Debates of June 15th, 2021

Opposition Motion—Amendment to Section 45 of the Constitution and Quebec, a French-speaking Nation

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about French as an official language. However, there is one important thing: Does she recognize that French must be the only official and common language in Quebec in order to integrate and include newcomers?

Will the federal government continue to promote institutional bilingualism, which runs directly counter to the concept of French as a common and official language? We know that the concept of “language of choice” does not work: When a francophone worker wants to work in French and an anglophone worker wants to work in English, it does not work, so there must be a common language.

I have one last question on positive measures. Since the minister said that the Liberals wanted to defend French in Quebec, should there be positive measures for French, particularly in the enhancement of official languages program and the development of official-language communities program?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

As I mentioned, it goes without saying that we want to further protect and promote French in Quebec and across the country because we want to achieve real equality for our two official languages.

The federal government has its official languages policy. There is the Official Languages Act. There will also be a new official languages act if the opposition parties support it, which I hope they will. The Constitution states that there are two official languages in the country within the federal state.

We will continue to respect the Constitution and its linguistic obligations, in particular section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This section sets out rights for anglophones in Quebec. Naturally, our services will be provided in both official languages across the country, including in Quebec. We will continue to work with the Government of Quebec to ensure that francophone Quebeckers can live in French and work in French. Accordingly, we have introduced a bill that establishes new obligations concerning the respect for the right to work in French and consumers' right to be served in French. A francophone working in a federally regulated business must not face discrimination.

My colleague often asks me—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Bruce Stanton]

Questions and comments.

The hon. member for Timmins—James Bay.

[Charlie Angus, NDP, Timmins—James Bay, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her support for building the new La Ronde cultural centre in Timmins. It is very important for our region. The francophone community in northern Ontario is dynamic and very proud.

My concern has to do with the cultural organizations that have been affected by the pandemic. More specifically, my concern has to do with the fundraising in connection with certain events.

My question is the following: Is the government prepared to work with the francophone organizations in northern Ontario after the pandemic to ensure the successful development of francophone culture in the northern region of Ontario?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my colleague that I will be pleased to work with him and the organizations in northern Ontario. These organizations ensure that the francophone community is strong and vital and can continue to develop.

During the pandemic, we provided different support measures including the wage subsidy. We provided help to the cultural sector. We also want to be there during the recovery. Of course the bill I introduced today recognizes that, for a community to be strong it needs to have strong institutions. The federal government has a new obligation, to support minority language communities, including francophones in northern Ontario. We will be sure to work together in order to fulfill this obligation.

[Jenny Kwan, NDP, Vancouver East, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government took six years to introduce the bill to modernize the Official Languages Act and, in my view, has taken very little action to protect French. A lot of parents and students in British Columbia want to get into bilingual schools, however, they do not have the resources or the funding. More to the point, the province does not have enough resources and funding to support the schools and expand them.

Will the federal government provide additional dollars to the province to expand bilingual and French schools in British Columbia so we can enhance and protect the French language?

[Mélanie Joly, Liberal, Ahuntsic-Cartierville, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I had the chance to talk with my counterpart in British Columbia last week. We got along very well and were both in favour of supporting even more francophones across the province, who are fighting for access to better public education systems across the beautiful province of British Columbia.

That being said, we did increase support to British Columbia for French teachers' recruitment and retention. We also increased funding for francophone school boards and increased the transfers to the provinces. There is also more money in the budget to support provinces and territories for French immersion schools.

We know that parents across the country, including in British Columbia, cannot wait for their children to have access to French immersion, so we will get rid of wait lists.

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Economic Development and Official Languages (FedDev Ontario and Official Languages)]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Beloeil—Chambly.

I am pleased to pick up where the minister left off in talking about the reform of the Official Languages Act. I want to start by highlighting how important it is to build upon Canada's official languages in this process.

We know that our two official languages, French and English, are inextricably linked to our history and our identity. They are used in all of our conversations, activities and projects. They also help us express our culture, which is made up of and enriched by many different cultures. All of these cultures are at the very heart of the social contract that binds us all as Canadians.

French and English, along with the indigenous languages, enrich this country so much and inspired Parliament to adopt the first version of the Official Languages Act in 1969.

Since the passage of this act, various measures and amendments have allowed us to strengthen both the official languages framework and the measures defining their use in the public service. Of course, the most important contribution to official languages is without question their entrenchment in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The Official Languages Act and other linguistic measures, including the court challenges program and the language rights support program, paved the way for incredible gains.

