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.

Multiculturalism Act

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have the opportunity to speak to the bill before us today.

Before I discuss the contents of the bill, I would like to put on the record the incredible work my colleagues in the NDP's Quebec caucus are doing day in and day out to ensure the issues that matter most to their constituents are being championed in this place.

The member for Trois-Rivières has been fighting tirelessly for years on behalf of pyrrhotite victims who have been left in a grey zone by the Liberal government's idleness.

The member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie has been leading the charge in the House against the use of tax havens for the wealthiest and the government's inaction on this file.

The member for Hochelaga has been a ferocious advocate for social housing, despite the Liberals' refusal to actually deliver.

The member for Berthier—Maskinongé, more than anyone in this place, has been standing up for dairy farmers, not just in Quebec but across the country, fighting to ensure the Liberal government does not go through with the concessions on supply management in trade deals.

The member for Drummond is the best defender of bilingualism and the French language in the House. Acadians, Franco-Ontarians and other minority language communities know all too well that the Liberal government is not paying attention to their concerns.

The member for Salaberry—Suroît has been a champion for clean water in her riding by working to get the Kathryn Spirit dismantled, and has continued to point out the government's failure to recognize the dangers of the 9B Line pipeline crossing her community.

The member for Longueuil—Saint-Hubert every day does more than even the minister of heritage to protect Quebec's culture from web giants.

The member for Jonquière every day in this place stands up for softwood lumber, paper mill and aluminum workers of Saguenay—Lac Saint-Jean, the very ones the government is putting in the line of fire in trade negotiations.

Finally, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot provides a voice to workers in the House who face an EI black hole, forsaken by Liberal and Conservative governments, which shamefully refuse to fix these gaps.

It is with a bit of irony that I, the member for North Island—Powell River in British Columbia, happen to be the one raising these issues today in this debate. One would have thought the Bloc would have used its opportunity to table and debate a bill in the House to discuss any of those important issues. Instead, we are talking about divisive, useless legislation. If this is the best the Bloc has to offer Quebeckers, frankly, it is a little more than sad. However, one thing is clear today. The one Quebec caucus standing up for Quebeckers in the House is the NDP Quebec caucus.

The bill before us today is a solution in search of a problem. Canadian multiculturalism is not a zero-sum game. Respect, protection and promotion of one culture will not diminish the standing of another culture. Instead, it creates a space for newcomer communities to integrate into, in the context of the bill, Quebec society specifically, without giving up who they are. This allows people to embrace and participate in Quebec's unique culture and heritage, without fearing they must give up their identity. They can instead have the opportunity to add Quebecker to who they are. This should be encouraged, not denigrated.

Unfortunately, this approach is not new for the Bloc Québécois. It has tried this before. In 2008, a Bloc MP tabled Bill C-505, a nearly identical bill. The former leader of the NDP, himself a proud Quebecker, the former member for Outremont, Mr. Tom Mulcair, stated quite clearly what the bill truly was: An attempt to divide Quebec from the rest of Canada and an attempt to divide Quebeckers against Quebeckers. He stated:

We must recall what section 27 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms says, because it gives us an indication of why we must oppose this bill, “This Charter shall be interpreted in a manner consistent with the preservation and enhancement of the multicultural heritage of Canadians.”

He went on to say:

What the Bloc is trying to do with this bill is to alter the Canadian Multiculturalism Act to do something separate for Quebec. It would be easy to follow them down that road, if the goal were to stay in Canada. But let us not delude ourselves. The Bloc Québécois, as is its absolute right in this democracy, has as its ultimate priority the removal of Quebec from Canada. We must therefore realize that the only purpose of the bill must be to position the Bloc in a debate that has been raging in Quebec for the last year and a half. So the goal is not to improve how things work in Canada....

Or, I would add, even in Quebec. Instead, it is a blatant attempt to fan the flames of anti-immigration and anti-refugee rhetoric and provide, in addition to the Conservative Party, another voice for that in this place.

