44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 24, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, the NDP agree to apply and will be voting yea.
12 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Green Party agrees to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
16 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, and I will be voting in favour.
19 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried. When shall the bill be read the third time?
Some hon. members: Now.
18 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that the bill be read the third time and passed.
11 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I will try my luck one last time. I believe you will find unanimous consent for the results of the previous vote to apply to this vote with Liberal members voting yes.
34 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 6:46:05 p.m.
- Watch
If a member of a recognized party present in the House wishes to request a recorded division or that the motion be adopted on division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.
The hon. government whip.
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, Conservatives agree to apply the vote and will be voting against this motion.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois agrees to apply the results of the previous vote to this vote, and we vote in favour.
26 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the NDP agree to apply the vote and will be voting yea.
14 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the Greens agree to apply the vote and will be voting in favour.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I agree to apply the results of the previous vote, voting in favour.
15 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
I declare the motion carried.
5 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/24/22 6:47:14 p.m.
- Watch
It being 6:47 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.
25 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved that Bill C-246, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding representation in the House of Commons, be read the second time and referred to a committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking you for the thoughtful consideration you have given me by allowing the House to dissolve and those members who wish to do so to go about their business, thus enabling me to make a speech in a quieter setting.
I am honoured to rise this evening to speak to Bill C-246, an act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, regarding representation in the House of Commons, which I am sponsoring.
Despite what many Canadians and perhaps Canada would like, there are fundamental differences and some deep incompatibilities, I would even say, between Quebeckers and Canadians. There are fundamental differences in how Canadians see their future and how Quebeckers see theirs.
I am not saying that is a bad thing. Let me provide some context. I think it is important to put this in context because every time there are discussions around demands with respect to the status of Quebec within the federation, or about its culture, the values that are unique to the Quebec nation or its language—French is the only official and common language of Quebeckers—words always get twisted and the conversation turns into bickering, if I may borrow the word of the day, with claims that this is coming from a tiresome minority of Quebeckers who refuse to kowtow, drop their pants and hide their pride behind a maple leaf.
Those people know that by cleverly spreading misinformation, they are stoking the fire and stirring up hateful comments by certain fanatics who would like to see Quebec get crushed, give up its identity and join the melting pot of Canadian multiculturalism. I am not generalizing, but those people do exist. There is no shortage of them on social media. All one has to do is post a comment about the French language on Twitter to see the flood of hateful comments that follow.
I would like to give some context on the history of the people of Quebec. For decades, in the 19th and 20th centuries, honest French-Canadian workers suffered silently. The Catholic Church required them to populate Quebec by having eight, 12, 15 or 20 children, and to earn their place in heaven by bowing their heads whenever the boss came by. That was Quebec up until the second half of the 20th century.
Slowly, gradually, word got out that Quebeckers were more than just quaint characters, more than just people who got rowdy every night, that there was more to us than arrowhead sashes and fiddle playing, and that Quebec was rich in culture and talent. Little by little, Quebec stepped out of the darkness, not just the shadows, but out of the deep darkness, and Quebeckers started to rediscover who we are.
At that point, voices started to emerge, urging Quebeckers to stand up, respect themselves and demand the respect of others. This was the golden age of great leaders, orators and personalities who inspired past generations and who continue to inspire generation now.
There were great trade unionists, because we needed union leaders at a time when Quebec was a working-class nation, people like Pepin, Marchand, Charbonneau. There were also some great women, like Laure Gaudreault and Madeleine Parent, not to mention one of Quebec's golden couples, Michel Chartrand and Simone Monet-Chartrand, one of the most adored, respected and celebrated couples in Quebec history.
I have an amusing story about this. In Longueuil, on the south shore facing Montreal, there is a park named after Michel Chartrand that is overrun with deer. My young daughter, who will turn 11 next week, was talking about Michel Chartrand park. I told her about the union leader Michel Chartrand, and she thought he was the deer guy. That is why education is important. It is important to talk about Quebec's history so that my daughter's generation will know that Michel Chartrand is not just the deer guy.
All these men and women inspired Quebec's workers back then through passionate speeches. Chartrand was a passionate man, if ever there was one. We could listen to his speeches again and watch the movie where he was portrayed so well by Luc Picard. These people inspired others with their passionate speeches and unifying actions. It should be inspiring for this government, because passionate speeches and words must be followed up with action. Those people took action.
With their actions, they made Quebeckers realize what another great Quebecker would put into words years later: “We are not a little people. We are closer to something like a great people.”
In the meantime, along came the Quiet Revolution, bringing with it new ideas and inspiring new leaders who proposed social reforms that were more in line with our values. As I often say, our values are neither better nor worse than Canada's. They are just different in many ways.
That led to Quebeckers choosing a secular society because, for us, the only way to respect all religions is to ensure the state has no religion. That is an important nuance to grasp. That is what Quebec secularism means. In Quebec, religion is something personal practised privately that should neither interfere in nor influence the decisions made by the state. Contrary to what many Canadians think, including many of my House of Commons colleagues, Quebeckers welcome and respect people of all origins and all faiths. However, we want to integrate our newcomers while respecting their beliefs but without betraying our fundamental values. I admit there is a major conflict between Quebec state secularism and the idea of multiculturalism that is so dear to Liberals and Canadians.
