SoVote

Mar/1/22 10:57:19 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the hon. member for Hull—Aylmer for his speech. Since he is also my representative, that gives me an idea. I could transfer a few cases in my riding to him. We could join forces. I found several parts of my colleague’s speech very interesting, in particular the one in which he proposed having more babies. I would like him to know that, in Quebec, we experienced that with the “revanche des berceaux”, or revenge of the cradle: At one time, parish priests insisted that women who already had seven, eight or nine children have more. Quebec has done its part. It seems that my colleague is also confusing demographic weight and political weight. I would like to make a small clarification to the perception he appears to have of the motion put forward by my colleague, the leader of the Bloc Québécois and member for Beloeil—Chambly. We are not talking about Quebec as a province. We define Quebec as a nation. From this point of view, the motion put forward today by the Bloc Québécois is perfect just the way it is. Does my colleague from Hull—Aylmer recognize, as the House of Commons did on June 16, 2021, that Quebec is a nation whose only official and common language is French, a welcoming nation that wishes to accept more francophone immigrants and to facilitate the integration of these valuable future citizens? After he answers this, could he also explain why, although we want to open Quebec’s doors to francophone immigration, his government, through the Department of Immigration, discriminates almost systematically against francophone African students who wish, as my colleague himself would like, to settle in Quebec?

303 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 11:48:05 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his speech. It is clear that he has a great deal of love for Quebec and the Quebec nation. I heard him refer to a Quebec clause. I am the sponsor of a bill introduced by my party, Bill C-246, which also focuses on Quebec's political weight and proposes a nation provision that seeks to preserve, as the motion we are moving today in the House of Common does, Quebec's political weight within the Canadian federation until such time that Quebec takes a decision on its future. I would like to know whether my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has read Bill C-246, which I introduced a few weeks ago, and whether he recognizes the nation provision to be the same as the Quebec clause he proposes in his speech. I would also like to take this opportunity to ask him whether he will or will not approve and support the bill.

171 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:20:15 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise to congratulate my colleague from Saint-Jean for her brilliant speech. Based on the questions we have been hearing since this morning, some of our colleagues seem to have difficulty grasping the difference between Quebec's demographic weight and its political weight. I want to emphasize the fundamental difference. I would therefore like my colleague to elaborate on this point and on the significance that Quebec's political weight will have in future decisions, in particular with respect to protecting our cultural identity.

91 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 1:00:21 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am extremely disappointed with the tone taken by my colleague from Hochelaga today. I do not know what mood she was in when she read the Bloc Québécois motion. I do not see where she got the impression that it criticizes the work of the government or the work of the members from Quebec, regardless of political stripe. Nothing could be further from the truth. Members from Quebec of all political stripes should see this motion as an opportunity to work better for Quebec, to come up with the tools to continue to work better for Quebec, and to better represent its interests. We have plenty of opportunities to criticize what the government is doing, but I can assure the House that there is nothing of the sort in the motion that we have tabled today. I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the possibility of losing a seat here in the House of Commons and the real impact that this could have on Quebec’s political weight and on the work that members from Quebec, regardless of political stripe, can do for their constituents in the House of Commons.

