SoVote

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

Feb/9/23 12:59:58 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, we in the Bloc always feel that when Quebec rises in the House to defend its uniqueness, it is seen as a little suspicious. However, my Liberal friends saw Prime Minister Trudeau some time ago visit certain countries, dress up and put on all kinds of costumes—

50 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/9/23 1:00:20 p.m.
Watch

I would remind the hon. member that the names of current members are not to be used. The hon. member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert.

25 words

Mr. Denis Trudel

Feb/9/23 1:00:30 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, so we saw the Prime Minister putting on costumes from all kinds of nations, which is fine and which we totally respect. However, when it comes to supporting the fact that Quebec is a specific minority, with specific values, history and way of life, it is always treated with suspicion in the House. Today, the notwithstanding clause that we are defending is precisely the ability to defend this specificity within the federation. What I am clearly hearing is that Quebec should not keep this right. I see that the only solution is for Quebec to become a country. When we become independent, we will be able to take complete responsibility for everything we are, including our language, our culture and all our values. That is the best I can hope for for the Quebec nation as a whole.

140 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Feb/9/23 1:01:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not believe we are suspicious of the intentions of the Bloc Québécois. I believe that the distinct culture and history of Quebec is something that has added greatly to our nation and it is something I value greatly. I believe that having laws that work for Quebec is very important, but I do believe that the fundamental rights and freedoms of Quebeckers and all Canadians should be respected, and that the notwithstanding clause should only be used in very exceptional circumstances. The concern we have expressed today is really about the increased use of that notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion.

110 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 1:02:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on my colleague's very last point where she talked about the pre-emptive nature. The example I have been providing is that of the province of Ontario with regard to labour issues that impacted literally thousands of labour people, people working in our teaching profession. Using a pre-emptive attitude toward the notwithstanding clause, I and many members of our caucus felt, was just wrong. I wonder if she could expand upon her thoughts in regard to whether they are using the notwithstanding clause in that pre-emptive fashion.

97 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Feb/9/23 1:03:25 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, I feel very strongly that, in that particular case, it was not an appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause. Those are basic fundamental rights of Canadians. A premier should, in my mind, need to respect those fundamental rights. When one brings in a piece of legislation, especially one that prevents teachers and workers in our education system from collectively bargaining, I feel that is a perfect example of why this is of such concern to us. I hope the members of the Bloc Québécois share that concern, that need to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of our workers and their right to collective bargaining.

115 words

Mrs. Julie Vignola (Beauport—Limoilou, BQ)

Feb/9/23 1:04:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. Time and time again, she talked about the importance and beauty of freedom and equality. Indeed, I agree with that. Just because we use the notwithstanding clause does not mean that we undermine freedom. I will give an example. The law that created the Court of Quebec's youth division states that it is not open to the public. It discriminates between youth and adults, but that is precisely how we protect the youth. Does the use of the notwithstanding clause in that case undermine the freedom, equity and beauty which can be observed in Quebec and the rest of Canada? Where does my colleague draw the line? For what subjects should a line be drawn?

126 words

Ms. Leah Taylor Roy

Feb/9/23 1:05:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not pretend to know where to draw the line. I trust our court system for this. We have established case law. I believe, in cases like that, the wisdom of the court would see the beneficial effect of that. Why use the notwithstanding clause? Why not put this forward and see if there is a challenge? If there is, let our courts decide.

