44th Parl. 1st Sess.
March 1, 2022 10:00AM
- Mar/1/22 10:16:40 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am someone with a very strong passion for the distinct nature of the province of Quebec and an ancestral heritage that comes from the province of Quebec. My question for the leader is from something he made reference to. He is wearing a ribbon on his lapel for what is happening in Ukraine today and in a show of solidarity with the world. I am wondering, given all the things in the world today, why at the very first opportunity for Bloc members to have an opposition day, they would not attempt to address those types of issues. The member made reference to it in his comments and I am wondering if he could expand on why he felt this was the most important thing on the agenda for the Bloc.
134 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 10:18:42 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I recall sitting in the House about a year ago when the leader of the Bloc Québécois stated that oil is dead. As we have seen in the last few days, it is obvious that the member was wrong. It is a situation where we have seen the oil and gas sector become a major contributor again to the Canadian economy, which will help health transfer payments to the Province of Quebec.
I wonder if the leader of the Bloc Québécois would go on record admitting that he was wrong when he said oil is dead. Oil is actually going to help what the member is looking for, which is more federal health transfers to the Province of Quebec, and this ties into exactly what he is asking for today.
140 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 10:21:31 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, despite the temptation, I always avoid rewriting history.
I will avoid rewriting history by going back to 2011, and I will say instead that I understand that the NDP will support the Bloc Québécois today, and that I imagine the NDP will also support my party's bill when we introduce it.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 11:03:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have great respect for my friend from Beauport—Limoilou, but I would like to ask her a question.
I imagine she was always a great supporter of the Bloc Québécois, which was founded in 1990. How did she vote in the 1992 referendum? What was the Bloc’s official position on that referendum?
I myself voted “yes” in the referendum, but I am certain that many of the members of the Bloc urged Quebeckers to vote “no”. There needs to be a little consistency between the positions adopted in 1992 and those adopted today.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 12:19:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois prefers not to interfere in the business of others. We are here to represent Quebec's interests. If rural areas want to have this debate and submit a proposal, they should present their arguments and we will debate them. However, I do not believe that is the role of Bloc Québécois members.
65 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 12:48:47 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his very detailed, educational and informative speech. Unfortunately, I will only speak to the final comments because I cannot summarize all of it.
What stood out for me was the notion of effective representation. In that regard, does my colleague believe that, with its motion, the Bloc Québécois is right in wanting to maintain Quebec's weight, its weight as a nation, within Canada?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 1:28:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, who did a great job explaining certain points, even though I disagree with her.
She said that Quebec should be a country, or at least I think that is what I heard. We are in the House of Commons, in Ottawa, and we are talking about Quebec's representation within Canadian democracy.
I will be an ally to my colleague in ensuring that Quebec is well represented in the House. However, if we are going to move forward, I would like her to confirm that the Bloc Québécois will be satisfied by having Quebec well represented in the House and in Parliament.
112 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 1:32:04 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Shefford for her question.
I am disappointed to hear that anyone would try to minimize the impact of the Bloc Québécois's actions or accuse us of picking a fight. I think that is intellectually dishonest. I could make an analogy here, but like any analogy, it may be murky or flawed. Still, Ukraine is not picking a fight right now.
We want to stand up for our nation, our people, our values, our self-government and our integrity, and I think that is legitimate. It is legitimate for others, and it is legitimate for Quebec. Standing up for one's rights is not picking a fight.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 1:43:57 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I suspect if they were to read what the leader of the Bloc Party had to say and the preamble to the question the member asked, they too would recognize that their priorities might be a little out of place. In both cases, they referenced what is happening at the international level.
Regarding the motion at hand, the member is going to find out exactly what I will do in good time. At the end of the day, there will be a vote. I can assure the member that, even though I am not a member of the Quebec legislature, I am someone who respects the needs of all communities, particularly those of the province of Quebec. I will always be an advocate for Quebec.
127 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 1:47:24 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, it is just a personal opinion. If I were in opposition and did not want to dabble in the international crisis, I would be talking about issues such as health care transfers, the environment or housing.
It is my personal opinion the the Bloc and opposition parties will do what the Bloc and opposition parties will do. However, I suspect if the Bloc were to canvass its constituents, this might not necessarily be the primary issue they want it to deal with, given that it also has a private member's bill that will be debated on the very same issue.
