Bill C-505 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec)

This enactment provides that the Government of Canada’s multiculturalism policy does not apply in Quebec.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Wayne Marston, NDP, Hamilton East—Stoney Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to the bill by the member for Joliette which proposes in part that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec.

Before I speak directly to the bill, I want to point out to the members of the House that the NDP has already worked in the interest of Quebeckers in a number of areas. We did so when we showed support for the recognition of Quebec as a nation. We in the NDP have supported better protection for francophone workers. We have proposed bills that included asymmetry on child care and education.

In addition to our own initiatives, the NDP has supported bills by the Bloc in the past, but we believe Bill C-505 proposes to make changes that have broad implications for Quebec that Quebeckers themselves would question. On this one we think the Bloc's proposition goes too far and as a result, our members will not be supporting this bill.

Often in this House the Bloc members suggest that they alone can represent the interests and aspirations of Quebeckers, but we do not think that is true. For instance the NDP believes that in order to build on the distinctiveness of Quebec, we do not need to tear down the positive effects of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

Canada was the first country in the world to pass a national multiculturalism law. I would submit that the province of Quebec and many of its communities have benefited in a significant way from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act of 1988. The act acknowledges multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society with an integral role in the decision making process of the federal government.

It was directed toward the preservation and enhancement of multiculturalism in Canada. The Canadian Multiculturalism Act sought to assist in the preservation of culture and language, which would include the French language and the French culture. The act also sought to reduce discrimination, to enhance cultural awareness and understanding, and to promote culturally sensitive institutional change at the federal level that was required at the time and continues to be.

I believe that the very nature of the act works in the interest of all Quebeckers and all Canadians. The act states that it will work to: encourage and assist the business community, labour organizations, voluntary and other private organizations, as well as public institutions, in ensuring full participation in Canadian society, including the social and economic aspects of individuals of all origins and their communities, and in promoting respect and appreciation for the multicultural reality of Canada; and provide support to individuals and groups or organizations for the purpose of preserving, enhancing and promoting multiculturalism in Canada; and undertake such other projects or programs in respect of multiculturalism, not by law assigned to any other federal institution, as are designed to promote the multiculturalism policy of Canada.

As I alluded to earlier, many multicultural groups and municipalities in Quebec, including the city of Montreal, receive funding for certain cultural events and programs which is provided by Canadian heritage under its multiculturalism program.

By passing the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, Canada became the first country in the world to pass a national multiculturalism law clearly reaffirming multiculturalism as a fundamental value of Canadian society.

Today if we ask Canadians to describe Canada, 85% describe Canada as being a multicultural society. For many Canadians, multiculturalism refers to the presence and persistence of diverse racial and ethnic minorities who define themselves as different and who wish to remain so, their own nation, so to speak.

Ideologically multiculturalism consists of a relatively coherent set of ideas and ideals pertaining to the celebration of Canada's cultural diversity.

Multiculturalism at the policy level is structured around the management of diversity through formal initiatives in the federal, provincial and municipal domains.

Finally, multiculturalism is the process by which racial and ethnic minorities compete to obtain support from central authorities for the achievement of certain goals and aspirations. Canada's cultural diversity is manifest at the level of ethnic and immigrant composition.

At this point, I would reiterate that the new multiculturalism policy, which came into effect in 1988, offered a clearer sense of purpose and direction. The act acknowledged multiculturalism as a fundamental characteristic of Canadian society with an integral role in the decision making process of the federal government.

In seeking a balance between cultural distinctiveness and equality, the act specified the right of all to identify with the cultural heritage of their choice, yet retain full and equitable participation in all aspects of Canadian society.

In effect, the act sought to preserve, enhance and incorporate cultural differences into the functioning of Canadian society, while ensuring equal access and full participation for all Canadians in the social, political and economic spheres.

A crucially important focus of the act was on the eradication of racism and removal of discriminatory barriers as being incompatible with Canada's commitment to human rights. I would suggest that multiculturalism serves as a positive instrument for change.

I understand that some Quebeckers have expressed unease about the federal multiculturalism policy since its inception, but I would say that the efforts of Quebec to protect and promote its language and culture are not contradictory with multiculturalism.