This bill ignores the existence of the Cullen-Couture agreement of 1978, which provides Quebec significant authority and policy-making abilities within the realm of immigration. That agreement allows Quebec to develop its own points system for the selection of immigrants. Thus, while the systems are quite similar, Quebec's points system provides more points for French language skills and more points for adaptability. It also provides points for having relatives established in Quebec, for spouses with French language skills and for having a young family. Among other things, that agreement aimed to respect and strengthen the enrichment of Canada's cultural and social heritage, taking into account the federal and bilingual character of Canada. It also acknowledges that foreign nationals in Quebec should contribute to Quebec's social and cultural enrichment, taking into account its specifically French character.

The bill before us, strangely, also ignores the actual Canadian Multiculturalism Act itself, most importantly, subsection 5(2), which reads:

The Minister may enter into an agreement or arrangement with any province respecting the implementation of the multiculturalism policy of Canada.

This means that should the Province of Quebec feel that the current policy being implemented is not achieving the greatest benefit, it can work with the minister to improve the policy's implementation. This is what occurred with the Cullen-Couture agreement. It is truly a shame that the member chose to table this bill of all things rather than using this incredible opportunity to table a bill in the House of Commons that would help impact and shape our country and help promote Quebec culture and heritage.

As I stated at the outset, my NDP Quebec colleagues are working tirelessly on issues of importance to the people of Quebec. The NDP recognizes the national character of Quebec, based on a society that has French as its language of work and the common language of the public domain; a unique culture expressed through a sense of identity and belonging to Quebec; a specific history; and political, economic, cultural and social institutions of its own. Had the member brought forward a bill that strengthened any of those aspect for Quebec, he might have found our support.

Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois recently received the support of four major Quebec unions in its efforts to get the Prime Minister to move from words to action and give tangible expression to the recognition of the Quebec nation.

Today, it is the turn of Julius Grey to support the Bloc Québécois initiative. This lawyer specializes in matters of individual freedoms and urged members of the House of Commons to vote in favour of Bill C-505, which I introduced, to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and thus allow Quebec to develop unimpeded its own model of integration for immigrants to Quebec.

The vote on this bill will be held tomorrow and will be a very revealing test of the sincerity of MPs and the Conservatives. Rejection by the Conservative government of Bill C-505, to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act, would send a very negative message as we approach St. Jean Baptiste Day.

Bill C-505

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I introduced Bill C-505 to exempt Quebec from the Canadian Multiculturalism Act and to specify that Quebeckers form a nation.

The report of the Bouchard-Taylor commission says, “The Canadian multiculturalism model does not appear to be well suited to conditions in Québec.”

The federal government has adopted multiculturalism, which fragments Canadian society and denies the national character of Quebec. Quebec, on the other hand, has adopted a model that promotes interaction to enrich its culture and enhance the use of French, its only official language. The Bouchard-Taylor commission also recommends that French be the language of work in all sectors of activity in Quebec.

The Bloc Québécois introduced Bill C-505, which does not require the Constitution to be reopened and is in accordance with one of the recommendations of the Bouchard-Taylor commission. That is why I am calling on this Conservative government to put its words into action in recognizing the nation of Quebec and to support Bill C-505.

Bill C-505--Canadian Multiculturalism Act--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised on April 9, 2008 by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River concerning Bill C-505, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec).

I would like to thank the member for Scarborough—Rouge River for having drawn this matter to the attention of the House, as well as the hon. whip of the Bloc Québécois, the hon. House leader of the Bloc Québécois, and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their comments.

The hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River raised two issues in relation to this bill. First, he argued that the bill as formulated is unconstitutional in that clause 2 states, “The Government of Canada’s multiculturalism policy does not apply in Quebec”. This, he believed, was inconsistent with section 27 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Second, he argued that Bill C-505 could be seen as a de facto constitutional amendment. He based this assertion on the claim that the provisions in the Canadian Multiculturalism Act mirror the provisions concerning multiculturalism that are enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the proposed measure is indeed an attempt to amend the Constitution, the member argued, as his second point, that it should not be in the form of a bill but, instead, in the form of a resolution. His conclusion is that Bill C-505 is not in the correct form and requested either clause 2 be struck from the bill or that the order for second reading of the bill be discharged and that the bill be struck from the order paper.

In his intervention, the Whip of the Bloc Québécois pointed out that one of the criteria used by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business in determining the votability of an item is whether or not it appears to be unconstitutional. As the subcommittee did not judge Bill C-505 to be non-votable, the member argued that the matter of constitutionality had been settled.

In his arguments on April 10, the hon. House Leader of the Bloc Québécois argued that the objections raised to the bill were of a legal nature, and not procedural, and reminded the House that the Speaker does not rule on legal matters. He also claimed that the bill seeks to amend an existing law only and has no effect on the Constitution.

The member for Mississauga South stated that the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, in determining whether or not a bill should be votable, may not be in a position to assess fully its constitutionality. He maintained that the process for dealing with reports of that subcommittee did not afford an opportunity for members to express concerns regarding constitutionality and stated that it was therefore appropriate for the member for Scarborough—Rouge River to seek a ruling from the Speaker.

In light of the issue at hand and the arguments put forth, I would be remiss if I did not refer members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 542, which states:

Though raised on a point of order, hypothetical queries on procedure cannot be addressed to the Speaker nor may constitutional questions or questions of law.

Mr. Speaker Fraser also succinctly addressed this limited role of the Chair, when he declared in a ruling regarding a similar matter, which can be found in the Debates of September 16, 1991, at page 2179, and I quote:

It may later be for a court to decide that the House has done something that does not have the force and effect of law, but that is a matter for the court and not a matter for the Speaker.

Therefore, mindful of my limited responsibility in this case, I have undertaken to examine the bill only with respect to whether it is in the appropriate form for the purpose that it seeks to achieve.

Let me first address the contention of the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River that amendments to the Constitution must be in the form of a resolution. There is no disputing that the House has in recent years considered several resolutions of the type referred by the hon. member. For example, on November 18 and December 9, 1997, the House adopted resolutions dealing with the school systems in Quebec and Newfoundland respectively; and, on October 30, 2001, the House adopted a resolution changing the name of Newfoundland to Newfoundland and Labrador.

But the House has also seen bills proposing to amend the Constitution. Examples in this Parliament include Private Member’s Bill C-223 An Act for the Recognition and Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms and to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, standing in the name of the hon. member for Yorkton—Melville; as well as government bills C-22, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Democratic representation) and C-19, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1867 (Senate tenure), both standing in the name of the hon. Government House Leader.

I offer these examples simply to explain that this bill cannot be considered not in order simply because it is in the form of a bill and not a resolution. That said, let us examine the actual provisions of the disputed bill.

Bill C-505 consists of two clauses, both of which seek to amend provisions of the Canadian Multiculturalism Act. Clause 1 proposes the addition of a new paragraph to the preamble of the act, concerning the special situation of Quebec and clause 2 adds a subsection to section 3 of the act, exempting the province of Quebec from the government's multiculturalism policy. There is no reference in the bill to any other statute or for that matter to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

I have therefore concluded that, since the purpose of this bill is to restrict the application of an existing statute and since this bill proposes an amendment to the existing statute to achieve that objective, Bill C-505 is in the proper form.

As your Speaker, I have no authority to rule on the constitutionality of Bill C-505. Accordingly, given that Bill C-505 is in the proper form, deliberations on it may continue in accordance with our rules governing the consideration of private members' business.

I thank the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for having raised this matter.

Bill C-505 — Canadian Multiculturalism Act

[The Speaker, 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.