103 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 1:58:11 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
The member spoke a great deal about the mechanics of the process, so I would like to know what position she is taking as an MP from Quebec and a member of the Quebec nation. Simply put, will she vote in favour of the Bloc Québécois motion?
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 3:27:26 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot that my youngest daughter was born in Montreal.
I thank him for speaking about representation for Canadians and for those in Quebec, and I want to ask him if the Bloc agrees that the first-past-the-post system is no longer serving all people.
58 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 3:38:41 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
This is a very important topic. I will ask my question in English to ensure I choose the right words.
I am not against the principle of trying to protect francophone culture and language. The fact that I have tried to use the French language is indicative of that. However, what I take issue with regarding the Bloc Québécois, recognizing that they are sovereigntists in the House and do not necessarily want to sit here in Ottawa, is the idea that Quebec does not have influence within the federation. Whether we look at the cabinet of the government on this side or we look at future leaders who try to become Prime Minister in this country, members have to have a propensity in French and they have to have an ability to resonate in Quebec.
The member talked about rural members. I am not against adding and keeping 78 seats, by the way, in Quebec, notwithstanding that there has been a loss of seats in other provinces. However, by pushing for proportionality, she is making the argument that rurality does not matter outside of Quebec, that MPs like me would have to have larger ridings and that my representation would not be the same because she believes that Quebec should be absolutely proportionate and the same proportionality cannot exist elsewhere.
Can she provide some remarks on that for me?
242 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 4:13:38 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, before I get started, I would like to say that I will be sharing my time with my colleague from La Pointe-de-l'Île. Clearly I am a generous man, because 10 minutes is not a lot of time.
I am pleased to address the House today in support of the Bloc Québécois motion.
The Bloc's motion states one very simple principle: when the electoral map is redrawn, Quebec's political weight must not be reduced.
My colleagues opposite told us we had nothing to worry about because the number of MPs from Quebec would stay the same. However, if more seats are added elsewhere, the effect will be the same. This is about a percentage of voices, which has been in freefall since the dawn of the Canadian federation.
Some members of the House do not understand our approach or what we want. I heard some exasperation earlier. One person said they were sick of listening to Quebec's demands.
What is strange is that, last week or the week before—not long ago, anyway—the House voted unanimously in favour of a motion to amend a Constitutional provision for Saskatchewan. I pointed this out to members several times throughout the day, saying that I did not understand why they did not care about Quebec's status as much. If any of them are wondering why Quebec makes so many demands, the answer is because there is no recognition in this federation.
When it comes to the federation, most MPs from other parties are hoping to convince us it will one day be ours too. Have they ever asked themselves why we do not feel at home in this federation? It is because there is no recognition, and that brings me to the ultimate goal, which has been there since the beginning.
I would have liked to give a history lesson, but I see that in two minutes I have talked about a lot of things that are not in my notes, so I will refrain.
The ultimate goal has existed since the conquest. Some will argue that I am going way back in time, but Quebeckers are a resilient, fighting people who have been struggling against assimilation since that time. Many circumstances throughout history could have led to their disappearance, but they resist. Why do they do it? It is because they are prepared to stand in a parliamentary chamber, speak for their nation and explain to their colleagues, in a friendly manner and will all due respect, that they will at least try to recognize the relative weight of the founding nation.
I am not going to tell an obscure story, and this will take me directly to the year 1867, which is of course the year of Canadian Confederation. I would remind members that the previous Constitution was from 1840, that is, the Act of Union, which followed the Patriotes' rebellion and the Durham Report. The specific objective was to eliminate the French fact in Quebec. That was clear.
In 1867, Canada was formed and there were four provinces. At the time, we represented 36% of the population, and I believe that our ancestors were sucked into the illusion of two founding peoples. If we look at who still talks about two founding peoples in this country today, we will find the 35 Liberals from Quebec, but apart from them, there are not a lot of people talking about it. There is more talk about multiculturalism and the fact that there are other minorities.
Coming back to the problem, I will take the example of unanimous motions from the National Assembly of Quebec. How many times have its unanimous motions not been respected by this Parliament? To those who will respond by saying that the Quebec nation has its government in Quebec City, I would retort that I hope that it will be fully governed out of Quebec City one day. Naturally, I think it will, as do my Bloc colleagues.