We in the NDP do not see the relationship between Quebec and Canada being win-lose situations all the time like the Bloc seems to. We like to think in terms of creating win-win situations. We salute Quebec's effort in many regards, but that does not mean we have to throw out the law on multiculturalism.

It is important for those involved in this debate, no matter which side they come from, to realize that there is still a special contract between the two founding nations of Canada. That contract is intact but challenged from time to time in this rapidly changing world.

Some critics hold the opinion that the multiculturalism policy has promoted too much diversity in recent years because it emphasizes the differences of Canadians rather than the values of Quebeckers and Canadians. On the other hand, defenders of Canada's multiculturalism argue that it encourages integration by telling immigrants they do not have to choose between preserving their cultural heritage and participating in Canadian society. Rather, they can do both. Also, many have come to the conclusion that ultimately our multiculturalism policy has actually helped integration.

There is so much more that can be said in defence of the value of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, but I am sure other points will arise in the course of this debate.

I will close by saying that when it comes to preserving their language and culture, the NDP supports the aspirations of Quebeckers. We in the NDP view the Canadian Multiculturalism Act as an important tool that is not in contradiction with those aspirations.

The House resumed consideration of the motion that Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[Irwin Cotler, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise in this House today to participate in the debate on Bill C-505 from the Bloc Québécois, which I, and the official opposition multiculturalism critic, the member for Brampton West, both oppose.

I have a lot of respect for the work done by Bloc members on human rights issues, but I think Canada's multiculturalism policy should remain a policy that protects human rights—particularly the right to equality and the right to be protected against discrimination—a policy that promotes and protects both diversity and the uniqueness of Quebec, and that is enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We must appreciate the transformative impact the charter has had, and that it has enabled us to change from a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional democracy, where individuals and groups, including those in Quebec, have access to a panoply of rights and remedies that were not available before.

The transformative impact of the charter is not limited to the effects of the provision providing for equality before and under the law—“equal protection and equal benefit of the law ”—; the charter also provides for the preservation of cultural heritage. Section 27 states:

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

This includes Quebeckers.

It is not just that this principle is indivisible, but it is an important part of a celebration of equality and diversity as parts of the same general charter. This makes me wonder how in Quebec—and I do this myself as a Quebecker—we can invoke the charter, as we should, to protect legal and equality rights, but at the same time, declare that we want to invalidate the meaning and application of the multiculturalism principles and policies within the province of Quebec? The charter also effectively protects the values of Quebec.

In fact, I have several questions about the content of the Bloc proposal. Why would the Bloc object to—and want to invalidate—the application of a policy intended to “promote the full and equitable participation of individuals and communities of all origins in the continuing evolution...and assist them in the elimination of any barrier to such participation” and “ensure that all individuals receive equal treatment and equal protection under the law, while respecting and valuing their diversity”? Is that not part of Quebec's values?

Why would the Bloc want to invalidate the application of a policy intended to “promote the understanding and creativity that arise from the interaction between individuals and communities of different origins”? Is that not part of Quebec's values?

Why would the Bloc want to invalidate the application in Quebec of a policy, in fact, a basic principle, to “recognize the existence of communities whose members share a common origin and their historic contribution to Canadian society, and enhance their development”? Is that not part of Quebec's values?

Why would the Bloc want to invalidate the application in Quebec of a policy intended to “strengthen the status and use of the official languages”? Does the Bloc really want to eliminate the application in Quebec of a law designed to “preserve and enhance” the official languages, including French?

In short, the Bloc Québécois bill does not take into account the fact that multiculturalism is an integral part of the charter, in general, and also an integral part of promoting and protecting the principle of equality, in particular, as well as a basic value in Quebec and a fundamental characteristic of Quebec society.

In 1993, when the Bloc formed the official opposition, the Bloc members did not oppose the amendments to the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, when the act was amended to recognize the creation of the territory of Nunavut. Why did the Bloc vote to broaden the application of this act to Nunavut when today it does not want the act to apply to Quebec?

