Debates of June 15th, 2021

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

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, protecting culture is, of course, very important to us. However, we will not compromise on freedom of expression, because that is extremely important to us.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Chicoutimi—Le Fjord.

We are talking about the use of French and about defending the French fact here, in federal institutions, so I would like to hear the member's thoughts on something that the NDP has been calling for for several years. The Conservative Party's position is not clear.

Would the Conservative Party make it mandatory for justices of the Supreme Court of Canada to be bilingual?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, the important thing is that the Conservative Party recognizes provincial jurisdiction. That is of the utmost importance to us. Quebec has the right to make its own decisions.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be able to ask my question again, because I did not get an answer at all. I heard the hon. member talk about the importance that his party seems to place on the myth that Bill C‑10 would infringe on freedom of expression, but that was not the point of my question at all. I wanted his opinion on the importance that should be placed on protecting francophone and Quebec culture in the legislation that is voted on here in the House of Commons, and particularly on the urgent need to pass a bill, such as Bill C‑10 on broadcasting, in which specific regulations and a specific framework would be enshrined to protect francophone culture.

That is really what I want to hear from the hon. member, not rhetoric about freedom of expression. We have already heard a lot of that.

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

Madam Speaker, we do need to protect our culture, but right now, freedom of expression is what is at stake, and our party will not compromise on that.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, my question is with respect to the motion from 2006 recognizing Quebec as a nation inside a unified Canada. Does the member support that motion?

[Richard Martel, Conservative, Chicoutimi—Le Fjord, QC]

The answer is yes, Madam Speaker.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, practice makes perfect.

The motion that is before us today has two parts. The first part says this, and I quote:

That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions...

The second part says, and I quote:

[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.

One cannot vote for or against one part of the motion without doing the same for the other part. However, I have very little to say about part two, which asks us to take note of two expressions of what is called the will of Quebec and also to take note of the obviously true fact that French is the common language of the Québécois, which it has been since 1608.

We all deeply and sincerely hope that this foundational fact that French is the lingua franca of the Québécois will continue to be the case for the next 400 years, just as it has been for the past 400 years.

For me, a Quebec nation in which French is not the lingua franca is unthinkable.

Likewise, it is a fact already acknowledged by the House that the Québécois are a nation. Fifteen years ago, the Commons voted for that by a margin of 265 to 16.

That this House recognize that the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada.

The words “au sein d'un Canada uni” are absent from today's motion, as one would expect from a motion produced by the Bloc Québécois. Nonetheless, it is true that the motion, as it is worded, is by no means incompatible with a united Canada. It is quite the opposite.

Beyond this, I am not sure there is much to say about the second half of the motion. My interest, as a student of the Constitution, is in responding to the first assertion of the motion, which says, in its English version, “That the House agree that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, grants Quebec and the provinces exclusive jurisdiction to amend their respective constitutions.”

My comments on this subject are primarily intended to sway the views of my anglophone colleagues, and therefore I will be speaking only English as I address this subject.

The wording of section 45 is, “Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.”

Members will notice the internal reference to another part of the Constitution, section 41. This reference is necessary because unlike the constitutions of other federations, like Switzerland or Australia, Canada's Constitution contains multiple amending formula instead of just one. That is to say that different parts of the same Constitution can only be amended using different combinations of legislative instruments from different legislative bodies.

For example, there are some parts of the Constitution that may only be amended if identical resolutions are passed in Parliament and in all 10 provincial legislatures. This amending formula is contained in section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and of course, section 41 is the clause specifically referenced in section 45. I will not mention section 41 except to observe that it was referenced in section 45 to prevent provinces from unilaterally altering the powers of their lieutenant governors.

Other parts of the Constitution, including the Charter of Rights, can be amended only by means of identical resolutions in Parliament and in the legislatures of the seven provinces containing at least 50% of Canada's population. This is colloquially known as the 7/50 amending formula, and it is described in section 38 of the Constitution Act, 1982.

