44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2022 10:00AM
- Jun/2/22 10:27:59 a.m.
- Watch
I apologize, Mr. Speaker.
We were supposed to be able to introduce a bill from my colleague, the member for Rivière-du-Nord. It seems that the Chair did not call his bill, and I am wondering if it would be possible to do that.
47 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 10:28:13 a.m.
- Watch
It is not on my list, but I will check with the table and see if there is a change.
There seems to have been an oversight.
There was a small problem because the motion was not there. Since we have moved on to the next rubric, I will have to seek the unanimous consent of the House to revert to the introduction of private members' bills.
Do we have the unanimous consent of the House?
Some hon. members: Agreed.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (criminal organizations).
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to introduce this bill today because, as we in the Bloc Québécois often say, it is in keeping with the interests and values of our citizens.
As everyone knows, there is currently a significant spike in gun violence throughout America and, for us in Canada, particularly in the Montreal area. Again last night, a man was shot at point blank range in a restaurant at 7:30 p.m., at dinner time, in front of children.
This situation has gone on day after day. There are new such incidents every day, and it is Parliament's responsibility to do something about this. The federal government is responsible for the Criminal Code, and provisions must be put in place quickly, because this cannot go on.
Bill C-279 seeks to give the Minister of Public Safety the authority to establish a list of criminal organizations that individuals will be prohibited from joining under the Criminal Code. This will help make the work of police and the courts easier.
Right now, when the authorities want to put someone who is accused of belonging to a criminal organization on trial, not only do they have to prove that the accused belongs to the organization, but they also have to prove that the organization in question is a criminal organization. That is the kind of proof that can often take weeks or even months to provide.
Bill C‑279 would provide for the creation of a list of criminal organizations, much like what is already being done for terrorist organizations. There are currently about 30 to 50 organizations listed as terrorist organizations. The same thing would be done for criminal organizations. This would make it easier to fight organized crime, it would help curb the flow of illegal firearms as much as possible, and it would hopefully put an end to the shootings on our streets.
345 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 10:33:42 a.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke is rising on a point of order.
16 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 10:33:54 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, welcome back. I would like to mention to those assembled and the people listening at home that when one asks for unanimous consent to accept a change in the schedule, that is actually what unanimous consent votes are for, as opposed to bringing a treaty before the House that has been unseen by many of the members, voting on it and going forward without so much as debate. I thank you very much for once again pointing out and using a unanimous consent motion for what it was intended.
91 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 10:34:33 a.m.
- Watch
I want to thank the hon. member, and I want to remind hon. members what unanimous consent is all about. I encourage anyone seeking unanimous consent to actually go and do the groundwork beforehand, so by the time the members come to the chamber, they have had discussions and we know that we have unanimous consent.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
moved:
That it be an instruction to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs that, during its consideration of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (electoral representation), the committee be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill in order to amend the formula for apportioning seats in the House and include provisions that maintain the Quebec nation's political weight, as the House of Commons recognized on March 2, 2022.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-14 originally provided that no province would lose any federal ridings in the next electoral redistribution. Let us not forget that the future configuration of Parliament threatened to remove one riding from Quebec, which would have seen its number of seats in the House drop from 78 to 77. The Bloc Québécois obviously let it be known that this was outrageous.
We are now moving this motion of instruction for the following reason. It is true that we do not want to see a decrease in the number of members from Quebec in the House, but we want to go even further by asking for an end to the relative decrease in Quebec's political weight, which has been happening since the start of the 20th century.
Since this bill is already too restrictive to allow for these kinds of amendments, we are forced to propose amendments through a motion of instruction to ensure that it is in order. In this way, Bill C‑14 would become embedded in the parliamentary journey we set out on in June 2021.
Allow me to recap. Last year, in June 2021, we moved the following motion:
That the House agree...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.
This motion was adopted by the vast majority of members in the House, which was the first step in this legislative journey.
Since that first step, Quebec has not been seen as a province like the others. It is seen as a nation, which we have known for a long time. However, if Quebec is a nation, it should have the same powers afforded to nations. We must therefore take action to protect the Quebec nation, whose common language is French, which is something that a very large majority of members recognized.
The second step was taken in March, when, once again, a large majority of members in the House adopted the following motion, which I will read because it is very important:
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...
482 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 10:39:32 a.m.
- Watch
Order. The hon. member for Jonquière on a point of order.
13 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, could our colleagues please move their conversations somewhere outside the House?
Even though I am next to the member for La Prairie, I cannot hear what he is saying.
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Jun/2/22 10:39:42 a.m.
- Watch
That is a good point. If members wish to chat, I would ask them to find a place to have their conversation rather than talking back and forth across the House. They can continue their conversation in the lobby and whisper, or even go out into the hallway or lobby.
50 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is a point well taken by my Quebec colleague. I was just a little thrown off. I thought we were going to be having a debate here on Standing Order 51. As a member of PROC, it took me by surprise that there is this new motion before us to talk about something that I thought would be dealt with at committee.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my father always said that good things come to those who wait, and my colleague will have to wait. I am sorry that my voice does not carry far, but my colleague was told that this motion would be moved and that I would speak for four or five minutes. Since my time has not yet expired, he should pay close attention. He may learn something.