It seems to me that the real reason the Bloc is opposed to the multiculturalism policy, which carries with it the right to equality, is that it is opposed to federalism. The Bloc will therefore not support the concept of a Quebec nation within Canada, as I do, but only the concept of a Quebec nation outside Canada.

In conclusion, equality, multiculturalism, diversity, uniqueness and the uniqueness of a distinct Quebec society are concepts that can coexist in harmony. It is important to understand why the Bloc introduced this bill today. Although the House adopted a motion saying that Quebeckers form a nation, the Bloc does not like the words that come after that statement, the words “within Canada”.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that gives me an opportunity to quote the excerpt that I know by heart but did not have time to quote earlier, from the submission that the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec presented to the Bouchard-Taylor commission. It said:

Today, the programs and practices of the secretariat of multiculturalism and Canadian identity do not encourage separate development and activities based on single-ethnicity groups.

That was the case under Pierre Elliott Trudeau. But once again, as we all know, people in Canada are starting to ask questions about developing common ground to achieve the social cohesion that any society requires. The board's submission goes on to say:

However, the ideological way of thinking that emerged in the 1970s, which presented society as a mosaic of cultures, has since been encouraging certain groups to develop beliefs that clash with Quebec's vision.

We must be very clear about this. I mentioned it earlier. The Quebec model is in place, interculturalism is in place, but the federal government's ideological vision of multiculturalism is an obstacle to integration and we have to put an end to the confusion. I suggest we do so by adopting Bill C-505.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved that Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec), be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, obviously, I am very pleased to introduce Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec) today. Before explaining the implications of this bill, I would like to read the amendment that this bill seeks to make to the preamble of the act. This amendment is in the text of Bill C-505.

AND WHEREAS Quebeckers form a nation and must therefore possess all the tools needed to define their identity and protect their common values, particularly as regards the protection of the French language, the separation of church and state, and gender equality;

We believe that this preamble must be used to interpret the following amendment:

Section 3 of the Act is amended by adding the following after subsection (2):

(3) The Government of Canada’s multiculturalism policy does not apply in Quebec.

This is what is being brought forward in this House by the Bloc Québécois. As I have mentioned a few times, this bill is part of a series of proposals made by the Bloc Québécois. During last Tuesday's opposition day, we urged the government to take concrete action to give effect to the recognition of the Quebec nation. In addition, my colleague from Drummond tabled Bill C-482 to make French the language of work for employees of firms under federal jurisdiction.

Our caucus is working on other bills to provide some substance with respect to recognition of the Quebec nation, as the member for Jonquière—Alma was saying. More specifically, the bill we are presently debating would require the federal government to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act.

As I was saying, this bill recommends that action be taken because everyone now recognizes, at least in theory, the national character of Quebec. Now that we have recognized the nation of Quebec, we must take concrete action accordingly. Bill C-505 does just that by allowing Quebec to apply, in its territory, within its nation, its own model of integration for new arrivals and to be exempted from the Canadian model, or Canadian multiculturalism, which is derived from British multiculturalism.

I would like to point out that the Quebec nation is a reality that has been recognized in Quebec for a very long time, by the federalists as well as the Quebec sovereigntists. It is a reality for which there is consensus. We did not have to wait for it to be recognized by this House of Commons for it to be a reality that was felt, lived and recognized by Quebeckers. On October 30, 2003, the Quebec National Assembly unanimously adopted the following motion:

That the National Assembly reaffirm that the people of Quebec form a nation.

I would like to draw the attention of my colleagues to the fact that the motion does not say that Quebeckers form a nation if the rest of Canada remains as is. We are not subject to the constitutional forms that the Canadian nation might decide to adopt. Nor does the motion say that Quebec is a nation if it opts for sovereignty. This motion says that Quebeckers form a nation. Period.

Under the terms of the motion that was adopted by this House, the same attitude should guide parliamentarians here. It is no coincidence that the National Assembly of Quebec specified, in the motion I read earlier, that is was reaffirming that the people of Quebec form a nation. For at least 40 years now, if not 50, the premiers of Quebec, regardless of political stripe, have reaffirmed that the people of Quebec form a nation.