On the other hand, to enact an amendment to the charter designed to place further restrictions on the powers of only a single province, another formula that is found in section 43 of the Constitution Act, 1982, applies. Identical resolutions must be adopted by the legislature of that province alone and by Parliament. It was the use of the section 43 amending formula that in 1993 made it possible to add a new linguistic right to the charter that applied to New Brunswick alone, which was section 16.1 of the charter.

Likewise, section 43 is also the only formula that may be used for either of the two following matters. It states:

(a) any alterations to boundaries between provinces; and

(b) any amendment to any provision that relates to the use of the English or the French language within a province,

The existence of multiple amending formulae for the Constitution of Canada is not new. Section 92(1) of the Constitution Act, 1867 was the predecessor to section 45. It was in force for over a century.

Section 92(1) stated:

...in each province the legislature may exclusively make laws in relation to the amendment from time to time of the Constitution of the province, except as regards the office of Lieutenant-Governor.

The ability of Quebec or of any other province to amend its own Constitution is uncontroversial. The more challenging question is what constitutes a provincial constitution.

In other federations like Switzerland, Australia or the United States, this question would never arise. Each Swiss canton and each American state has its own stand-alone constitution. The constitution of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, for example, is the oldest written constitution in the world, dating back to 1780, which makes it a decade older than the constitution of the United States.

In Canada, such tidy, clearly defined provincial constitutions do not exist. In this province, provincial constitutions can take one of three forms, which leads to some surface confusion.

In the three provinces that were created by federal statute, the relevant federal statute is the constitution of the province: the Manitoba Act, the Saskatchewan Act and the Alberta Act, respectively. Despite being acts of the Parliament of Canada, these statutes can, under authority of section 45, be amended only by the provincial legislature. Parliament is constitutionally precluded from being involved.

In the five provinces that existed before Confederation, the pre-existing British statutes under which they had been created are their constitutions. Despite being acts of the Parliament at Westminster, these too can be amended unilaterally by the province under authority of section 45. Again, there is no permitted role for Parliament.

That leaves Quebec and Ontario. Their constitutional situation is summed up by eminent constitutional scholar Professor Peter Hogg in the following words:

The Constitution Act, 1867, which, it will be recalled, created Ontario and Quebec out of the old united province of Canada, contains a set of provisions (ss. 69 to 87) which are essentially the constitutions of those two provinces.

Therefore, sections 69 to 87 are the provisions which could potentially be subject to amendment, using the section 45 amending formula, which is to say that they could be potentially subject to amendment by means of an act of Quebec's national assembly or Ontario's legislature.

It is Professor Hogg's view, and my own as well, that Parliament, once again, is not permitted to play a role in such amendments.

This leaves the question of whether amendments can be made to the Constitution of Quebec or Ontario that involve making any amendment to the Constitution Act, 1867, in which the subject matter falls outside subjects covered in sections 69 to 87, which are sections that deal solely with the functioning of the two provincial legislatures.

In particular, could changes be made such as those proposed in Quebec's Bill 96, which seeks to add two new sections immediately following section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867? I have several tentative answers to this question.

First, the fact section 90 falls outside of the section 69 to 87 envelope is irrelevant.

Second, this is a matter that is outside the remit of Parliament. We are not decision-makers on this. The courts ultimately will have to decide whether sections 158 of Bill 96, which is the part of the bill in which these two amendments are proposed, is intra vires or ultra vires the section 45 amending formula. We MPs can weigh in on this subject but our views are not binding on anybody.

Third, and this is the last point I will make, and most important, although the motion we are debating today deals with the same subjects as the two contemplated additions to the Constitution Act, 1867 contained in Bill 96, we have not been asked to vote for or against Bill 96. We have been asked to vote on a specific question regarding the section 45 amending formula and a specific statement about what the motion refers to as the will or volonté of the Québécois, as expressed by the national assembly.

