernization of the Official Languages Act. I think I can say that this is not something we will be debating here. This bill will not go anywhere. It is essentially a second document filled with statements and hypothetical plans that will only happen if the Liberal government has a minority. We shall see what makes it into the rewritten version if they ever win a majority.
We do not even know what it is all about. It is starting out with private briefings, and we do not know what the plans to include in her bill. We do know that it will apparently recognize French as the official language of Quebec. A round of applause for acknowledging what we all have known for 50 years. People who are better informed than me have reported that it essentially copies what would be in Quebec's hypothetical Bill 96, with respect to making federally regulated companies and institutions subject to the Charter of the French Language.
First of all, the two laws would say the same thing, but the federal law would take precedence. Why? It is because in real life, from the Canadian and federal perspective, Quebec is a vassal state. If we do not agree, I decide. That is what Canada is, even in terms of language, identity, values and culture. That speaks volumes.
We are talking about a government that cannot even hope to pass amendments to the Broadcasting Act, which was thankfully and greatly improved thanks to my friend the member for 's efforts; a government that cannot even get its budget implementation bill passed, when there is probably someone out there shopping for a bus and a couple of planes.
It is quite ironic to see who the government is turning to. It is turning to the leader of the Bloc Québécois to say we are in a peck of trouble, that we are good people, that we still have a lot in common and that we will to work to make it work. These people have come to tell us that they will be deciding how to manage our language, our values, our identity, our culture and our nationhood and that is really nice of them, but no thanks. We are going to do it ourselves.
Now let us talk about timelines. The is going to introduce an official languages bill that would, among other things, seek to replicate what will eventually be prescribed by Bill 96, which amends Quebec's Charter of the French Language to make federal institutions and businesses subject to the Charter of the French Language.
I am a good guy, and I would like to save her the effort. First of all, the parliamentary session of the House of Commons will surely be over before anyone even begins to look at the purely legislative side of things. There is a very good chance that this Parliament will be over too, so it will not happen in the foreseeable future. Let us not hold our breath.
In the meantime, two things will happen. First, in all likelihood this fall, the Quebec National Assembly will vote on what will, depending on the will of the elected representatives of the Quebec National Assembly alone, become Bill 96, and the Charter of the French Language in Quebec will henceforth apply to institutions and businesses under federal jurisdiction. The fall seems a bit far off, so we are going to move faster than that.
Tomorrow, the bill introduced by my esteemed colleague from , which would subject federal institutions and businesses in Quebec to the Charter of the French Language, will be put to a vote in the House of Commons. We are going to save a lot of time, avoid a ton of double-dealing and vote on this bill tomorrow. It will be done. We will be able to say thank you, goodbye. It will be dealt with, and we will be able to move on to another issue.
The House will have an opportunity tomorrow to move forward with a bill that would make federally regulated institutions and businesses subject to the Charter of the French Language, as called for by the Quebec National Assembly. Is that not wonderful?
Why not make the most of this opportunity? I must admit that it would have the disadvantage of stealing a bit of our thunder in terms of scoring political points in the run-up to the election. That is a bit of a shame, but it should not be the priority.
It is also important to point out that before anyone spoke French in New France, English on the shores of the United States, or Spanish on the southern islands or in Louisiana, North and South America were home to dozens and dozens of nations, each of them no less a nation than ours are today. They have their own histories, languages and cultures. That is always worth mentioning. We wanted to amend the motion to that effect, and some members from other parties suggested it, but others were not willing to let us do so.
When we have our great debates that, let us face it, pit French against English, we do not always mention it, but we should always give indigenous languages—I hate to say a specific status, because that term is so misused, but a factual, institutional and friendly respect that shelters them from all our debates that, from the perspective of these great cultures, only just arrived on their continent.
Before I conclude, I would like to encourage the minister to do something useful with the Official Languages Act. Some might interpret that to mean that I am implying she is addressing things that are not useful and, well, they are right. Quebec does not need anyone at any time to tell it how to promote and protect its language, culture, arts, identity and values. What it badly needs is for those who are not involved to mind their own business and keep their noses out of ours.
Instead, those resources should be invested, willingly, happily and generously, to support Acadian communities and francophone communities outside Quebec, which need them badly. No doubt people will tell us that anglophones in Quebec also badly need to be protected. I say this without malice. I confess I do not get up in the morning worrying about the survival of the English language in Quebec. I think it is doing quite well, and I am happy for it. The day Canada treats its French and Acadian minorities as well, as generously, and as warmly as Quebec has historically treated its English minority, the debate will be quite different. God knows we are not there yet.
Whatever Quebeckers decide to do with their nation, their state, their language, their culture, their values and their history, the result will be a resolutely French nation. I say this both in friendship and as a bit of a warning: No one is going to stand in Quebec's way. No one will succeed. The joyous, dynamic, festive, colourful, culinary and musical resilience of Quebeckers is unstoppable. As history will show, today will be a milestone in the protection of this nation, which will one day be called upon once more to take its destiny in its own hands, and the sooner the better.