Among other things, we have seen the establishment of institutional bilingualism, enabling francophones across the country to access services in their mother tongue. We have also seen the emergence of a new generation of Canadians who were able to get an education in the minority official language, something their parents were unable to do. We have seen members of official language minority communities assert their rights and support the development and vitality of their community.

Many civil servants were able to learn the other official language in order to support the delivery of adapted services, while measures were taken to allow francophones and anglophones to find a job and advance their career in federal institutions.

Back when the act was passed, who would have thought French immersion schools would be so popular?

The whole country can see how far we have come, but the situation has changed rapidly in recent years. We have observed that, despite our efforts, the use of French has declined across Canada. Because of its minority status in North America, we have always had to be vigilant and focused. Over the past few years, the Internet and social media have become pervasive, international trade has advanced and every aspect of our lives has been digitized. All these factors unduly favour the use of English.

It is time to take action. This new reality has created an array of needs and expectations, as well as new responsibilities for us. A responsible government must study the situation, review its positions, develop solutions and consult Canadians about the best approach. That is exactly what we did.

In February, our efforts to that end resulted in the publication of our reform proposal, entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”, which the minister referred to.

In addition, this morning, after extensive efforts, the Minister of Official Languages introduced in Parliament Bill C-32, an act for the substantive equality of French and English and the strengthening of the Official Languages Act. This bill confirms the commitments made by our government in the throne speech and the 2021 budget statement. It fulfills the vision we presented in February, a vision that was favourably received by official language communities and by many community and government stakeholders.

We are convinced that, in a modern society like ours, and given our ambition to build a just society, all Canadians need to see themselves reflected in the Official Languages Act. Anglophone parents must be able to enrol their children in French immersion. The government must meet the expectations of francophones, both in Quebec and across Canada, and it must properly promote and protect the French language.

Francophones must have the right to work in their mother tongue everywhere in Quebec and in regions with a strong francophone presence elsewhere in the country.

Immigration is quickly changing Canada's demographics, and the government needs to attract immigrants who speak French to both Quebec and other areas. The government also needs to support official language minority communities, both anglophones in Quebec and francophones outside Quebec, so that they have strong institutions that will ensure their vitality and survival.

Finally, the federal government needs to set an example. The public service needs to offer real services in both official languages. CBC/Radio-Canada needs to play its role as a key cultural institution, the Commissioner of Official Languages must be given more powers, and finally, judges of the Supreme Court of Canada must be bilingual.

We want to establish a new linguistic balance that will ensure substantive equality between our two official languages. That will sometimes require each linguistic group to be treated differently in the development and implementation of our policies in order to take into account their specific situation, characteristics or needs.

In Canada, French and English do not carry the same weight. It is up to the government to make smart interventions to restore the balance and ensure that the fundamental rights of all Canadians are respected.

Our reform plan and our bill include several guiding principles and proposed changes that will allow us to better promote and support French, support the establishment of essential institutions in official language minority communities and finally achieve the equality between our two official languages that we have been striving for.

Among other things, we want to highlight the specific linguistic vitality of each province and territory and protect the existing language rights of indigenous peoples. We want to create more opportunities for learning both official languages. We want to support institutions in official language minority communities, and we will commit to protecting and promoting French across Canada, including in Quebec. We want the Government of Canada to set an example by enhancing compliance within federal institutions.

I would like to reiterate that the reform will also affect federally regulated private businesses and, accordingly, the linguistic situation in that part of the labour market. We will protect the right to work in French in these businesses across the country wherever there is a strong francophone presence, which obviously includes Quebec. Both workers and consumers in these regions will be better protected, better informed and served in their language.

As well, we have found that legislation dealing with a subject as dynamic and evolving as language must be regularly reviewed and adjusted in order to stay relevant. That is why we have established a system of periodic reviews of the act and its implementation. This is how we will ensure that the Official Languages Act remains relevant and modern.

We want to ensure the vitality of our two linguistic communities and of all official language minority communities. Due to the differing circumstances of each linguistic community, we are adopting broad principles and comprehensive objectives in order to avoid taking a case-by-case approach, which could create more inequality. We are certain that the solution to achieving the desired results lies in a flexible but solid pan-Canadian framework.

I believe that all members of the House care about protecting the official languages and the language rights of all Canadians. I would therefore encourage them to study our reform proposal carefully and to support the bill that we introduced this morning.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, with whom I have worked on a number of diabetes-related issues, for her speech.

