Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 76 - 90 of 598
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-15 11:30 [p.8439]
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my question again, because I did not get an answer at all. I heard the hon. member talk about the importance that his party seems to place on the myth that Bill C‑10 would infringe on freedom of expression, but that was not the point of my question at all. I wanted his opinion on the importance that should be placed on protecting francophone and Quebec culture in the legislation that is voted on here in the House of Commons, and particularly on the urgent need to pass a bill, such as Bill C‑10 on broadcasting, in which specific regulations and a specific framework would be enshrined to protect francophone culture.
That is really what I want to hear from the hon. member, not rhetoric about freedom of expression. We have already heard a lot of that.
View Richard Martel Profile
CPC (QC)
View Richard Martel Profile
2021-06-15 11:31 [p.8439]
Madam Speaker, we do need to protect our culture, but right now, freedom of expression is what is at stake, and our party will not compromise on that.
View Michael Barrett Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the motion from 2006 recognizing Quebec as a nation inside a unified Canada. Does the member support that motion?
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, practice makes perfect.
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.
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.
For me, a Quebec nation in which French is not the lingua franca is unthinkable.
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.
That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.
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—
View Luc Desilets Profile
BQ (QC)
View Luc Desilets Profile
2021-06-15 11:42 [p.8441]
Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague who has a really nice French accent.
He supports the Quebec nation but would like to add something to the Bloc Québécois motion to indicate that the Quebec nation is located within a united Canada.
First, I would like him to define what a “united Canada” means to him.
Second, would it not be better to see that Quebeckers, colleagues and partners are happy in his Canada?
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I will start by finishing the last sentence of my speech, which was the only sentence I did not manage to get in. On these questions, it seems to me the answer is yes and therefore that is how I will be voting.
To answer my colleague's question, it is not up to us as members from ridings outside Quebec to determine what measures are required to make Quebeckers happy and to make them equal partners in Canada. We need to respond to Quebeckers' initiatives. Today's motion is an example of that.
My colleague asked another question, but honestly, I cannot remember what his first question was.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-06-15 11:44 [p.8441]
Madam Speaker, I sit with my colleague on the international human rights subcommittee and I know he is a very intelligent and thoughtful member of the House. I also know that his riding has a large population of francophones outside of Quebec as does mine of Edmonton Strathcona. I am going to ask him a question about protections for francophones outside of Quebec.
As the member will know, section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees French language and that guarantee is at risk in Edmonton Strathcona because of the potential closure quite soon of Campus Saint-Jean.
Does he feel the federal government has work to do, and could be doing more and doing it more urgently, to protect French language across Canada by ensuring that campuses like Campus Saint-Jean are protected.
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I actually do not have a large population of francophones in my riding. It is a perpetual problem trying to keep up my French because I do not get the chance to speak it daily. Lately, I have taken to listening only to music with French lyrics as a way of helping myself not lose too much, which is a very enjoyable way of maintaining one's language.
With regard to maintaining academic institutions in other provinces that assist the francophone minorities in those provinces and also those who want to learn and educate themselves in French, who are not necessarily francophones themselves, there can be a role for the federal government in funding them. Ultimately, we also need to ensure, as members of the relevant communities, that we put the right kind of pressure on university administrations to assign funds appropriately. This is not an issue only in Edmonton, but also in places like Sudbury, for example, and some spots east of Quebec as well in the Atlantic.
View Scot Davidson Profile
CPC (ON)
View Scot Davidson Profile
2021-06-15 11:46 [p.8441]
Madam Speaker, I noticed the member had a number of notes and I wonder if there is anything else he wants to expand upon today.
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Speaker, I always write very long speeches, which could not possibly be given in the time allowed. My self-editing cut out a considerable amount of material.
With regard to the issue of dealing with this within the framework of the Constitution. if we look at Canada's constitutional history, some of the leading figures, some of the most distinguished and thoughtful figures, were francophone Lower Canadians. The term “Québécois” did not exist at the time. People like George-Étienne Cartier and Étienne-Paschal Taché believed profoundly in the importance of establishing a Constitution that had detailed divisions of power and then rigorously followed the idea that the provinces would be independent, like independent states, which is where the term “state” comes from in the United States, in their areas of jurisdiction and the federal government would be completely independent in its area of jurisdiction. I suggest that model of federalism is the only one that will work in Canada and we should all embrace it.
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby.
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.
View Martin Champoux Profile
BQ (QC)
View Martin Champoux Profile
2021-06-15 11:57 [p.8443]
Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie and thank him for his speech.
I have two questions for him, and I have no doubt that I will get a clear answer this time.
I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the government chose to table a bill meeting many of the requests made by the National Assembly today, on an opposition day when the Bloc Québécois tables a motion to recognize and strengthen French as the only official language of Quebec.
My second question for my colleague concerns our motion today. Does he think that the amendment to the amendment proposed earlier, which was not adopted by the House for reasons we are well aware of, would completely change the meaning of the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois?
View Alexandre Boulerice Profile
NDP (QC)
Madam Speaker, in my opinion, it is very cynical on the part of the Liberal government to use an opposition day of one of the opposition parties that wishes to discuss the French fact to table a bill aimed at modernizing the Official Languages Act at the last minute.
In my opinion, they are making political hay. The idea is to get on the right side of the debate. It is even more cynical, since the bill will not be debated or adopted by the House, whether or not we go to the polls in the fall. It is simply a public relations ploy. I find that unfortunate, because we deserve better than that.
With respect to the amendment, it contradicts the very essence of the motion as it was introduced. It should be deemed procedurally out of order on its face.
View Heather McPherson Profile
NDP (AB)
View Heather McPherson Profile
2021-06-15 11:59 [p.8443]
Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is a staunch defender of Quebec and French language rights in Quebec and across the country. I had the great pleasure of welcoming him to Edmonton Strathcona just a couple of weeks ago. He came and met with members of the francophone community in Edmonton, virtually of course.
In addition to what he brought up in his speech, what other ways can he envision protecting language rights for Canadians across the country? What other things would he propose we do to make sure that language rights are protected?
Results: 76 - 90 of 598 | Page: 6 of 40

|<
<
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data