:
Madam Speaker, I would like to start by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for .
I am very pleased to be participating in today's debate. It is in a way the continuation of a debate held in the House in 2006 when I was a young member of Parliament. Well, at least I was a little younger than I am now, and my hair was not quite so white. It was an important debate for me because we were preparing to vote in favour of recognizing the Quebec nation. Obviously, I voted in favour of the motion because, in my opinion, it is a simple fact.
We had had an extremely interesting debate, and I remember very clearly that the vast majority of the members present voted in favour of the motion recognizing that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada.
My former colleague Stéphane Dion aptly summarized the conclusion of the debate. He said, “we all agree on what is basic in this, which is, for those who are Quebeckers, that we are proud to be Quebeckers and Canadians, and that other Canadians are proud to have Quebec as part of their country.” As a result, the debate in the House of Commons on the recognition that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada was held and settled in 2006.
The Bloc Québécois may not like what I am about to say, because they would prefer an argument. We clearly recognize that French is the official language of Quebec. I will say it again: French is the official language of Quebec. We also recognize the key role that Bill 101, or the Charter of the French Language, has played in preserving and strengthening the French language in Quebec. I have always supported Bill 101. Since we wish to modernize the Official Languages Act, we understand and respect the Quebec government's desire to do the same with the Charter of the French Language.
With respect to Quebec's desire to enshrine this symbolic recognition in the province's constitution, I think I can safely say that Quebec has a certain amount of leeway that allows it to make changes, provided it is clearly stated that the suggested amendments cannot directly or indirectly modify the scope of the provisions of the Canadian Constitution. We all agree on that.
In other words, it must be stated that the Quebec government's bill does not erode other laws that protect the language rights of the English-speaking community in Quebec. Obviously, there will be several debates in Quebec's National Assembly and throughout Quebec on this very important topic. I will follow these debates with a great deal of interest.
Although it is true that symbols are important, it is also true that actions are even more important. Actions speak louder than words. The government has signalled its intention to take action to counter the decline of French across the country. In fact, our ambitions are not limited to countering the decline of French. We want to take action to encourage people to learn and use French and to foster the development of francophone communities across the country.
In the throne speech and budget 2021, we clearly stated that we are responsible for protecting and promoting the French language, not only outside Quebec, but in Quebec as well, while continuing to fully respect the rights of the English-speaking minority.
The reason I am talking about the need to protect French in Quebec is that French is in decline even in Quebec, especially in the greater Montreal area. That decline can sometimes be seen in the way people are greeted in shops and restaurants. It can be seen on some signs and heard on the street and on the radio. It can be seen in the statistics on the decline of French and rise of English, particularly in both public- and private-sector workplaces.
As a Quebecker and a Canadian, I am very concerned about the decline of French, and so is the government. I know that the and the are especially concerned. Every member of the House who wants to protect a fundamental trait of our country, namely the existence of two official languages, should be concerned. Allow me to make it clear that the federal government wants to protect and promote French.
That desire to act on all fronts is written in black and white in the bill that my colleague, the Minister of Official Languages, tabled in the House. The federal government will protect French by taking action in federally regulated sectors, which include banks and communications and transportation companies. All federally regulated employers, of which there are about 18,000, will have linguistic obligations, not only in Quebec, but also in regions with a strong francophone presence outside Quebec.
Drawing inspiration from the Charter of the French Language, we will pass laws on the right to be served and to work in French in federally regulated private businesses in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence across Canada. That is a significant step. We will be creating language-of-work and language-of-service rights that will foster the use of French in Quebec and across Canada. We are doing this because we recognize that we need to do more to support French and to achieve real equality between the two official languages.
To quote Aristotle, “The worst form of inequality is to try to make unequal things equal.” Facts are facts, and the fact is that French is not equal to English in our country and even less so in North America. As noted in the throne speech, Canada's approximately eight million francophones are surrounded by an ocean of more than 360 million primarily anglophone inhabitants of North America. As such, it is our responsibility to take action in areas within our purview to protect that minority and ourselves.
I want to stress that the reform we are proposing would in no way curtail the rights of Quebec's anglophone minority. I do not think the Bloc Québécois or anyone else wants that. However, we do know that if the French language is to continue to thrive in Quebec—and this is even more so the case outside Quebec—precise, vigorous and ambitious measures must be instituted immediately. That is what we will do, and we will also be working on a number of fronts. For instance, we will lean on cultural institutions such as Telefilm Canada, the National Film Board of Canada, and CBC/Radio-Canada, requiring them to support French-language content.