I will go ahead and quote Jean Lesage, who said in November 1963:

Quebec did not defend provincial autonomy simply for the principle of it, but because, for Quebec, autonomy was the specific condition not for its survival, which is assured, but for its affirmation as a people [and a nation].

That was in 1963.

I could also talk about Daniel Johnson Sr., who also said a number of times that Quebeckers form a nation. According to him, if Quebec were unable to find equality within Canada, then it had the choice of opting for national independence.

René Lévesque said in June 1980, that “Canada is composed of two equal nations; Quebec is the home and the heart of one of those nations and, as it possesses all the attributes of a distinct national community, it has an inalienable right to self-determination... [This right to control its own national destiny] is the most fundamental right that Quebec society has”. That was in June 1980.

I could also talk about Jacques Parizeau and Robert Bourassa, but I want to close on one last quote from October 1999, by Lucien Bouchard, who sat in this House, as hon. members know. He said, “The Quebec people adhere to the democratic concept of a nation characterized by its language, French, and a diverse culture, and which is broadly open to international immigration—”. We have here undeniable proof that Quebeckers form a nation and that this has been a consensus in Quebec for an extremely long time.

As mentioned in the last quote from Lucien Bouchard, taken from the time when he was at the helm in Quebec, the Quebec nation is open to international immigration but not to the kind of integration practised in Canada, which is to say, multiculturalism. This point arises among all those who criticize Canadian multiculturalism and commend the Quebec model, because there really is a Quebec model.

There is nothing new, therefore, in Bill C-505 regarding Quebec. The model already exists. It is slowly taking hold, despite the confusion sown by the existence of this other multicultural model. The Government of Quebec just announced last week some more investments to further its method of integrating immigrants. It is a model that could be called interculturalism. This method of integrating newcomers requires everyone, whether already in Quebec or just arriving, to respect the shared values of Quebec society as a whole. These include secular public institutions and the equality of men and women. The Quebec model also requires all citizens to have a knowledge of French, which is the common public language.

This is a very important point because if we do not have a common public language, it is impossible to have a democratic debate and the kind of public discussions that enable a society to progress. It only creates cacophony. This is done with the utmost respect for the anglophone national minority in Quebec, whose institutions have been protected for a great many years.

People will say, of course, that there are two official languages in Canada. But that is the problem. In Quebec, there is only one official language and that is French. In actual fact, of course, we know that there is really only one public language in Canada too and that is English. This problem sows confusion in Quebec, though, and hinders the francization of immigrants.

The requirement that all Quebeckers respect our common values and learn the common language of French, at least to some extent, in order to take part in the public debate is offset by our recognition of cultural pluralism. Cultural pluralism refers to the contributions made by everyone all over Quebec to help enrich our common culture. This Quebec model can be found in other countries as well and has become a source of inspiration for them.

The idea of Canadian multiculturalism is the exact opposite. It rejects all notions of common values and culture. In fact, the idea of multiculturalism promotes a society of multiple solitudes. Each newcomer, each immigrant keeps his or her language, culture and customs and is protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Quebec, I would remind you, we have the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

Instead of using Quebec's model and promoting one culture, one language and certain common values in public life, it promotes the coexistence of multiple cultures. This idea of multiculturalism has always been rejected by Quebec. I will come back to that.

To demonstrate that multiculturalism is as I have just said, allow me to quote a document from Citizenship and Immigration Canada titled “A Newcomer’s Introduction to Canada”. It is a general reference for newcomers that is available on the department's website. I am reading from page 31:

Canada is populated by people who have come from every part of the world. Through the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, the government encourages Canadians to take pride in their language, religion and heritage and to keep their customs and traditions, as long as they don’t break Canadian laws.

This quotation from Citizenship and Immigration Canada is the best illustration of multiculturalism and of what is rejected by Quebec.

I would also like to say there is some uneasiness within the Canadian nation concerning multiculturalism. I would like to draw the attention of the House to a letter written by Carol Dunn, published in today's National Post on page A17, in which she says that her 16-year-old son, who attends a Toronto high school, is often asked where he is from. He has learned to answer, “Scotland and England”, because when he says he is “Canadian”, he is told there is no such thing. I draw the House's attention to this letter because it is an excellent illustration of the problem that exists even for the Canadian nation in its chosen model of integration for newcomers.