On these questions, it seems to me the answer is yes—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member's time is up. I left a bit of time, but maybe he will be able to finish during questions and comments.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Rivière-des-Mille-Îles.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to commend my colleague who has a really nice French accent.

He supports the Quebec nation but would like to add something to the Bloc Québécois motion to indicate that the Quebec nation is located within a united Canada.

First, I would like him to define what a “united Canada” means to him.

Second, would it not be better to see that Quebeckers, colleagues and partners are happy in his Canada?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will start by finishing the last sentence of my speech, which was the only sentence I did not manage to get in. On these questions, it seems to me the answer is yes and therefore that is how I will be voting.

To answer my colleague's question, it is not up to us as members from ridings outside Quebec to determine what measures are required to make Quebeckers happy and to make them equal partners in Canada. We need to respond to Quebeckers' initiatives. Today's motion is an example of that.

My colleague asked another question, but honestly, I cannot remember what his first question was.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I sit with my colleague on the international human rights subcommittee and I know he is a very intelligent and thoughtful member of the House. I also know that his riding has a large population of francophones outside of Quebec as does mine of Edmonton Strathcona. I am going to ask him a question about protections for francophones outside of Quebec.

As the member will know, section 23 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees French language and that guarantee is at risk in Edmonton Strathcona because of the potential closure quite soon of Campus Saint-Jean.

Does he feel the federal government has work to do, and could be doing more and doing it more urgently, to protect French language across Canada by ensuring that campuses like Campus Saint-Jean are protected.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I actually do not have a large population of francophones in my riding. It is a perpetual problem trying to keep up my French because I do not get the chance to speak it daily. Lately, I have taken to listening only to music with French lyrics as a way of helping myself not lose too much, which is a very enjoyable way of maintaining one's language.

With regard to maintaining academic institutions in other provinces that assist the francophone minorities in those provinces and also those who want to learn and educate themselves in French, who are not necessarily francophones themselves, there can be a role for the federal government in funding them. Ultimately, we also need to ensure, as members of the relevant communities, that we put the right kind of pressure on university administrations to assign funds appropriately. This is not an issue only in Edmonton, but also in places like Sudbury, for example, and some spots east of Quebec as well in the Atlantic.

[Scot Davidson, Conservative, York—Simcoe, ON]

Madam Speaker, I noticed the member had a number of notes and I wonder if there is anything else he wants to expand upon today.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Madam Speaker, I always write very long speeches, which could not possibly be given in the time allowed. My self-editing cut out a considerable amount of material.

With regard to the issue of dealing with this within the framework of the Constitution. if we look at Canada's constitutional history, some of the leading figures, some of the most distinguished and thoughtful figures, were francophone Lower Canadians. The term “Québécois” did not exist at the time. People like George-Étienne Cartier and Étienne-Paschal Taché believed profoundly in the importance of establishing a Constitution that had detailed divisions of power and then rigorously followed the idea that the provinces would be independent, like independent states, which is where the term “state” comes from in the United States, in their areas of jurisdiction and the federal government would be completely independent in its area of jurisdiction. I suggest that model of federalism is the only one that will work in Canada and we should all embrace it.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby.

I am pleased to take part in the debate on this extremely interesting motion as the work of the House draws to a close.

The motion before us is quite interesting because it articulates certain facts that are well established, some of them for quite some time. This motion is therefore both political and symbolic, but it is not binding in any way. If this motion is adopted, not much will change for Quebeckers even though the notions and concepts within have gained broad consensus. It has been clear since this morning that there is consensus in the House.

I do not think there is unanimous support for the motion, and there may be some nuances and concerns. There is one thing in particular that we are concerned about, and I will get back to that. Nevertheless, I think there is broad consensus around the motion's three main points.

The motion contains three elements: the Constitution, the nation and the French language.

With respect to the Constitution, the Government of Quebec has tabled Bill 96, which proposes to amend the Constitution Act, 1867, to insert Quebec's fundamental characteristics, including the fact that Quebeckers form a nation and that French is the only official language of Quebec and thus constitutes the common language of the Quebec nation.