For now, unfortunately, Quebec's parliament is under the dominion of another Parliament, the one we are in today. If there is no decent representation of Quebec, the voice will not carry. I would go even further: If there is no decent political party whose mission is to stand up for the interests of Quebec, then the voice will not be very loud.
Members only need to consider the number of debates on either language or culture that took place between 2011 and 2019. I would like those who enjoy mathematics to do the math just for the fun of it. I am not referring to the number of debates on Quebec culture, our language, our place, and respect for our laws from 2019 to 2022. Some will take up the challenge.
I am getting off topic. To those who wonder why we are here to debate language, I would say the following. In 1871, a law prohibited French-language instruction in New Brunswick. In 1877, the same thing happened on Prince Edward Island. In 1890, Manitoba eliminated French schools. I remind members that Manitoba was originally created as a province for French-speaking Métis people. In 1892 and 1901, laws were enacted in the Northwest Territories to block French education. In 1905, Alberta and Saskatchewan were created as English-speaking provinces, despite having originally been developed and explored by francophones. In 1912, Ontario issued Regulation 17, which was in effect until 1944 and caused untold damage to the Franco-Ontarian community. In 1916, it was Manitoba's turn, and in 1932, it was Saskatchewan's. In 2018, Ontario legislation thwarted the creation of a French-language university in Ontario.
All of this to say that the French fact and the Quebec nation must be represented, and this representation must be significant. Our voice needs to have an impact. We are already in the minority. There is no need to worry; we are not looking to take over the federal Parliament. We want to ensure that our voice will continue to be heard. I have a question for those who say that we complain all the time and are always asking for something.
What have they done since 1995? What have they done after all of those emotional speeches, all those promises? Absolutely nothing has been done. Quebec has had no recognition.
My colleagues can shake their heads, but we did not sign in 1982. That is what is happening. Now we are called whiners when we ask for something. Whether members like it or not, I should point out that 25% of the seats in Parliament for the founding people is a bare minimum. I mentioned 1995, but I could go back to the previous referendum in 1992, on the Charlottetown accord. Quebec refused to sign the accord because it did not think the conditions were enough, since there were other clauses. English Canada also refused to sign because they thought the accord gave too much. That right there is Canada in a nutshell.
Being a nation means having the right to develop ourselves. As long as the Quebec Parliament is subject to the good will of the Canadian Parliament, it is vital that Quebec maintain a minimum weight in the House. We are here to maintain that. My colleagues will not be surprised to hear me say that I sincerely hope that Quebec will once again take matters into its own hands and ask itself the question again, and obviously I hope that the answer will be yes. When we do not control all of the political decisions and taxes, we cannot control the destiny of our nation. That is the issue.
I look forward to my colleagues' questions. I hope they will not be aggressive, but I am prepared to deal with the substance of the issues, to get to the bottom of things, and I would like my colleagues to understand that this motion is not against anyone. We are working for our people. We are working for the survival of our language and culture.
I made a list earlier of the laws that show that things do not work like that outside Quebec. For these last 10 seconds, I would invite my colleagues to really think about this and not simply vote against the motion because they do not want to give Quebec anything, as usual. Let us remember what we did for Saskatchewan a few weeks ago.
1423 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 4:23:40 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I must admit the Bloc members are being somewhat transparent about wanting to see Quebec separate from Canada. I am not really hearing as much justification in their arguments as I would like to have heard, but one of the biggest problems I have is that I believe they have an alternative motive, and they are very clear on that.
We get the same sorts of presentations from other jurisdictions on other concerns that they have. This one happens to be inside the House. Why should we give the Bloc any credibility on the issue? The simple reason is that it is politically motivated. It is order to ultimately see Quebec become a separate nation. That is the motivation for the Bloc.
Personally, I believe we live in the best country in the world, and Quebec is a part—
142 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Mar/1/22 5:04:47 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I apologize, but I am going to ask my question in English to make sure I word it correctly.
I am interested in why the Bloc will not take up the idea of actually capping the number of seats in the House of Commons. They are constitutionally protected in Quebec to have 75 seats in the House. If the Bloc were to suggest that 338 is where we should leave the number of representatives in the House, that would mean that Quebec would be ultimately constitutionally protected to have 22% representation.
Why are they choosing to move in this fashion? I understand they are sovereigntists, but why are we not moving in a fashion to say this is another way of capping the number of MPs in the House and still allowing Quebec to have strong representation that would be guaranteed?
143 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