We will adopt measures to promote francophone immigration to try to counter the very worrisome trend of declining francophone demographics in the country. We will increase French-language learning opportunities for all Canadians. We will make it official policy to appoint bilingual justices to the Supreme Court of Canada, a move the Conservatives oppose, for some reason. We will strengthen some of the powers of the Commissioner of Official Languages, and much more.
The reason I mentioned jurisdiction earlier is that, as the Liberal party's Quebec's lieutenant, it is fundamental to me. Jurisdictions must be respected and that is why, whether it is the right to work in French in federally regulated businesses or the right to be informed and served in French by those same businesses, we are clearly acting within our jurisdictions. Not only are we acting clearly, but we will act clearly in our areas of jurisdiction.
At the same time, this measure we have included in our bill to modernize the Official Languages Act affords us a prime opportunity to work closely with the Quebec government. If we want the new federal system to coexist with the French-language requirements, we need to work together and we want to. That is what underpins what we are doing and that is what is written into the bill. That is also the spirit of the bill, this willingness to work with Quebec to strengthen and promote French, the language that I cherish, that we cherish and that is so beautiful. We must do more to protect it, to share it and to strengthen it.
:
Madam Speaker, this is one of the most important speeches that I have given in this virtual chamber. I want to clarify for the people in my riding and across Canada what this motion means, and even more importantly what it does not mean. I also want to contribute my views to the public record so that they can be examined by any court that may, in the future, be called upon to consider the significance of this motion.
First, I want to clarify that if this motion is adopted, it does not constitute an agreement by this House to a constitutional amendment. Amending Canada's framework document would require a proper bill, extensive public consultation, committee study and hearings, legal analysis and extensive debate in this House and across the country. I would never support any constitutional amendment that did not follow this process.
[Translation]
Second, what does this motion do?
It asks the House to recognize that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allows Quebec and the other provinces to unilaterally amend their respective constitutions. What the motion does not say is that section 45 is subject to section 41. Section 41 refers to section 43(b), which clearly states that any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province also requires the approval of the House of Commons and the Senate. I will speak to what this means a little later.
This motion also calls on the House to acknowledge the fact that Quebec intends to use section 45 to amend its constitution to state that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.
[English]
Third, let me be clear about the mechanism being used. Quebec's proposed Bill 96 has not yet been the subject of hearings. It has not been debated, amended or adopted. Since the determination of whether section 45 applies to an amendment will depend on the final wording of Bill 96, it would be premature to offer more than a preliminary assessment as to whether section 45 could apply.
No amendment to the constitution of a province made under section 45 can have any legal effect on the Constitution of Canada. Our Constitution is very clear that if any amendment relates to the use of English or French language in the province, section 43(b) must be used, not section 45. Therefore, this amendment cannot be used to reduce or impact the rights of the Quebec English-speaking minority in any way.
It would not and could not change the scope of section 133 of the Constitution, which says that English is an equal language with French within the National Assembly and the courts of Quebec. It would not and could not change the scope of the rights of the minority language community under the charter, such as education rights under section 23. Perhaps most importantly, in my view, this amendment cannot be used to interpret whether any charter right has been breached or to justify a section 1 limitation of that right.
Fourth, I support the exact wording adopted by the House of Commons in 2006. That motion stated, “that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.” I want members to note those last words, which are “a united Canada.” The current proposal is missing those words.
[Translation]
I also believe that it is very important to understand the legal implications of the notion of French as the common language of the Quebec nation. I hope that there will be presentations and debates in the National Assembly on this issue.
Quebec's Charter of the French Language states that French is the official language of Quebec. French is the first language used in Quebec, and French-speaking Quebeckers should be able to live, work and be served in French throughout our province.
[English]
Some proposals in Bill 96 have raised real concerns that common language means something else. For example, is the Quebec government seeking to limit those who can receive certain services in English? Sections 22.2 and 22.3 of Bill 96 link the ability to receive certain government services in English to those who are eligible to receive instruction in English. This has never previously been done in the Charter of the French Language outside of education rights.
Let us look at what that means. Suddenly hundreds of thousands of people who considered themselves part of the English-speaking community of Quebec will no longer be eligible to receive certain services from the state in English. This would include people who came to Quebec from the United States or other English-speaking countries, and even Holocaust survivors in their nineties who have been part of the English-speaking community since arriving in Canada over 70 years ago. This is profoundly disturbing, and I very much hope this section is amended by the National Assembly.
[Translation]
There is also section 18.1, which states that the personnel members of the civil administration shall use exclusively French when communicating orally or in writing with one another in the exercise of their functions. I do not think it is reasonable to ask two anglophone public servants to speak and write to one another in French.
In light of these and other provisions in Bill 96, we can understand why leaders of the English-speaking community, including former member of Parliament Marlene Jennings, who is the president of the Quebec Community Groups Network, have expressed some serious concerns about Bill 96.