Now, let us talk about official languages. There is already an official languages program in place. It is called the enhancement of official languages program or positive measures for official languages. I do not remember the exact title.

However, this program provides nearly $100 million to Quebec, not for the protection of both official languages, but for the protection of English.

Does my colleague think it is right that this program exists and that, in Quebec, only the anglophone community can receive this funding, which I am sure everyone will agree is a relatively large amount of money?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Our government has been working hard all along to implement programs to help minority communities.

I am from Ontario, I am the member for Parliament for Orléans, and I think it is very important that the Liberal government has invested more than $500 million so far in an action plan to support the French fact and to support and promote French.

We will continue to help francophones across Canada and in Quebec.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleague and congratulate her on her speech.

We work together pretty often at the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I would like to hear her opinion on the following. The Government of Quebec is calling for the federal government to recognize that, of the two official languages, there is one minority language that is at risk, and that is French.

Even the UN's Human Rights Committee said that the anglophones in Quebec are not a minority because they are part of the English Canadian majority, which, I should point out, forced through a Constitution to weaken Quebec law and the Charter of the French Language.

What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

At the end of the day, Quebec and Quebeckers represent the bulk of the francophone minority in Canada.

Does she agree that the government should recognize this and amend the Official Languages Act?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It gives me the opportunity to suggest that he carefully study Bill C‑32, which recognizes that we must consider the fact that French is in a minority situation in Canada and in North America due to the predominant use of English. We hope that the Bloc Québécois will support this bill.

As the throne speech and the budget showed, we are firmly committed to protecting French across Canada and Quebec. The Constitution also makes us responsible for protecting the linguistic rights of Quebec's anglophone minority.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary said that the government recognized this in the bill, but it contains no measures. If French is recognized as the minority language, measures should be included to protect the French language.

What are these measures?

[Marie-France Lalonde, Liberal, Orléans, ON]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I thank my colleague. Our actions speak for themselves. From the start, we created an action plan with an additional $500 million. We tabled a budget with an additional amount of almost $400 million to support the francophone minority and also second language training. My colleague knows very well that our government wants to protect the French fact everywhere in Canada, including in Quebec.

We have a constitutional responsibility, and we are proud of it. We will continue to demonstrate this commitment with concrete measures, like the bill introduced today.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform you that I intend to split my time with my friend and esteemed colleague from Manicouagan, who is a very busy member.

Today, we are discussing the motion of the Bloc Québécois, and I will take the time to read it, dissect it and discuss it in detail. The choice of words it contains is not insignificant.

The first part of the motion reads as follows: “That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions”. Anyone who reads this part of the motion will notice that we are not trying to turn members of the House into constitutional apprentices the way we could turn them into apprentice witches. We are simply asking the House to note and to recognize the existence of a section of the Constitution Act that Quebec and the provinces can use.

It is interesting to discuss this today because we have been seeing all day that many members have tried to act like constitutional apprentices. Some have already found problems and flaws and have already tried to figure out how they could attack Quebec's desire to use this section.

Rather than welcoming this, these people are already raising issues related to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the protection of the anglophone minority, whereas the motion does not deal with those matters. These people are already raising questions about the interpretation of the Constitution and whether there is a symbolic aspect. Right off the bat, these people are already trying to undo something that has not even been enacted by the Quebec National Assembly. I think this speaks volumes about the status of French, the recognition of Quebec as a nation and the recognition of its autonomy and potential independence.

The second part of the motion asks that the House “acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation”.

Again, as we have said repeatedly today, this part of the motion is not seeking anyone's permission. We are not looking for authorization from the federal government, from Parliament or from the House to do something in Quebec. We are just asking the House to acknowledge what Quebec is about to do.

What does “acknowledge” mean? It means to formally take note of information for later use. Once the House has acknowledged Quebec's will, any decision to either ignore it or fight it will at least be an informed decision.

We have to ask ourselves whether the government is actually acknowledging Quebec's will if it goes ahead with an Official Languages Act reform that dismisses what Quebec wants to see with respect to language of work. Just acknowledging something means that there is a political layer to the government's response to what Quebec wants to do, not to what Quebec is asking, but to what Quebec is going to do.

We also wonder, and this has been raised on several occasions, whether including Quebec's status as a nation and designating French as the only official and common language in the Constitution will be merely symbolic.

I would be curious to see how the Prime Minister would explain why one part of the supreme law of his country, the Constitution Act, is symbolic, but not the rest. Why would what Quebec wants be merely symbolic, but not the rest of the Constitution Act?