As I said, in Quebec's case, this model of multiculturalism has been rejected, especially since that model trivializes Quebec's position within Canada and refutes the existence of the Quebec nation because we would all be additional ethnic groups—French-Canadian ethnic groups or Quebeckers of French origin, depending on the definitions that people, or federalists, wish to give the notion, being one ethnic group among the others. Federalists, like sovereignists in Quebec, have long rejected multiculturalism as a model for integration.

Already in 1971, Robert Bourassa, a Liberal premier and federalist, wrote to Pierre Elliott Trudeau that “that notion [of multiculturalism] hardly seems compatible with Quebec's reality”.

Quebec's model of interculturalism, on the other hand, overcomes immigrants' feeling of isolation. The notions of multiculturalism tend to isolate newcomers in their culture and customs. These two conflicting models exist in the same place. And even though sovereignty is the only way to clear up this confusion, it seems to me that Bill C-505 would recognize, not only the level of integration in Quebec, but also the fact that the Quebec nation is capable of drafting its own laws on applying an integration model for newcomers.

The confusion caused by the conflict between Canadian multiculturalism and Quebec interculturalism sends a message that is very difficult for immigrants to understand. Unfortunately, I will not have time to quote an excerpt from the brief the Conseil des relations interculturelles du Québec presented to the Bouchard-Taylor Commission, which clearly shows that these two integration models confuse newcomers and make it very hard for them to understand the message of the Quebec nation.

Canadian multiculturalism promotes Canada's two official languages, French and English, while Quebec interculturalism promotes French as the common public language and the language of communication. Quebec has already developed tools to protect and promote French in Quebec. Although nothing is perfect and there is still a great deal of work to be done, the application of interculturalism in Quebec has enabled French to make progress, while multiculturalism is a constant barrier that sets French back. French is and must remain the common language of the Quebec nation, with all due respect for Quebec's aboriginal peoples and anglophone minority.

Even though only full sovereignty for Quebec can promote and protect the French language, Bill C-505 will lessen the influence of multiculturalism in Quebec and the negative effects I mentioned that are leading to the anglicization of many newcomers to Quebec.

In conclusion, if we recognize Quebec as a nation, we must walk the talk and take real steps to give effect to that recognition. The bill that I am introducing today and that I would like to see adopted by this House is one more step in that direction.

Bill C-505 — Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

The Chair has heard the arguments advanced by the hon. members for Joliette, Scarborough—Rouge River and Mississauga South on the admissibility of Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec).

As I indicated yesterday, it does not fall to the Speaker to settle constitutional issues. However, given that it is also a question of the nature of the initiative, I intend, for now, to allow the debate to continue this evening and I will get back to the House as soon as possible with a more complete decision.

In the meantime, I would like to remind hon. members that it is important to raise points of order as soon as possible in such situations, and not at the last minute.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, when the member for Scarborough—Rouge River laid out his case with regard to Bill C-505, I think he made all the appropriate references. I think the facts, as I heard them and read them again today, appear to provide a compelling argument.

The other point, as the member for Scarborough—Rouge River pointed out, is that a government bill, prior to going to cabinet, would need to have the imprimatur of the justice department with regard to constitutionality.

With regard to private members' bills, we have a subcommittee on procedure and House affairs and it is, as I understand it, part of its responsibility to opine on votability on a number of criteria, one being constitutionality.

I find it very hard to believe that a subcommittee of procedure and House affairs would have at its beck and call the proper advice and guidance in regard to complex questions about constitutionality. It is a matter where I believe we have put the committee in a situation where it has a responsibility which it has no resources to effectively discharge. There are some complex arguments here with regard to this matter.

If that subcommittee were to take a decision that a particular item was not votable, the mover of that bill would have the opportunity under the Standing Orders to appeal, whether it be through procedure and House affairs or, in fact, directly to the House.

Should another member or the House itself decide that there is some problem with regard to votability or constitutionality and no appeal had been made by the mover, there is no opportunity, other than coming to the House now and suggesting that this issue of constitutionality is an important issue. Every private member's bill has an opportunity to bring forward matters which have the same full force and effect of any other bill that becomes law from a government or in any other fashion that it would come before the House.