[English]
I am particularly concerned about the impact of Bill 96 on how we see the charter and how individual rights interact with collective ones. In my view, we have a Charter of Rights because we, as a society in Canada and Quebec, have accepted that there are certain rights which are inalienable, rights that are not subject to change by a simple majority in the legislature. A charter is designed to protect minorities, even unpopular minorities.
In Bill 96, Quebec has departed entirely from this principle. First, the bill says the Charter of the French Language would no longer be subordinate to the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. This means that Quebeckers would no longer be able to argue that the Charter of the French Language breaches rights under the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
Quebec is also proposing to use a notwithstanding clause in an omnibus and pre-emptive way, preventing any Quebecker from arguing that fundamental freedoms, including freedom of expression under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, are breached under this bill. I would like to be very clear that I am against the notwithstanding clause. I do not believe it should be part of the charter.
We already have section 1, which allows legislatures to place reasonable limits on rights. To allow legislatures to allow unreasonable limits on rights, or to put laws outside the review of the judicial branch of government, is not something I can ever support. I oppose the use of the notwithstanding clause by Quebec, Ontario or any other jurisdiction.
[Translation]
Although we have to accept that the notwithstanding clause is part of the charter and can be invoked, it should be invoked only on very rare occasions, in response to a legal ruling. It must not be used pre-emptively. The idea of insulating a bill from possible legal challenges is profoundly troubling. The public would have no way to find out whether a right has been violated. As a Quebecker and a Canadian, I believe that we need an extensive public debate on this matter.
[English]
What is clear is that the issues related to our Constitution, our charter and our two official languages are at the very core of the fabric of our country. They are not documents or concepts to be taken lightly, but to be approached thoroughly, transparently and with the best interest of the federation at heart. Canadians place their trust in us to protect our country, protect our rights, including minority rights, and protect our democracy. These are not conversations that happen in one day, but rather require time, reflection and public debate. Our Constitution and Canadians deserve nothing less.
In the end, while I believe that this motion is purely symbolic in that it only asks this House to acknowledge what Quebec intends to do as opposed to the House agreeing to anything substantive, I also understand why this may be unclear to Canadians, especially official language minority communities and in particular, English-speaking Quebeckers.
Therefore, I move that this motion be amended by adding, after the words “of the Quebec nation”, the following: “That the House acknowledge adopting a motion in 2006 stating that this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada and reaffirm this position, and declare that the rights of Quebec's English-speaking minority under the Canadian Constitution may not be impacted or reduced by such an amendment.”
:
Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for .
Since the very beginning of what would become Canada, the French language has been a fundamental characteristic of our people. In 1534, when Jacques Cartier set foot on the shores of the St. Lawrence River, he did more than just discover a land unknown to Europeans, he marked the beginning of something wonderful.
As an explorer, he dreamed of achieving great things. Of course, the future held a land and a culture where amazing things would happen and where a unique people would be born. Over the years, we saw Cartier's dream develop and become the country we know today. Our history is essential. We teach it in our schools. We learn from it as part of our work, and our culture allows us to remember it.
Although things can change or evolve over time, one thing has stayed constant. One of the elements found in all the years of our country's history is the French language. It has been a driving force for our people and a source of pride. It continues to be an integral part of the identity of Canadians and Quebeckers.
The Conservative Party of Canada understands this. We also understand the unique character of Quebec beyond the French language. A Conservative government will always respect provincial jurisdiction, including the ability of any province to unilaterally amend the section of the Constitution that deals exclusively with its own internal governance. Both the British North America Act and section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, allow the provinces to do this.
Most of them have already used this power. Quebec, Manitoba and the Atlantic provinces abolished their provincial upper houses between 1876 and 1968. Alberta and British Columbia abolished multi-member ridings. Alberta amended its constitution in 1990 to guarantee its Métis communities land title and other rights.
The province of Newfoundland used its powers to change its name to Newfoundland and Labrador in 2001. Given all these examples, it would be discriminatory to prohibit Quebec from using these same laws to do what is best for its people. As a province and as a people, we stand out in Canada and in the world, and our party has always supported this.
Provincial autonomy is important and is something that the Conservatives, unlike our Liberal colleagues, deeply respect. Members will recall that, in 2006, Prime Minister Stephen Harper fought to give Quebec a seat at UNESCO, the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. This important step was a proud moment for the province. Its natural beauty, rich history and wonderful culture are international jewels and deserve to be recognized.
Quebec is one of the many things that make Canada so unique. Internationally, Quebec makes a valuable contribution to the arts, science, technology and culture. Our solid industries, talented artists and creative students have made their way to many parts of the world. This deserved to be celebrated in 2006, as it does today. That is a good example of the Conservative Party's determination to promote Quebec globally, its pride in la belle province and its commitment to provincial autonomy.