Specifically, these amendments would be inserted after section 90 of the Constitution Act, 1867. This proposal would allow Quebec to amend its own constitution. It could therefore amend the Quebec section of Canadian Constitution. In fact, section 45 of the Canadian Constitution provides for that; it says, and I quote:

45 Subject to section 41, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

This is also the consensus among certain experts. I will quote Benoît Pelletier, a former Quebec cabinet member who is now a law professor at the University of Ottawa. Recently, he was seriously ill with COVID‑19 and I wish him a speedy recovery and good health.

He said, “If you ask me, what the Quebec government is proposing falls under section 45, which is why I said it is constitutional and legal.”

The first point in the motion proposes a constitutional change, which is really quite innovative. This has never been done before and would have an impact on legal interpretation. That impact would not be all-encompassing, but would be certain. Quebec has the prerogative to do this.

The motion proposes to amend the Quebec section of the Constitution to state that Quebec is a nation and that French is its official language. This is part of what New Democrats have long proposed as a progressive force and corresponds to our values. This vision and direction is entirely consistent with the Sherbrooke declaration adopted by the NDP in 2005. I will quote from it, because it is directly relevant to the discussion we are having today.

The Sherbrooke declaration is clear on this matter. It states:

The New Democratic Party recognizes the national character of Québec and believes that that character can be expressed in the context of the Canadian federation.

The national character of Québec is based primarily, but not exclusively, on:

i. a primarily francophone society in which French is recognized as the language of work and the common public language.

That is extremely important. It confirms that culturally, historically, sociologically and politically, Quebec is not a province like the others. It is a nation within the federation.

That is why the NDP advocates something called asymmetrical federalism, which allows Quebec to opt out of new federal programs with financial compensation. It is offered to Quebec based on this recognition of its nationhood.

The nation was recognized more broadly by this Parliament in 2006. Once again, we are not reinventing the wheel. That said, I am very proud that we can recognize a modern, diverse, positive and inclusive Quebec nation that is open to the world. This nation makes room for newcomers, who enrich our shared culture and living space, and for influences from around the world.

In this regard, I would like to take this opportunity to talk about one of the successes of the Charter of the French Language. The third point that I wish to address, after the Constitution and the nation, is the French language.

I would remind the House that French has been the official language since 1974, when the Liberal government of Robert Bourassa passed Bill 22, or “le gros bill”, as Yvon Deschamps would say. This legislation made French the official language in a number of areas. That is when French became the language of legislation and the courts, of public administration, of public utility companies and professional orders, as well as the language of business, work and education, with some exceptions and exclusions. Bill 22 lasted about three years before it was replaced by the Charter of the French Language, also known as Bill 101.

In a Quebec that is open to the world, that welcomes people who want to come here and contribute to the development of our society and our world, one of the great successes of the Charter of the French Language and Bill 101 is, in my opinion, compulsory education in French for the children of immigrants.

I have been a member for a Montreal riding for a few years now. I have lived in Montreal for over 25 years. It is always extremely touching to see boys and girls, from all over the world, speaking to each other in French, playing in French in the schoolyard and having fun in French after school. It is a great achievement of the Quebec government and the Charter of the French Language to have been able to ensure this renewal through the newcomers who join our society and our nation.

I know many people very well who are children of Bill 101. They are people who work for the NDP, but there is also someone with whom I share my life, who works in French and for whom French is the third language. There is a history within the NDP of wanting to strengthen the French position, not only in Quebec, but also in Canada, where the French language is in an extreme minority situation. As has been pointed out several times today, francophones account for about 2% to 3% of North America's population. Not only are francophones a barely represented demographic, but they are also subjected to the cultural influence of the American giant and its cultural imperialism, which overflows its borders and has spread around the world. It is extremely important to remain very vigilant.