67 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/9/23 1:05:43 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I am not the star of this part of the show. I am merely opening for my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé, and I am honoured to do so. I love Quebec. I had the good fortune and great privilege to travel the continent in my previous job, and I have visited places around the world for pleasure. Everywhere we go, when we say we are from Quebec, people are curious. What is the deal with Quebec, anyway? Why will it not just melt into the English sea of North America? What is up with that place, where people do not eat the same foods or wear the same clothes as people in the rest of Canada? Just look at the member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert. He toned it down today, but he usually dresses to impress. What is going on with this province, where the vast majority of artists would rather work in their own language than tap into the riches of the anglophone market at their doorstep? The entire nation steps up to demand that Quebec's artists get the space they deserve on our radio stations, on TV, in our theatres and on streaming platforms. Bill C‑11 was briefly discussed earlier. My colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute‑Saint‑Charles talked about it in his speech this morning. Bill C‑11 really highlighted the difference between Quebec and the rest of Canada. Whereas the cultural industry and community in Quebec mobilized to defend the distinct nature, specifically, of French language and culture, the rest of Canada had other concerns and opposed the bill for different reasons, reasons relevant to the rest of Canada. That is fine, but it proves once again that there are major differences. I will continue to talk about those differences. What about this nation where women marry without taking their spouse's name? That is, when they do get married because fewer people in Quebec marry than in the rest of Canada. It is not because we are not beautiful or not in love. It is simply that we do not think the same way. It is a nation where parents, increasingly, give their children their mother's last name. That is quite new. Abroad, people ask us what everyone thinks about the fact that Quebec rejects the exploitation of fossil fuels in favour of renewable energy and that it prefers electric cars to pickup trucks that are too large for our needs. How does one manage a nation that wants to protect its language and culture, its fundamental values and its societal model at all costs? That is often the crux of the issue. We have differences of opinion on what integration should look like, on what society should look like. Quebec is open, but it also requires openness from those who want to integrate. We are not talking about openness to the point of forgetting oneself and melting into a homogeneous lump. No, that is not what we want at all. What we want is an openness to the fundamental values that form the bedrock of Quebec's society: equality between men and women, the separation of church and state, and French as the official language and as the common language. Some members of the House may not know this, but Quebec has a declaration that immigrants who want to settle there must agree to abide by. It reads as follows: Québec is a pluralist society that welcomes immigrants who come from the four corners of the earth with their know-how, skills, language, culture and religion. Québec provides services to immigrants to help them integrate and participate fully and completely in Québec society in order to meet the challenges of a modern society such as economic prosperity, the survival of the French fact and openness to the world. In return, immigrants must adapt to their living environment. All Quebecers, whether they are native-born or immigrants, have rights and responsibilities and can freely choose their lifestyle, opinions and religion; however, everyone must obey all laws no matter what their beliefs. The Québec state and its institutions are secular; political and religious powers are separate. All Quebecers enjoy rights and freedoms recognized by the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and other laws and have the responsibility of abiding by the values set forth in them. It then goes on to talk about common values. I named three of them earlier. The principal values set forth in this Charter, which are the foundation of Québec society, are as follows: Québec is a free and democratic society. Political and religious powers are separate in Québec. Québec is a pluralist society. Québec society is based on the rule of law. Women and men have the same rights. The exercise of human rights and freedoms must respect the rights and freedoms of others and the general well-being. Québec society is also governed by the Charter of the French language, which makes French the official language of Québec. Accordingly, French is the normal and usual language of work, instruction, communications, trade and business. These are important reminders that should be made as often as possible in the House, because we have noticed that people tend to forget. It is not us who forget them. We remember them all too well. It is no secret that the reason behind the resurgence of the current debate on the notwithstanding clause has a lot to do with Quebec's recent use of section 33 in the case of a bill that deals with the French language and state secularism. Public debate often comes back to the path Quebec has taken over the past 75 to 80 years. In fact, it was in the 1960s that the differences really started to be more strongly felt. The affirmation of Quebeckers, the affirmation of their values, is the desire to have their values and their vision of society recognized without embarrassment, without shame. We broke free from something. It was a long process, but we broke free. We wanted a secular society with religion on the sidelines, because the Catholic Church held sway over Quebec society for far too many decades. We wanted a society where the Church did not meddle in everything. I am a child of that generation. I studied in a religious school in the 1960s. I was an altar boy. We went to church every Sunday, sometimes more often, depending on my mother's mood, so I completely understand why Quebec society evolved the way it did, an evolution that led to the removal of religion from the affairs of the state. I am not talking about people rejecting religion. People have the right to practise their religion. In Quebec, everyone thinks that everyone has the right to believe in what they want, but these beliefs and religious convictions are practised in private. It is not something that is practised in any public services offered by the government. When we understand and clearly explain this evolution, we also understand Quebeckers' vigorous protection of the separation of church and state. The problem is that as the years go by, those who have witnessed this evolution are being heard less and less. Therefore, it is even more pertinent today not to fall into the trap of wedge politics. This seems to be the Prime Minister's approach. I will cite an example from yesterday, when we heard him say that the Bloc Québécois does not give a damn about francophones outside Quebec. How shockingly insulting. I will come back to Bill C‑11, the former Bill C‑10, a bill that the Bloc Québécois worked on with francophone associations across Canada, Acadians from New Brunswick and francophones outside Quebec across the country, to present with one voice the importance of promoting all of Canada's francophone culture in our broadcasting system. Hearing that yesterday was an unacceptable insult. Let us not fall into the trap of allowing ourselves to be divided. Avoiding that is the only way to build a society in which we can collaborate despite our differences. We certainly have differences. Regardless of the kind of society we develop over time, whether it is within a somewhat functional Canada or within an independent Quebec that will be a good partner and a good neighbour, we will have to learn to keep the lines of communication open, to talk to one another, understand one another and respect one another if we want to work in a productive and intelligent way. Failing that, it will be a constant battle. To hell with populist rhetoric, and to hell with misinformation. As I said, the notwithstanding clause, although not there to be used all the time, is an important tool for preserving Quebec's vision for a secular society and for preserving and protecting Quebec and its core values, values that may offend some people who might not understand Quebec's reality.