Prime Minister Harper, in particular, defended Quebec and ensured that we were not forgotten. His motion for recognition of the Quebec nation by the federal government was a major step forward. Mr. Harper and the entire Conservative Party wanted the House to recognize that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada”.
That second example makes me think of our founding fathers, who shared that same vision. Thanks to the efforts of Macdonald and Cartier in the second half of the 19th century, we became a unique and magnificent country unlike any other the world over. Their work laid the foundation for our political system and ensured that the French language maintained its important status in our society when Upper Canada and Lower Canada united. Cartier himself played a pivotal role in the formation of the Great Coalition, which was one of the first steps along the path to Confederation. His presence in London, Charlottetown and Quebec City was of crucial importance, and it was largely because of him that Quebec became part of the Dominion of Canada.
Our Confederation and our provincial structure function harmoniously and in unison when the government does not overstep its bounds and respects the provinces' authority and responsibilities. That applies just as much to Quebec as it does to Alberta, Ontario and every other province and territory in our great country.
While that authority applies for all provinces, I believe it is important to single out Quebec's unique history. That deserves our special attention because French Canadians are a minority in Canada and in North America. As a proud and confident people, we have too often felt forgotten. It is time to take action and get on top of things. When we want something, we have to go get it. Nobody is going to serve up what we want on a silver platter. We have to speak up about what we want and fight to get it.
One of the Conservative Party's fundamental beliefs is that the people of this country are capable of working hard to get what they want, and I see that value reflected in today's political system. Quebec knows what it has to do to get what it wants, and that is exactly what is happening.
Even today, provincial autonomy and jurisdictions are not fully respected. When it comes to health transfers to the provinces, the made some promises with exceptions attached and agreed to some requests, but again only with conditions attached. The Prime Minister has never been a partner to the provinces, and he keeps interfering in provincial jurisdictions by making promises with strings attached. Federal centralization is an ongoing phenomenon that leads to complications with the provinces. It is time to stop this back and forth and properly recognize the authority of the provinces.
This is not a new issue. Quebec has always had to fight for its language, from the time French and English settlers fought hundreds of years ago until the implementation of laws like Bill 101 in Quebec. The Quebec Act, the Official Languages Act and many others were battles fought at the expense of the French language.
The 2016 census found that nearly 80% of Quebeckers speak French as their mother tongue. That is more than six million people. Despite this huge number of French Canadians, the Liberal government continues to neglect Quebec. The Liberals have had since 2015 to overhaul official languages, but they have not done so. The government needs a better understanding of the importance of provincial jurisdiction and the Quebec nation.
Today's motion has my support and the support of our party. Under section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, Quebec and the provinces should have exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions. It is not that Quebec wants to enshrine its nationhood in its constitution, it is that Quebec needs to preserve our heritage and our nation in a meaningful way.
Although we recognize the presence of anglophone minority groups in Quebec, the common language of the Quebec nation is French, and it should be the only official language of our province. In other words, our house is built on a French foundation. We must ensure that the foundation remains solid, and we must upgrade the structure over time to ensure its integrity.
Our history is rich and complex and goes beyond language laws, but it guides our identity and shapes our culture.
:
Madam Speaker, practice makes perfect.
[Translation]
The motion that is before us today has two parts. The first part says this, and I quote:
That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions...
The second part says, and I quote:
[That the House] acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.
[English]
One cannot vote for or against one part of the motion without doing the same for the other part. However, I have very little to say about part two, which asks us to take note of two expressions of what is called the will of Quebec and also to take note of the obviously true fact that French is the common language of the Québécois, which it has been since 1608.
We all deeply and sincerely hope that this foundational fact that French is the lingua franca of the Québécois will continue to be the case for the next 400 years, just as it has been for the past 400 years.
[Translation]
For me, a Quebec nation in which French is not the lingua franca is unthinkable.
[English]
Likewise, it is a fact already acknowledged by the House that the Québécois are a nation. Fifteen years ago, the Commons voted for that by a margin of 265 to 16.
[Translation]
That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.
[English]
The words “au sein d'un Canada uni” are absent from today's motion, as one would expect from a motion produced by the Bloc Québécois. Nonetheless, it is true that the motion, as it is worded, is by no means incompatible with a united Canada. It is quite the opposite.
Beyond this, I am not sure there is much to say about the second half of the motion. My interest, as a student of the Constitution, is in responding to the first assertion of the motion, which says, in its English version, “That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions.”
My comments on this subject are primarily intended to sway the views of my anglophone colleagues, and therefore I will be speaking only English as I address this subject.
The wording of section 45 is, “Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.”
Members will notice the internal reference to another part of the Constitution, section 41. This reference is necessary because unlike the constitutions of other federations, like Switzerland or Australia, Canada's Constitution contains multiple amending formula instead of just one. That is to say that different parts of the same Constitution can only be amended using different combinations of legislative instruments from different legislative bodies.