My submission to you, Mr. Speaker, would be that the question of constitutionality may, and I would suggest that may is the appropriate word, not have been appropriately assessed at the subcommittee. The matter is so important that other considerations should be taken to ensure that this matter is resolved with the same kind of scrutiny that a government bill would receive prior to being presented to this place.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak about the point of order raised yesterday by the member for Scarborough—Rouge River concerning the constitutionality of Bill C-505.

First, I would like to show that the constitutionality of a bill is not a procedural issue that comes within the purview of the Speaker of the House. Second, I would like to show that my colleague's arguments about the unconstitutionality of Bill C-505 are not supported by constitutional law.

In the point of order he raised, my colleague mentioned that, unlike government bills, private members' bills do not receive the scrutiny or check of the Department of Justice. This is true. But he neglected to say that private members' bills are assessed for constitutionality by the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, which declares that bills are non-votable if they do not comply with constitutional law.

However, the subcommittee declared that Bill C-505 is votable. In fact, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River is asking you, Mr. Speaker, to take the subcommittee's place and, given that you cannot declare that this bill is non-votable, to ensure that it is not debated. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect—and you know I have the utmost respect for you—the role of the Speaker of the House is to rule on issues of parliamentary procedure, not legal issues.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to quote from a ruling you gave on May 3, 2007:

The other issues raised in the point of order of the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River, while interesting and cogently argued, are related to the substance of the bill and to legal issues arising therefrom and not to procedural considerations. While they may well be of interest to members as they consider this legislative proposal, they are beyond the purview of the Chair.

We think that this is exactly the same situation.

Second, the member for Scarborough—Rouge River is alleging that Bill C-505 is unconstitutional under section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I will now read section 27 of the charter:

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

Section 27 is very clear. It guides the interpretation of other sections of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In their treatise entitled Droit constitutionnel, “Constitutional law”, Henri Brun and Guy Tremblay explained this section as follows:

Section 27 states that interpretation of the Charter must be consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

The Supreme Court of Canada, in Keegstra, 1990, the ruling my colleague quoted from, takes the same view:

Section 27 has therefore been used in a number of judgments of this Court, both as an aid in interpreting the definition of Charter rights and freedoms...and as an element in the s. 1 analysis.

Contrary to what my colleague stated, I would like to clarify that in the Keegstra case, the hate crimes provision in the Criminal Code was upheld because the limitation on freedom of expression that it sets out is justifiable under section 1 of the charter, a section that has been interpreted in light of section 27, which I cited earlier. However, it is false to suggest that the provision was upheld under section 27 itself. As I said, this section guides the interpretation of other sections in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. On its own, therefore, it is not enough.

In conclusion, section 27 is an interpretive provision of the charter, and if not considered together with another section of the charter, it does not in itself create law. Consequently, Bill C-505 cannot be unconstitutional under section 27 of the charter.

On a different note, my colleague claims that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and section 27 of the charter are flip sides of the same constitutional coin and that my real intention in presenting Bill C-505 is to amend the Constitution. I do not intend to expand on this matter since the argument is so weak. If we accept his reasoning, then what about section 3 of the charter, which guarantees the right to vote. Can we claim that the Canada Elections Act is so entwined with the exercise of that right that it is inextricably linked to the Constitution and cannot be amended without amending the Constitution? As we know, a number of bills on this matter are currently being studied by Parliament.

Section 16 of the charter states that English and French are the official languages of Canada. Does the Official Languages Act therefore have a quasi constitutional status?

I could go on, but I think I have made my point.

Bill C-505 proposes to amend a single piece of legislation, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, not the Constitution Act, 1982, with the aim of exempting Quebec from the application of the multiculturalism policy.

Over a year ago, this House recognized the Quebec nation. The Bloc Québécois now finds that the House must put its words into action and give concrete meaning to that recognition. In fact, Bill C-505 is the second opportunity the Bloc is giving this House to solidify that recognition. It is also the second time we have had to defend the constitutionality of the measures we are proposing.