206 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 1:05:16 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a deep breath before I start my speech. I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Manicouagan. Not too long ago, an anglophone journalist asked me whether Bill C-246, which I recently introduced and which would add a so-called Quebec nation clause to the Constitution, was just another frivolous request from Quebec. After a polite pause, she added that, according to some people, this was yet another temper tantrum by Quebeckers who refuse to embrace living in harmony the Canadian way. In response to these comments, all kinds of words came to my mind, words that common decency prevents us from using in this place, as we speak on behalf of our constituents. Although my constituents would not hold it against me if I let loose an avalanche of words that would enhance Quebec's chrestomathy for my many Canadian colleagues looking to learn the language of Leclerc and Vigneault, I will refrain from dipping into that vast inventory of words learned over decades spent in the shadows of chasubles and cassocks. I would rather take a step back. Once I stepped back and calmed down, I could see that the comments of this young journalist were not meant to be disrespectful of Quebec society but unfortunately reflected opinions and ideas that are widespread in the Canadian provinces. It is the fruit of decades of conscious and unconscious efforts to dampen the enthusiasm of the Quebec nation in its quest for autonomy and independence. I cannot really blame that young journalist for her comments, because she was born at a time when the narrative was already well entrenched. The seed had been planted and when the fruit is ripe, we do not think about how it grew. We are living in a time of intellectual laziness where people swallow everything they are served without asking too many questions. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these are rather sad times. What do we do about that? I think that we need to avoid confrontation and focus on education and awareness. We have to explain why Quebec is so focused on its uniqueness, its cultural differences and its different vision on so many issues. This rather reductive perception of the Quebec nation, its political and cultural heritage and its place in the history of this country is regrettable. We need not be surprised at this view and misunderstanding of Quebec, its historic weight and its resulting legitimate aspirations, because this is all built upon misperceptions throughout Canada's institutional and political evolution. We can go all the way back to the origins of Confederation in 1867 to better understand the place Quebec has within the Canadian federation. Again, Quebec is not a province. It is the product and the standard-bearer of one of the two distinct national communities at Canada's very origin. This dualism that people would like to forget or reduce to so little is in fact the foundation of the institutions that we are part of today. Over the past 40 years, almost all of Quebec's aspirations and claims within the Canadian federation have been rejected. After that night in 1982, when all of Quebec was betrayed, all attempts to remedy this situation have failed. Sometimes, these attempts have been symbolic, other times they have been mere administrative accommodations. There are numerous examples. Does all this make the quest to affirm the autonomy of the Quebec people less legitimate? No, because, I would point out, Quebec is more than just a province. Quebec is a nation. That was officially recognized in this place in 2006, as my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount said earlier. Furthermore, as was reaffirmed not that long ago, in June 2021, Quebec is a nation whose only official and common language is French. It is the only one on the North American continent. Our responsibility, as difficult as it may be, is to continue the discussion and the ongoing exchanges unabated, without partisanship, to ensure the message is heard and to have Quebec recognized for what it is. Consequently, the Quebec nation must be much more than just a symbol. Its recognition must be embodied in concrete actions and provisions that go well beyond declarations and intentions. This is what we will have the opportunity to do in a few weeks when we debate Bill C-246, which I mentioned in my opening comments. And that is what we are doing today as well, as a preamble, by debating this motion, which was moved this morning by my leader and colleague, the member for Belœil—Chambly. At the beginning of the Quiet Revolution, Quebec accounted for nearly 30% of the Canadian population. Today, roughly speaking, it accounts for 23%, and this is not getting any better. Indeed, Quebec and Canada must make efforts to correct this trend, and this work must focus on immigration. There is talk of wanting to increase immigration levels. Quebec has its own vision. We want to be able to welcome immigration to Quebec in a coherent and intelligent way. We can say that welcoming 100,000 newcomers is unrealistic if we want to welcome them properly. It is up to Quebec to determine the appropriate number or rate for its immigration capacity. That said, we are also relying on the federal government to not hinder immigration to Quebec. For example, as my colleague from Saint-Jean mentioned earlier, the treatment of student visa applicants from French-speaking Africa and the way they are discriminated against are very concerning. When Quebec declines, French declines. The presence of French in Parliament declines. I say that with the utmost respect and consideration for francophone communities across Canada, who, like Quebec, are fighting every day for the survival of their language and recognition of their language rights within the Canadian federation. It has been recognized that the Quebec nation is one of the two founding peoples. Well, that reality must push us to take action to preserve the French fact, to maintain the Quebec nation's influence here in the House of Commons and around the world. Canada prides itself on having two official languages and we like to say that they are English and simultaneous translation, but we must recognize that French is one as well. The motion we tabled today is intended to protect Quebec's identity, to protect Quebec's political influence, to ensure that Quebec continues to be represented as a nation, here in the House of Comments and within Canadian institutions as long as Quebec does not decide to stand on its own.

1121 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Martin Champoux

Mar/1/22 1:14:56 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North because he mentioned Bill C-11 on broadcasting, which I obviously care a lot about. Today's motion and Bill C-246, which I think are somewhat related because they are similar in purpose, do not criticize the government's work or the intentions and work of members from other parts of Canada. Yes, there are some good provisions in Bill C-11 to protect the discoverability, the showcasing and the presence of francophone content but also content from various communities, such as first nations communities, francophone communities outside Quebec and minority language communities. There are a lot of good things in that bill. In any case, it is what we expect from a government. We expect a government to create laws and regulations for the country as a whole, not just for certain parts of the country. This motion is not criticizing the Liberal government or its work, rather, it is a way of ensuring that Quebec maintains the political weight it deserves as a nation in the coming decades, in the future.

189 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Martin Champoux

Mar/1/22 1:17:30 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I enjoy working with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meetings. I have two answers to my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby's question. The first thing I would say is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It is pretty incredible, but we can. In his speech this morning, my leader said there would never be a right time. If we wait, there will always be something else. I think there is never a bad time to put this issue on the table. The other thing I want to do is thank my colleague for his advice on the Bloc Québécois's agenda. We can actually make our own decisions, and we will continue to do so. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his suggestions.

143 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Mar/1/22 1:56:12 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I finally get it. I have been listening to my Liberal colleagues react to our speeches and making speeches since this morning. They are wilfully blind. They read the motion, they understand the motion, but they are twisting the meaning of the motion to—

47 words

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Martin Champoux

Mar/1/22 1:56:39 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I was saying that the Liberals are wilfully blind. They know it, and they understand the motion. They know that this has nothing to do with the very legitimate process of an independent organization redrawing the electoral map based on demographics and demographic changes. We understand all that. I believe that I am creating a new term. First there was the infamous “mansplaining”, and now we have “Liberalsplaining”. We understand all that. That is not the issue. The motion we are moving today speaks to the political weight of Quebec as a nation. That is something the House of Commons can legitimately address. Does my colleague recognize that the House of Commons has the authority to establish that Quebec could systematically have 25% of the seats in the House of Commons through legislation?

139 words