For example, there are some parts of the Constitution that may only be amended if identical resolutions are passed in Parliament and in all 10 provincial legislatures. This amending formula is contained in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and of course, section 41 is the clause specifically referenced in section 45. I will not mention section 41 except to observe that it was referenced in section 45 to prevent provinces from unilaterally altering the powers of their lieutenant governors.
Other parts of the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, can be amended only by means of identical resolutions in Parliament and in the legislatures of the seven provinces containing at least 50% of Canada's population. This is colloquially known as the 7/50 amending formula, and it is described in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
On the other hand, to enact an amendment to the charter designed to place further restrictions on the powers of only a single province, another formula that is found in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, applies. Identical resolutions must be adopted by the legislature of that province alone and by Parliament. It was the use of the section 43 amending formula that in 1993 made it possible to add a new linguistic right to the charter that applied to New Brunswick alone, which was section 16.1 of the charter.
Likewise, section 43 is also the only formula that may be used for either of the two following matters. It states:
(a) any alterations to boundaries between provinces; and
(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,
The existence of multiple amending formulae for the Constitution of Canada is not new. Section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 was the predecessor to section 45. It was in force for over a century.
Section 92(1) stated:
...in each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of the province, except as regards the office of Lieutenant-Governor.
The ability of Quebec or of any other province to amend its own Constitution is uncontroversial. The more challenging question is what constitutes a provincial constitution.
In other federations like Switzerland, Australia or the United States, this question would never arise. Each Swiss canton and each American state has its own stand-alone constitution. The constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, is the oldest written constitution in the world, dating back to 1780, which makes it a decade older than the constitution of the United States.
In Canada, such tidy, clearly defined provincial constitutions do not exist. In this province, provincial constitutions can take one of three forms, which leads to some surface confusion.
In the three provinces that were created by federal statute, the relevant federal statute is the constitution of the province: the Manitoba Act, the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act, respectively. Despite being acts of the Parliament of Canada, these statutes can, under authority of section 45, be amended only by the provincial legislature. Parliament is constitutionally precluded from being involved.
In the five provinces that existed before Confederation, the pre-existing British statutes under which they had been created are their constitutions. Despite being acts of the Parliament at Westminster, these too can be amended unilaterally by the province under authority of section 45. Again, there is no permitted role for Parliament.
That leaves Quebec and Ontario. Their constitutional situation is summed up by eminent constitutional scholar Professor Peter Hogg in the following words:
The Constitution Act, 1867, which, it will be recalled, created Ontario and Quebec out of the old united province of Canada, contains a set of provisions (ss. 69 to 87) which are essentially the constitutions of those two provinces.
Therefore, sections 69 to 87 are the provisions which could potentially be subject to amendment, using the section 45 amending formula, which is to say that they could be potentially subject to amendment by means of an act of Quebec's national assembly or Ontario's legislature.
It is Professor Hogg's view, and my own as well, that Parliament, once again, is not permitted to play a role in such amendments.
This leaves the question of whether amendments can be made to the Constitution of Quebec or Ontario that involve making any amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867, in which the subject matter falls outside subjects covered in sections 69 to 87, which are sections that deal solely with the functioning of the two provincial legislatures.
In particular, could changes be made such as those proposed in Quebec's Bill 96, which seeks to add two new sections immediately following section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867? I have several tentative answers to this question.
First, the fact section 90 falls outside of the section 69 to 87 envelope is irrelevant.
Second, this is a matter that is outside the remit of Parliament. We are not decision-makers on this. The courts ultimately will have to decide whether sections 158 of Bill 96, which is the part of the bill in which these two amendments are proposed, is intra vires or ultra vires the section 45 amending formula. We MPs can weigh in on this subject but our views are not binding on anybody.
Third, and this is the last point I will make, and most important, although the motion we are debating today deals with the same subjects as the two contemplated additions to the Constitution Act, 1867 contained in Bill 96, we have not been asked to vote for or against Bill 96. We have been asked to vote on a specific question regarding the section 45 amending formula and a specific statement about what the motion refers to as the will or volonté of the Québécois, as expressed by the national assembly.
On these questions, it seems to me the answer is yes—
:
Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from .
I am pleased to take part in the debate on this extremely interesting motion as the work of the House draws to a close.
The motion before us is quite interesting because it articulates certain facts that are well established, some of them for quite some time. This motion is therefore both political and symbolic, but it is not binding in any way. If this motion is adopted, not much will change for Quebeckers even though the notions and concepts within have gained broad consensus. It has been clear since this morning that there is consensus in the House.
I do not think there is unanimous support for the motion, and there may be some nuances and concerns. There is one thing in particular that we are concerned about, and I will get back to that. Nevertheless, I think there is broad consensus around the motion's three main points.
The motion contains three elements: the Constitution, the nation and the French language.