Once the Constitution Act recognizes French as the only common and official language of Quebec, it will be interesting to see happens the next time the courts try to butcher Bill 101. This will be fascinating to follow, as will the language of work issue, since it is part of Bill 96. That bill has not passed yet, but I think it will go smoothly.

What happens if Quebec passes this bill, the Minister of Official Languages' watered-down version of protecting the right to work in French goes forward and the Constitution recognizes Quebec's official language? That will be interesting. I think it might make headlines in a few newspapers. I was shocked this morning when I read that the minister was introducing a bill said to be basically a copy of Bill 96, but by the end of the article, I realized that that is not at all the case. Protecting the right to work in French is certainly not the same thing as making French the language of work.

I find it particularly interesting that we are debating this in the House today, as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of the Bloc Québécois. I think it is important to remember the Bloc Québécois's role in the House.

Journalists asked us the same question several times when we announced our intention to move a motion to recognize the will of the National Assembly to include the Quebec nation and the French language in the Constitution. We were asked if we would be recognizing the Constitution with this motion. We were told that if we used it, we would be recognizing it. The best answer to this question is to remember the importance of not taking things lying down. We cannot let Quebec be weakened by standing idly as we watch the train go by. This would not be in Quebec's interest. It is better to fight with the tools at hand.

At times, some members badger us about whether we are trying to make Quebec work as part of the rest of Canada. In my view, we are instead preparing Quebec for what is to come. We are ensuring that Quebec will be in the best possible position when it collectively decides to make its own decision about its future.

Speaking of the Bloc Québécois' 30th anniversary, I want to share a quote from someone who spent a little time in the party: “The politics of the worst-case scenario are the worst kind of politics.” We are not seeing calls to recognize the Constitution; I would say that we are instead seeing an unbridled show of nationalism that is cause for celebration. I am so happy to see Quebec taking a more coordinated approach to protecting the French language.

The movement to promote French is gaining ground, at a time when this is more imperative than ever. This is urgent, and I spoke about this in the House last week. A trend is starting to appear, and we need to reverse it.

The percentage of Quebeckers who speak French as a first language has dropped below 80% for the first time in more than a century, and the Office québécois de la langue française estimates that this figure could drop below 70% by 2036.

We have also noticed that young francophones tend to become anglicized. The number of people between the ages of 25 and 44 in the greater Montreal area has doubled over the past 15 years. A trend has also been observed in Quebec: Only 55% of allophones in Quebec make a language transfer to French. However, to maintain our relative weight, 90% of allophones in Quebec would have to make the transfer to French.

It is therefore imperative and urgent that something be done. We need to protect French. I think that it is good to talk about the positive aspects of strengthening and promoting French. We should not just talk about it from the perspective of the inevitable erosion of French. We need to remember that French is also a common language for newcomers so that they can share their culture and who they are with us and we can live together in a society where everyone has their place. I see it in my riding. Recent surveys carried out in Saint-Jean showed that residents want to welcome more and more newcomers. French enables us to communicate and share with them effectively.

I would like to briefly come back to the matter of the Bloc Québécois's role. With regard to this motion, the Bloc Québécois's role is simply to ensure that Quebec is the one that decides how it wants to write its language laws. That is the Bloc Québécois's role, and that is what the Bloc Québécois has been doing for the past 30 years.

On that note, I want to take this opportunity to wish our party a happy 30th anniversary. However, I must say that I am sure we will not be here for another 30 years, or at least I hope not.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her excellent speech. It is always a pleasure to listen to her speak about Quebec and the Quebec nation.

What a coincidence that the Minister of Official Languages chose today to table her bill to modernize the Official Languages Act. In my view, it is not enough. Much attention is given to bilingualism, but not necessarily to the French language. I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, some people would say that coincidences do not really exist. Today, I am strangely inclined to believe they do.

As for the protection of bilingualism, I have taken the liberty of making up a new word to describe the type of bilingualism that could be created by the reform of the Official Languages Act. It would “aircanadize” federal institutions. As I mentioned several times, bilingualism is alive and well in Quebec, but French is not. It is French that must be defended, not bilingualism.

However, that is not what is in the reform. That is why it is important for the Bloc Québécois to go a little bit further and to promote and defend what Quebec wants.

