SoVote

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Mar/1/22 10:37:47 a.m.
Watch

Order. I would ask members to be quiet while the hon. member is giving his speech.

16 words

Ms. Andréanne Larouche (Shefford, BQ)

Mar/1/22 12:34:01 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Jonquière for his passionate and fascinating speech. I will not be making any comments about his weight. He talked a lot about the importance of nationalism and the fact that it should not be seen as looking inward. I would also like to hear him talk about the fact that we are here for one thing. Nationalism is fine, but until independence has been achieved, and until we are a country, we have a vested interest in being here to defend our interests. Nationalism is one step, it protects us, but it leads us to something much greater for the Quebec nation.

112 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. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:00:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like him to comment on the statements we heard from members opposite. Some are accusing us of quoting sections of the Constitution and, at the same time, saying that we did not sign it. That is an ethical issue. I would like my colleague to explain the work we are doing today.

64 words

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

Ms. Pam Damoff (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Safety, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 6:38:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member, although the question he asked me was not the question that I was given to respond to. Just before I do respond with the speech that I was given, I would just say that COVID is not listening to Parliament. COVID is not listening to politicians. We talk about providing a plan. Two years ago, almost to the day, we were hit with a pandemic that none of us ever expected to see. I am very proud of how our government has responded. I was really proud, at the beginning of the pandemic, of how all the parties came together in March 2020. I remember a press conference in which all parties were saying that we needed to pull together. That changed over the months, unfortunately. I wish that in March 2020, somebody could have said, “Okay, in two weeks time, this is what is going to happen,” but none of us knew. None of us expected it. The member said that the government needs to say what the plan is. We have never been able to say that, because we do not know what the virus is going to do. I think we have acted responsibly. We have always had the health and safety of Canadians at the heart of every decision we have made. That is the most important thing that we can do. It is important that the opposition work with us. It is important that we work together. We are always open to hearing constructive ideas from the opposition, from all parties in the House and from all members of the House as to the best way forward. I do not know how much time I have left, but I was of the understanding that the question was going to be about the implementation of the Emergencies Act. I would like to just touch on part of that, only because I think it is important to highlight the importance of our national unity and the leadership of the government. Canadians are looking for the country to come together. They are looking for all of us to listen to each other in a respectful way. Over the last few months, we seem to have lost the ability to disagree agreeably. I do not say that about the hon. member, who in my experience has always had the ability to disagree agreeably, and I appreciate that. I know that our government appreciates those who come to these really difficult issues in ways that are constructive. Unfortunately, the rhetoric and the misinformation created, in our peaceful country, peaceful protests that turned into an occupation. That turned into convoys that were blocking trade in my community of Oakville North—Burlington. We saw Ford of Canada with layoffs. We moved away from having those dialogues. The conversation is important, but it is unrealistic to say that we could present a plan for something that would not be listening to anything we said.

501 words