We can only conclude that although this House has recognized the Quebec nation, a number of parliamentarians sitting here have no problem using the procedural tools available to them to try to prevent votes on the concrete measures that we are proposing in that regard. They want, at all cost, to avoid showing that when it comes to implementing concrete measures, the recognition of the Quebec nation no longer means anything to them.

Bill C-505—Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have a point of order I wish to make in relation to a private member's bill currently before the House in which it appears could be debated tomorrow. It is Bill C-505. My point of order concerns the constitutionality of the bill. Either the bill is totally unconstitutional or it is in the wrong form, and I will point out where I am coming from on that in my remarks.

It is my view that the bill should either not be debated and/or should be ordered discharged and dropped from the order paper for these reasons. I will read clause 2 of the bill. It says:

The Government of Canada’s multiculturalism policy does not apply in Quebec.

It is as simple as that.

I will also read section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, part of our constitution under the Constitution Act, 1982. Section 27 reads:

This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.

I want to point out, Mr. Speaker, as you know and most members know, private members' business in the House does not receive the scrutiny or check of the Department of Justice that all government bills must do under the Department of Justice Act. Since private members' business is not subject to Department of Justice scrutiny, it is entirely possible that some of the business that does come through might be constitutionally offside. In this case I believe it certainly is offside.

I want to read as well subsection 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982. We are dealing with constitutional law here and this is bedrock law.

The Constitution of Canada is the supreme law of Canada, and any law that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Constitution is, to the extent of the inconsistency, of no force or effect.

I want to submit also that the federal government's multiculturalism policy and section 27 of the charter, which I just read, are now in law and in practice, flip sides of the same constitutional coin. In fact, the Canadian Multiculturalism Act recites the Canadian constitutional provision, section 27, right in the preamble, they are that connected.

In the House, by section 9 of the same Multiculturalism Act, the House is charged with permanently reviewing the operation of the act and that policy. The constitution is explicitly the foundation for that statute and the statute is the explicit manifestation of that constitutional provision.

A very real example of the constitutional application of multicultural policy beyond the framework of the statute itself is found in the ruling of the Supreme Court of Canada in R. v. Keegstra, [1990] 3 R.C.S. 697, wherein the Criminal Code hate crimes are ruled by the court to be a function of the application of section 27 of the charter, that is the multiculturalism section of the charter.

We have the Criminal Code application in Canada, that particular provision, being justified and being related to that provision of our constitution. The bill with which we are dealing purports to say that the multiculturalism policy does not apply in the province of Quebec.

I submit that clause 2 of the bill, which I read, is so inconsistent with section 27 of the constitutional charter that it cannot be sustained. It is unconstitutional and should not be considered for further debate or process. Either clause 2 of the bill should be struck or the entire bill should be struck.

A second possible response to the member's legislative initiative is that the bill is really a constitutional amendment providing for some kind of provincial exemption from the constitution. It is possible that is what the member has intended and he has submitted a bill to do that.

Members can propose amendments to our Constitution, but in this case a bill is not the proper form. Constitutional amendments are, by section 38 of the Constitution, accomplished by way of a resolution of both Houses, et cetera, not by a bill. Resolutions are described in Marleau and Montpetit, at page 794, footnote 184, if the Speaker needs a reference.

My conclusion is that Bill C-505, using the words I quoted, “purports to obstruct, to displace, or to undermine” section 27 of our charter based in the Constitution and must utterly fail, for those reasons, both in law and as to form. Either the bill or clause 2 on its own should be struck and an order discharging the House from further consideration should be made.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec).

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing a bill for first reading that is very important to Quebec, to the identity of our Quebec nation, and to all people around the world who will choose to live in the only nation in America whose common language is French.

Our bill proposes that the Canadian multiculturalism policy no longer apply in Quebec. Canada's House of Commons has recognized the Quebec Nation, so the National Assembly must be allowed to develop its cultural and identity policies according to Quebec's greater needs. Therefore, everyone in this House should recognize the importance of debating this legislative measure, which I have the pleasure of introducing for first reading in this House.

I would also like to thank the member for Rivière-du-Nord for supporting my bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)