[Monique Pauzé, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Today's motion has no legal effect. It simply asks the House to agree and acknowledge that Quebec has the right to amend its constitution. Does my colleague know why some members of the House are afraid to vote for this motion?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I certainly do not presume to know what is going on in the heads of all 338 members. I think that would be really tiring, and I would be exhausted at the end of the day, so I will not speak on their behalf.

What I do know is that, even though the motion is not binding, as it merely states an established fact and says what Quebec is doing, people find it upsetting. That reason alone is why we needed to talk about it and, most importantly, why we need to vote on it. I have learned a lot about what Quebec's place in a united Canada looks like to some of my colleagues and about how important they think it is to protect and promote the French fact.

[Scott Duvall, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Official Languages tabled a bill this morning. Does it help out with the motion the Bloc is putting through today, or is it far from what they are actually requesting?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am not sure I heard my colleague's question, but I will do my best to answer.

If the member is asking me whether the Official Languages Act reform introduced today is consistent with our motion, the answer is no, not at all. For weeks now, we have been hearing that the reform will just “aircanadize” federal institutions and protect bilingualism, not ensure that Quebec's common and official language is French. That is what we have been debating for weeks.

If I ever see that in the bill, I will be thrilled, but I do not see that happening anytime soon. We also have to make it to a vote on the bill, and that is another problem.

[Caroline Desbiens, Bloc, Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I almost feel like singing my question. I thank my colleague for her eloquence and relevant comments. She is highly competent and we always appreciate her input and speeches.

As this question period draws to an end, I would ask my colleague if she believes the minister's reform package constitutes a road map for Quebec's survival. That is what the minister seems to be saying. I would like to know if this type of reform gives my colleague any hope for the future of Quebec.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. To paraphrase the premier of Quebec, we end up chatting so much that it feels as though we are having our own little party over here.

Naturally, I do not believe the bill has enough teeth to really ensure the protection of French; what it seeks to protect is bilingualism. Protecting bilingualism means protecting English. People need to know this; indeed, it cannot be said enough.

I am flabbergasted when, on the issue of protecting French in Quebec, the first reaction we hear from the House is about how we need to offer equal protection to anglophone minorities. The fact is that these minorities are faring quite well in Quebec. At the risk of repeating what my leader said this morning, I will be happy when the day comes where francophones outside of Quebec enjoy the same protections as those afforded to our minority anglophone population, which, it needs to be said, we cherish, and which enjoys a certain degree of status and protection under our domestic legislation.

[Marilène Gill, Bloc, Manicouagan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am pleased to speak today on this Bloc Québécois opposition day, and I really mean that. Often, we say we are pleased out of habit. Despite the fact that the government tried to reduce the scope of this day, as we saw during question period, the fact remains that this is an historic moment.

It is an historic moment for the Bloc Québécois. It is our 30th anniversary. My colleague from Saint‑Jean mentioned it earlier, but every time we rise to speak we are taking our rightful place and we must always defend ourselves. I am paraphrasing what she said a bit, but it is truly a pleasure to do so. I am speaking under the theme of freedom, uniqueness, sovereignty, identity, dignity and legitimacy. It is pretty clear that I am pleased to speak.

As the Prime Minister said, as soon as Bill 96 was tabled at the Quebec National Assembly, he promptly mentioned that it was only symbolic. Given everything I said in my introduction, the bill is far from being symbolic. It is an action. I will come back later to the issue of “acknowledging”. It is a really strong action and, beyond the symbol, there are meanings and impacts. It is not only words and sounds, but concrete actions which are part of the matter and the material.

Let us simply recall the intent of the motion, which we are told is trivial. I heard the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons earlier as he was telling us that everything is already in place. I absolutely disagree with that. The Bloc Québécois motion contains three elements and states the following:

That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions and acknowledge the will of Quebec to enshrine in its constitution that Quebeckers form a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that it is also the common language of the Quebec nation.

I was saying that, for me, this is a concrete step that rests on a solid foundation; it is almost primal. Some said that this was an empty gesture, an exercise in futility. The fact is, however, that acknowledging something is not a passive act. We are not asking the government, the House of Commons and all our colleagues to sit back and do nothing while the train goes by; we are asking them to act. To acknowledge something is to take action. Acknowledging something is an act of will. There is no will to be found in passivity. In order to acknowledge something, one needs to want to do it. Sometimes, people are motivated by interests that I dare not name, but at the very least, they need to make their will known.