1539 words

All Topics

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/9/23 1:15:50 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the problem with the notwithstanding clause in recent years has been the pre-emptive use of it. I specifically think of the most recent example in Ontario where Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, used the notwithstanding clause to pre-emptively limit the ability for teachers to strike. Bloc members will come into the House and quite often talk about how they encourage and are great supporters of the labour movement and of unions specifically. Would the member from the Bloc support the use of the notwithstanding clause by the Quebec government if it were doing what Doug Ford had done, which was to limit the rights of teachers to collectively bargain? I hope the member can answer that rather than—

124 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/9/23 1:16:58 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member for Drummond.

5 words

Drummond

Mr. Martin Champoux

Feb/9/23 1:17:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will not comment on that specific matter. The fundamental issue is that it is up to the legislatures and to the Quebec National Assembly to determine the use of the notwithstanding clause. Later, if it needs to be contested, it can and will be. The right to invoke the notwithstanding clause also implies that we sometimes make mistakes, which is why the courts can get involved. As for the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, the 1988 Ford decision by the Supreme Court said that it could not be opposed. Honestly, the pre-emptive use is quite a bit cheaper for society than the obligation to defend or to challenge it using lawyers and thousands or millions of dollars to arrive at the same result.

129 words

Mr. Pierre Paul-Hus (Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, CPC)

Feb/9/23 1:17:56 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I agree with him on the vast majority of his speech. As Quebeckers, we all want what is best for Quebec, for our culture and for our way of being. On that note, I support him 100%. On the other hand, one thing is certain: If my colleagues want sovereignty, they should get elected to the Quebec National Assembly, because that is where it is going to happen, not here in Ottawa. My question is about Bill C‑11. The bill contains provisions to protect French, as well as francophone and Quebec culture, of course. What worries me is the effect of the bill on the control of information on platforms and the possibility that the federal government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will decide, as some countries do, to change the algorithms to prevent foreign content on our platforms. As a Quebecker, does my colleague not see this as a significant danger?

166 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan

Feb/9/23 1:19:01 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The member's question is completely unrelated to the debate at hand.

21 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/9/23 1:19:12 p.m.
Watch

I have to give the member some leeway, especially since reference was made earlier to Bill C‑11. The hon. member for Drummond.