With respect to the Constitution, the Government of Quebec has tabled Bill 96, which proposes to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, to insert Quebec's fundamental characteristics, including the fact that Quebeckers form a nation and that French is the only official language of Quebec and thus constitutes the common language of the Quebec nation.
Specifically, these amendments would be inserted after section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This proposal would allow Quebec to amend its own constitution. It could therefore amend the Quebec section of Canadian Constitution. In fact, section 45 of the Canadian Constitution provides for that; it says, and I quote:
45 Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.
This is also the consensus among certain experts. I will quote Benoît Pelletier, a former Quebec cabinet member who is now a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Recently, he was seriously ill with COVID‑19 and I wish him a speedy recovery and good health.
He said, “If you ask me, what the Quebec government is proposing falls under section 45, which is why I said it is constitutional and legal.”
The first point in the motion proposes a constitutional change, which is really quite innovative. This has never been done before and would have an impact on legal interpretation. That impact would not be all-encompassing, but would be certain. Quebec has the prerogative to do this.
The motion proposes to amend the Quebec section of the Constitution to state that Quebec is a nation and that French is its official language. This is part of what New Democrats have long proposed as a progressive force and corresponds to our values. This vision and direction is entirely consistent with the Sherbrooke declaration adopted by the NDP in 2005. I will quote from it, because it is directly relevant to the discussion we are having today.
The Sherbrooke declaration is clear on this matter. It states:
The New Democratic Party recognizes the national character of Québec and believes that that character can be expressed in the context of the Canadian federation.
The national character of Québec is based primarily, but not exclusively, on:
i. a primarily francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language.
That is extremely important. It confirms that culturally, historically, sociologically and politically, Quebec is not a province like the others. It is a nation within the federation.
That is why the NDP advocates something called asymmetrical federalism, which allows Quebec to opt out of new federal programs with financial compensation. It is offered to Quebec based on this recognition of its nationhood.
The nation was recognized more broadly by this Parliament in 2006. Once again, we are not reinventing the wheel. That said, I am very proud that we can recognize a modern, diverse, positive and inclusive Quebec nation that is open to the world. This nation makes room for newcomers, who enrich our shared culture and living space, and for influences from around the world.
In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about one of the successes of the Charter of the French Language. The third point that I wish to address, after the Constitution and the nation, is the French language.
I would remind the House that French has been the official language since 1974, when the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa passed Bill 22, or “le gros bill”, as Yvon Deschamps would say. This legislation made French the official language in a number of areas. That is when French became the language of legislation and the courts, of public administration, of public utility companies and professional orders, as well as the language of business, work and education, with some exceptions and exclusions. Bill 22 lasted about three years before it was replaced by the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101.
In a Quebec that is open to the world, that welcomes people who want to come here and contribute to the development of our society and our world, one of the great successes of the Charter of the French Language and Bill 101 is, in my opinion, compulsory education in French for the children of immigrants.
I have been a member for a Montreal riding for a few years now. I have lived in Montreal for over 25 years. It is always extremely touching to see boys and girls, from all over the world, speaking to each other in French, playing in French in the schoolyard and having fun in French after school. It is a great achievement of the Quebec government and the Charter of the French Language to have been able to ensure this renewal through the newcomers who join our society and our nation.
I know many people very well who are children of Bill 101. They are people who work for the NDP, but there is also someone with whom I share my life, who works in French and for whom French is the third language. There is a history within the NDP of wanting to strengthen the French position, not only in Quebec, but also in Canada, where the French language is in an extreme minority situation. As has been pointed out several times today, francophones account for about 2% to 3% of North America's population. Not only are francophones a barely represented demographic, but they are also subjected to the cultural influence of the American giant and its cultural imperialism, which overflows its borders and has spread around the world. It is extremely important to remain very vigilant.
In 2013, we accomplished something great when our former member Alexandrine Latendresse succeeded in passing a bill requiring all officers of Parliament, like the Auditor General, to be bilingual. It was a step forward, something important that we wished to have. We have always fought for the right of Quebeckers to work in French and communicate with their employers in French. These are principles of the Charter of the French Language, that is to say the possibility for these workers, who account for about 10% of Quebec's workforce, to have the same rights as those who work for federally regulated businesses.
It is a matter of defending French, as well as a matter of equal rights for workers. We are in an absurd situation right now where a person who works at the credit union has certain language rights that someone who works at a Royal Bank or a Bank of Montreal does not. We need to fix this problem.
Recently, in 2020, I tabled a motion that received unanimous consent in the House. It aimed to recognize the decline of French, as well as the need for a plan to stop the decline and protect French across Canada.
On this third point, I would like to conclude by saying that we do not want this motion to have an adverse effect on the recognition of indigenous languages in Quebec. The National Assembly and the Quebec government have recognized the status of indigenous languages in Quebec for years. One does not preclude the other. Recognizing that French is the common and official language of Quebec should never adversely effect our recognition of indigenous languages and the fact that we want to make sure that they continue to exist and develop in Quebec.