There were two parts to the motion. The number of members from Quebec cannot be reduced, and the proportion of Quebec members in the House cannot be reduced. Those were the two aspects to this motion, and the vast majority of members voted in favour.
Bill C-14 is a step forward. The number of members from Quebec will not be reduced. Confucius said that even the longest journey always begins with a first step. The is the first step.
What we are asking for is the second step. That is obvious. Everyone here, or almost everyone here, has said that they cannot allow Quebec, which is a nation with French as its common language, to have its relative political weight in the House reduced.
The point of this motion of instruction is to allow the Bloc Québécois to table an amendment to Bill C‑14 so that we can finally carry out the mission provided for in the motion tabled in March. That is the bare minimum. The House needs to finally understand that we are not talkers, but doers. That is what I am asking the House to do.
265 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, it is very interesting the manner in which we are having this debate today, and I will be able to expand on that during my comments, but I will say that, when the commission came down indicating that it was looking at reducing the number of seats in the province of Quebec from 78 to 77, the reaction in the Government of Canada, the Liberal caucus, was very swift. We indicated that it could not happen and that we did not support the reduction of the number of seats in the province of Quebec. It was universally felt within the government that it was something that was not acceptable. That is the reason why we have Bill C-14.
I will get the opportunity to expand upon that point when I get the opportunity to address the motion. Historically we have witnessed, whether it is Prince Edward Island or out west, there have been guarantees of numbers. What are the member's thoughts on previous guarantees that were put in place to ensure that jurisdictions would not lose the number of members of Parliament they had?
188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for his question. Yes, there are guarantees. In particular, there is the senatorial clause, which gives Prince Edward Island four members instead of one, and the grandfather clause. It is true.
That precedent is the reason we are proposing a new clause. Since there are already several clauses, we simply want to add a “Quebec clause” to make sure that Quebec always has 25% of the number of seats in the House of Commons.
That is in line with the remarks of my colleague from Winnipeg North.
99 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois House leader. I think that the motion of instruction highlights the important work that the House standing committees do. I trust the committee members to decide what type of motion and amendment regarding Bill C‑14 they might introduce.
I would also like to remind my colleagues that the substance of Bill C‑14 comes, as I believe, from the motion moved in early March by the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable. His motion sought unanimous consent to ensure that no province in this country loses a single seat.
I do not really have any questions for the hon. member for La Prairie. I simply wanted to address these remarks to the House and say that I think the motion is reasonable.
144 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, all that remains for me to do is to thank my colleague for his words of wisdom and, as always, commend him for the quality of his French. It is impressive. I would like to thank him.
39 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat surprised at the question that has been implied by the Conservative Party. The Conservative Party seems to be taking the position that one of the ways in which we can expand the scope of legislation is to just bring forward a motion that enables any committee on any piece of legislation to say it would like to go in this direction or that direction. Then, by using a vote in the House, we give a different type of mandate to our standing committees.
I am wondering if this is the principle that the members of the Bloc would advocate for, whether here in the Parliament of Canada or in the parliament of Quebec. Would that very same principle apply so we should be encouraging these types of motions? I am not talking about the motion itself as much as the principle of having a motion that would enable legislation to be changed in committees on the issue of scope. That is one of the reasons why we have standing orders, which are technically what we were supposed to be debating today.
186 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, when I got up this morning, I do not know why, but I had a feeling that it was going to be a big day. Now I know why. I just got a second question from my colleague from Winnipeg North. It is enough to wear a body out, but I thank him anyway.
The ability of parliamentary committees to amend bills is a basic rule of the parliamentary system. I did not make it up. We are all here to work on amendments and improve bills so they better reflect what the people of Canada and Quebec want.
In this particular case, it is all about Quebec. Everybody knows that the point of Bill C‑14 is to make sure Quebec does not lose any seats, so it makes sense to listen to what Quebec wants. Since the purpose of this bill is for Quebec to improve its political prospects within the House of Commons, for as long as we are here, we might as well go all in and get the job done properly.
I listened to my hon. colleague from Winnipeg North, which I always enjoy doing, but let me read part of the motion he voted for: “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”.
He voted in favour of that.
He needs to explain why he does seem to comprehend that Bill C‑14 includes a section to satisfy Quebeckers.
269 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I am beginning to understand the motion's significance.
First of all, I see that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs could be given the ability to make more significant amendments to Bill C‑14.
In that case, would the Bloc Québécois potentially accept a motion to guarantee sufficient powers for the province of British Columbia? As members know, British Columbia does not have enough seats in the House.
Will the Bloc Québécois support my province and its powers?
92 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question and commend the quality of his French. He told me once that he learned some of that French in Quebec, and that comes through in his strength and passion. We are very pleased to hear it.
If he thinks British Columbia should have more seats, then let him go through all the same steps we did. He needs to start by saying that British Columbia is a nation. Then we will discuss why it may or may not be a nation. That is what I am wondering. Is British Columbia a nation? We can discuss that at length, but I do know one thing: Quebec is a nation.
When Félix Leclerc died, the member did not know who he was, while Quebec was mourning his loss. I could come up with a whole list of reasons for why Quebec is a nation. I could talk about it all day.
If my colleague can do that with British Columbia, then let him put it to a vote in the House and we can talk about it again later.
188 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