One also needs to be willing to admit certain things. Admissions require humility. We are confronted with something that is bigger than us. It is quite simply undeniable. We are also humbled by what we are seeing, because we are powerless to stop it. I will come back to this question of “stopping” it, because to “admit” something should not necessarily mean to “oppose” something. It is not enough to simply observe; we need to see, to understand, to hear, and also to engage, which is a strong word.

What we are asking the House to do today, to acknowledge something, is a powerful thing. The government has never done this before, despite what the government House leader would have us believe.

This acknowledgement also implies a certain duration. A commitment is not simply fulfilled when one votes in favour or against our motion after a couple of days or hours of debate. This is a commitment one takes today for the future. I am urging all members in this house to engage in and not oppose this process.

I am urging members to acknowledge that Quebec is a nation, that French is the only official language of Quebec and that French is the common language of the Quebec nation. Think about what the word “acknowledge” means. I spoke about the primal and concrete aspects of the word, about commitment, humility, admissions and lack of passivity. This motion is very charged. It speaks to our identity, to the very existence of Quebeckers. We are calling on the House to recognize and commit to allowing us to simply be, exist and become.

I have heard some comments that made me think. The Prime Minister said that there was absolutely nothing there, that it would pass and that the motion was unnecessary.

I would like to take a moment to quote a few extracts from anglophone media, be they in Quebec, such as the Montreal Gazette, or elsewhere in Canada, such as the Toronto Sun. What seems to be self-evident for the government, at least according to the comments made in the last few weeks, is not resolved at all in my view.

The government and members of the House will need courage to be able to admit that and to acknowledge what the Bloc Québécois motion says.

I will now quote some extracts in English. I could translate them, but I think they will be clear for the majority of members in the House. Today is June 15. Not so long ago, on June 10, the Montreal Gazette said the following:

“Why does the protection of the French language require the blanket suspension of human rights?”

The Montreal Gazette is telling us that human rights are being suspended. I do not know if the author meant that as a hyperbole or another stylistic device. On my part, I do not see any consensus in there, but rather a potential controversy. The following words are from Ms. Jennings, from the Quebec Community Groups Network. She said:

“It’s a bad way to start as a nation”.

According to her, Bill 96 is a bad way to start a nation. I am sorry to break the news to Ms. Jennings, but the Quebec nation already existed a long time ago. Here is another quote from the newspapers:

“Why does protecting the French language require the blanket...[and] the most sweeping overrides of human rights ever seen in Canada.”

That is a gross exaggeration. This is not the worst denial or clawback of human rights that ever took place in Canada. Now I will quote from the Toronto Sun, which is not from Quebec but from one of Canada's biggest cities, the Queen City. A former advisor or assistant to Jean Chrétien wrote:

The story is about the Canadian province of Quebec, and the changes that are coming in the Quebec government's recently-tabled Bill 96. The Bill would change the Constitution of Canada, and render Quebec a “nation.” The Bill will impose the changes described above to “protect” the French language, too....

It will actually ruin lives in Quebec — and radically change Canada in the process.

The author says that passing Bill 96 will ruin lives in Quebec.

I have thousands of quotes like that one. To me, “acknowledgement” is really an engagement that calls for firm, brave and courageous determination on the part of the government and MPs. I hope they will keep that in mind when it is time to vote.

Just for fun, I will conclude with some words by Loco Locass, whom I never thought I would quote in the House. I believe music is the best way to talk about languages, about our openness, about our past and our future. Is there any better way to show how open we are? My colleague from Beauport—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île d’Orléans—Charlevoix would agree. Can anything convey who we are better than poetry? We are open, but we are also a francophone nation.

...we are creators
Not creatures, not caricatures
Our home has no separations; it has four seasons
We are used to the climate and the ice fog doesn't faze us
We have travelled along the arteries of a massive continent
Our species aspires to space, and we've left our mark everywhere
...In stumpless fields in the moonlight
And the roots of a beech that can no longer bend

We will not bend.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I especially appreciated how she ended it. I have to say that I listen a lot to Loco Locass these days. As the national holiday approaches, I am immersing myself in our Quebec folklore.

With respect to the bill on modernizing the Official Languages Act that was introduced today, the Government of Quebec clearly said that no interpretation of the Official Languages Act can as a result undermine the use of French as the common language of Quebec, indicating that there is a right to live and to work in French in Quebec and that in the event of a difference between the Official Languages Act and the Charter of the French Language, the latter takes precedence.

Today, I heard the Minister of Official Languages say that she would not have the Charter of the French Language take precedence. According to my colleague, why is that?