24 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Feb/9/23 1:19:21 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-11

Madam Speaker, that is excellent. I was just about to say the same thing. I think that the question is a valid one, because I referred to Bill C-11 in my speech when talking about the differences in views between the rest of Canada and Quebec. In answer to the question from my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I would say that there have indeed been concerns about the possible manipulation of algorithms or their control over the web giants for rather nefarious purposes. However, that is not what Bill C-11 seeks to do. One way or another, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission needs to be able to see that the objectives are being met. The CRTC is not being given the power to control social media algorithms, which is something that I do not agree with. However, I do agree that the CRTC should take all possible and necessary steps to ensure that the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being met. That is the distinction, and perhaps we have different views on the way it is written. However, my colleague’s question is a legitimate one.

195 words

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 1:20:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, further to my Conservative colleague’s question and given that this is the second question that the Liberal government can ask, I wonder if the Bloc knows why the Conservatives do not want to get involved in this debate. I note that the Conservatives have not yet taken a position on the Bloc motion before us today. Perhaps my colleague can enlighten us.

66 words

Mr. Martin Champoux

Feb/9/23 1:21:08 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the short answer is no. The long answer is that I assume that the Conservatives have read the Bloc Québécois’s motion, that they think that it is simply common sense, and that they are waiting until the end of the day to come out in support of it.

56 words

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/9/23 1:21:28 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this topic today. I just want to take a few seconds at the beginning of my speech to send my best wishes to the families affected by the tragedy in Laval yesterday, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so in the House. My heart goes out to them. The motion today is much simpler than many parliamentarians seem to think. It is a reminder of how this provision is written and what function it has served for the last 40 years or so. It works. The intent of today's motion is not to change anything, it is to remind the government that there is only one part of the Constitution—which we are forced to live with—that we can rely on when we need to protect our uniqueness. I ask members not to fall into the ridiculous trap of asking me to recognize this Constitution today. Everyone already knows the answer. We are simply asking that this part, at least, be respected. That is what we are doing today. I am going to go back to a couple of comments that were made today. The member for Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles wonders why the Bloc is still here. It is because we are hard-working people and we do not give up on our cause. Of course, we would have liked it to take less time, but it has not happened yet. Until it is done, we need to be here to salvage what we can. We are doing an excellent job and we will keep doing it wther they like it or not. What I think is a little more outdated is Conservative populism. I would encourage them to come up with constructive solutions rather than sloganeering all day long. As for our colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Louis, who was referring to what a beautiful, great country Canada is, I could not agree more. It is a great country. However, I regret to inform him that it is not mine, and I will explain why. Today we are talking about the Constitution, which we have to live with even though the people of Quebec never agreed to it. Governments of Quebec never agreed to it. This is not a new thing. It has been going on for some time. I think this is yet another attempt to weaken Quebec and its ability to protect its social integrity, its unique society and its pursuit of true community, which is stronger than individualism. These are conflicting visions. If that is not the intention, I would like to hear it from government members. I would sure like to give a little history lesson so people here can see that every constitutional law ever passed was not approved by Quebec. Anytime such a law benefited Quebec a bit, it was only because people wanted to use us. In this Confederation, one government is dominating another, and that does not always work for us. Actually, it never works for us. It should not even be called a confederation. If it really were a confederation, we might have far fewer problems. The Constitution contains the notwithstanding clause, which allows us to pass reasonable laws collectively. Later on, I will share some examples of reasonable laws so my colleagues can see that this is of vital importance to Quebec, contrary to all the other anti-francophone laws that have been passed in Canada's history and to the federal government's determination to always block Quebec's emancipation. I would also like to remind the House that Quebec's relative weight within Canada is constantly—

623 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/9/23 1:25:41 p.m.
Watch

Order. I have to interrupt the member for a few seconds. Could we please make sure that there is no noise coming from the lobbies? The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

33 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 157