:
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking right after my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, not only because his speech was extraordinarily profound and important, but also because he is one of the greatest defenders of minority language rights in the House and, of course, the defender of French in Quebec. His words and his actions are proof of that. He understands that we always need to strengthen the French language, not only in Quebec, but across the country. I have an enormous amount of respect and esteem for him.
As the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie just mentioned, today's motion is important, but it merely reiterates things that were already settled in the past. The fact that Quebeckers form a nation was of course recognized and reinforced by a motion in the House of Commons in 2006. The fact that French is the only official language of Quebec has been recognized since 1974, and the fact that French is the common language of the Quebec nation has been recognized for a long time as well. These facts are constantly being reinforced.
There are some concerns about the decline of French. Certain measures are providing hope, which is important, and my party, the NDP, has always been the only one that defends French and wants to strengthen it both in Quebec and across Canada.
Our record makes that clear. As my colleagues know, the NDP was the first party to talk about enacting an official languages act. It was also the first party to proclaim Quebec's right to self-determination, and the first party to advance the rights of linguistic minorities outside Quebec.
I will get back to this a bit later, but it was an NDP provincial government that set up the French-language school systems in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Once again, in Manitoba, it was an NDP government that enacted the Official Language Act. In Ontario, it was an NDP government that created the college system.
I want to remind the House of our history and the work of NDP members like Léo Piquette in Alberta, Elizabeth Weir in New Brunswick and Alexa McDonough in Nova Scotia. In every respect, the NDP has always understood the importance of French at both the provincial and federal levels. As my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie so eloquently put it, ever since Jack Layton and the NDP adopted the Sherbrooke declaration, we have always borne in mind the need to respect the Quebec nation and to ensure that every federal program allows Quebeckers to opt out with full compensation.
I would also like to talk a bit about the trips I have taken to francophone regions over the course of my life. As my colleagues know, at 24, I decided to learn French, so I moved to Chicoutimi. Even in Chicoutimi at the time, as a young anglophone who spoke only a few words of French, I received services in English at the Jonquière office of the Société d'assurance automobile du Québec when I went to exchange my British Columbia driver's licence for a Quebec one.
In addition to my time in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, I also lived in the Eastern Townships east of Montreal, where I worked for several years at Champlain College and Bishop's University, two entirely English-language institutions in a beautiful region of Quebec where English-language institutions are still alive and well. I also lived in Montreal and in the Outaouais, and in all these places I found well-funded and very pleasant English-language institutions. Whether we are talking about hospitals or schools, the network is there.
What is important is to maintain these institutions, but we must especially make sure that French is protected and that it can develop throughout Quebec. This is an important aspect of what the NDP has always supported. Where I differ from my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, is about the need to talk about the importance of French outside Quebec.
I worked in northern New Brunswick and in Acadian territory, and I can say that the French language and French-language institutions are extremely strong there. That is important for the francophonie across Canada. Having also worked and lived in eastern Ontario, and as a francophile from British Columbia, I understand the importance of these French-language institutions, as well as of the federal government that finances and supports them across the country. This has not been the case in recent years, under either the Conservatives or the Liberals. The underfunding of French-language institutions puts the very strength and prosperity of francophone communities at risk.
In British Columbia, where I now live, the number of francophones is on the rise. Several factors contribute to this increase. One of the important elements is the fact that, in British Columbia, there are francophiles, people like me, especially young people, who are learning French as a key asset for supporting the francophonie in British Columbia.
I am now one of 300,000 French speakers in British Columbia. This is an important point that is not often considered by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. The fact that there are 300,000 of us and that the number keeps rising reinforces the cultural aspect and the importance of the cultural economy of French in Canada. When Quebec or Acadian artists come to Vancouver, they perform before packed houses. The vitality of the francophone community is apparent everywhere in British Columbia. It is apparent in the increase not only in the number of francophones, but in the number of francophiles as well. Francophiles are often the ones packing the house. Right now, with COVID‑19, there are few performances, but we hope to see that change soon.
The fact that francophiles contribute to this major increase in the popularity of French in British Columbia has a lot to do with the fact that parents stand in line for an entire weekend to register their children for French immersion. There are a number of French schools for people whose first language is French, but there is also a system of French immersion schools. As a result, there are more and more consumers of Quebec, Acadian and Franco-Ontarian cultural products. This contributes to the growth of French on a national scale.
It is very clear that French must be strengthened in Quebec. I do not deny that, and the NDP fully supports that idea and the measures that come with it, but it is also important to have a federal government that strengthens the presence of francophone institutions across the country. This is the best way to strengthen French across Canada and truly build a future where the French language can thrive across the country.