Following our awakening, we witnessed the growth of a new movement in favour of an option that is appealing enough to have lasted to this day: Quebec independence.
As an aside, and this may not be news to anyone, but I will just say that my colleagues and I do not just carry this idea of becoming a country in our daily work; it permeates our lives. It inhabits us, much like oil inhabits our Conservative friends. We all hope that one day our project will become a reality. We try to discuss it at every opportunity, trying each time to break down prejudices, to avoid smear campaigns that get in the way of sound judgment and healthy conversation.
The idea of an independent Quebec has been around for a while now, so much so that in 1976 the Parti Québécois came to power with the great leader I mentioned earlier, René Lévesque. He is probably my number one idol. This too should come as no great surprise.
I think what happened next is fairly well known to most people here. There was the 1980 referendum, the patriation of the Constitution, the “beau risque”, the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord.
The Charlottetown accord contained a proposal that was written in black and white. Resolution 21, on the composition of the House of Commons, stated: “The composition of the House of Commons should be adjusted to better reflect the principle of representation by population.” Further on, it mentions a redistribution following the 1996 census aimed at ensuring that, in the next election, “no province will have fewer than 95% of the House of Commons seats it would receive under strict representation-by-population”. It goes on to state that “Quebec would be assigned no fewer then 25 percent of the seats in the House of Commons”.
I think it is very important to say so, because it is fundamental in Bill C‑246, which I am introducing today. It is fundamental because what we are proposing is to include a nation clause in the Constitution Act, 1982, so that Quebec does not have to keep standing up for its representation in the House of Commons, whether today, in 10 years, after the next census, or in 20 years, and so forth.
As I alluded to earlier, ideally, we would be having these discussions because Quebec would have made the choice, in the meantime, to fully take matters into its own hands and patriate to Quebec City, in our only national legislature, 100% of the seats we have here.
This morning, by extraordinary coincidence, the government introduced Bill C‑14, probably in response to the Bloc Québécois motion unanimously adopted on March 2, worded as follows:
That, in the opinion of the House:
(a) any scenario for redrawing the federal electoral map that would result in Quebec losing one or more electoral districts or that would reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons must be rejected; and
(b) the formula for apportioning seats in the House must be amended and the House call on the government to act accordingly.
This motion was put to a vote and passed unanimously. Now, three weeks later, we have a bill whose only goal is to maintain Quebec's number of seats at 78. That is not bad, but it is a bit like agreeing to give a friend a ride from Montreal to Quebec City but then making, him get out in Saint‑Hyacinthe, not even in Drummondville.
I want to draw members' attention to the fact that Bill C‑14, which the Liberals introduced this morning, is nothing but a watered-down version of what Quebec, Quebeckers and the Bloc Québécois are calling for. Bill C‑246, however, addresses the urgent need to protect Quebec's political weight. Since Quebec is a nation, it should have the resources it needs to be represented so long as it decides to remain here in the House of Commons.
1681 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, this is the second opportunity for the Bloc party to raise this particular issue, albeit through an individual member this time. The first time was with an opposition day motion. I hope to be able to speak a bit more on this. I wonder if the member could explain why he feels so passionately about having an opposition day motion, knowing that we were having this particular debate today and that the government was bringing forward legislation.
He made reference to the Constitution. It seems to me he wants to talk about the Constitution. Why is the Constitution so important, from his perspective?
105 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, in response to the first part of my colleague's question, I will say that yes, we did move a motion on our opposition day. It was debated and then adopted on March 2. That was our way of testing the waters. I also knew that we would have the opportunity to debate this bill in more depth and then send it to be properly studied in committee.
We have no intention of talking about the Constitution itself. In fact, if it were up to us, we would amend the Constitution to permanently guarantee that Quebec would always have 25% of the seats in the House of Commons. That is no secret.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to be here for this debate.
Our country was founded in 1867 on the principle of the linguistic duality of two groups: anglophones and francophones. Of course, francophones do not exist only in the province of Quebec. We exist across Canada, and I am one of them.
I would like to know what my Bloc colleague thinks of our country's linguistic duality. Does he think his bill preserves the principle and the idea of our country's francophile reality outside Quebec?
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Calgary Shepard.
I wish he had asked me that question before I started my speech, because I could have spent 15 minutes answering it and I would have done so with passion.
Quebec itself has a duty to protect the French fact in North America. Quebec is a francophone island in an anglophone sea. There are francophones in the United States too. I think Quebec has a responsibility to stay strong in order to protect such francophone communities outside Quebec.
I would suggest that a quick look at the work we are doing in committee, specifically on the broadcasting bill, will make it clear that the Bloc Québécois does take the reality of francophone communities outside Quebec to heart.
This is a subject I find extremely interesting. I could go on talking about it for some time, as I said, but I will give other people a chance.
159 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his speech and for introducing this bill.
I really enjoyed his historical references and the fact that he talked about people from Quebec's history who are close to my heart, particularly Simonne Monet-Chartrand and the film he talked about.
I also liked his rather appealing notion of adding a “nation clause” to recognize the fact that Quebec becoming a nation has consequences.
However, in wanting to reopen the Constitution, why does my colleague from Drummond not also see the possibility of recognizing and making room for other nations, specifically first nations, who were here before the arrival of the French and the English? Why did he not include this in his bill?
125 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