In 2013, we accomplished something great when our former member Alexandrine Latendresse succeeded in passing a bill requiring all officers of Parliament, like the Auditor General, to be bilingual. It was a step forward, something important that we wished to have. We have always fought for the right of Quebeckers to work in French and communicate with their employers in French. These are principles of the Charter of the French Language, that is to say the possibility for these workers, who account for about 10% of Quebec's workforce, to have the same rights as those who work for federally regulated businesses.

It is a matter of defending French, as well as a matter of equal rights for workers. We are in an absurd situation right now where a person who works at the credit union has certain language rights that someone who works at a Royal Bank or a Bank of Montreal does not. We need to fix this problem.

Recently, in 2020, I tabled a motion that received unanimous consent in the House. It aimed to recognize the decline of French, as well as the need for a plan to stop the decline and protect French across Canada.

On this third point, I would like to conclude by saying that we do not want this motion to have an adverse effect on the recognition of indigenous languages in Quebec. The National Assembly and the Quebec government have recognized the status of indigenous languages in Quebec for years. One does not preclude the other. Recognizing that French is the common and official language of Quebec should never adversely effect our recognition of indigenous languages and the fact that we want to make sure that they continue to exist and develop in Quebec.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie and thank him for his speech.

I have two questions for him, and I have no doubt that I will get a clear answer this time.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the fact that the government chose to table a bill meeting many of the requests made by the National Assembly today, on an opposition day when the Bloc Québécois tables a motion to recognize and strengthen French as the only official language of Quebec.

My second question for my colleague concerns our motion today. Does he think that the amendment to the amendment proposed earlier, which was not adopted by the House for reasons we are well aware of, would completely change the meaning of the motion tabled by the Bloc Québécois?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, in my opinion, it is very cynical on the part of the Liberal government to use an opposition day of one of the opposition parties that wishes to discuss the French fact to table a bill aimed at modernizing the Official Languages Act at the last minute.

In my opinion, they are making political hay. The idea is to get on the right side of the debate. It is even more cynical, since the bill will not be debated or adopted by the House, whether or not we go to the polls in the fall. It is simply a public relations ploy. I find that unfortunate, because we deserve better than that.

With respect to the amendment, it contradicts the very essence of the motion as it was introduced. It should be deemed procedurally out of order on its face.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

Madam Speaker, I know that my colleague is a staunch defender of Quebec and French language rights in Quebec and across the country. I had the great pleasure of welcoming him to Edmonton Strathcona just a couple of weeks ago. He came and met with members of the francophone community in Edmonton, virtually of course.

In addition to what he brought up in his speech, what other ways can he envision protecting language rights for Canadians across the country? What other things would he propose we do to make sure that language rights are protected?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question. I would also like to thank her for inviting me to meet with representatives of a few Franco-Albertan associations. The meetings were very interesting and enlightening.

I am on the Standing Committee on Official Languages. Right now, we are conducting a study on post-secondary education at certain universities, including Campus Saint-Jean and Université de Moncton. We are also looking at the situation with Laurentian and the initiative involving the University of Sudbury. The federal government needs to do a lot more.

All of the presidents, rectors and associations that testified before the Standing Committee on Official Languages told us there should be a commitment and stable, regular funding for post-secondary education in French across Canada. Not only is this something that the federal government can and should do, it is actually a constitutional obligation.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague, the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

I would like to highlight one element of his speech that I thought was very apt concerning Quebec's Charter of the French Language. Using French as the language of instruction has helped immensely in integrating newcomers into the French-speaking community, as well as in creating a welcoming place with a common language.

The question I would like to ask my colleague concerns language of work. One day, we will get to grips with the convolutions of the modernized act, which is a political stunt that the federal government is pulling with regard to the French language.

Concerning language of work, would the best solution not be to apply Bill 101, as federally regulated businesses in Quebec are calling for?

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for her question.

We both worked in the union movement. Using French at work was always very important to the organization I worked for. There were francization committees in institutions and companies. The union also had francization programs and plans. It is extremely important to protect and maintain the French language in the workplace.

Where the federal government can really take action is the 10% of companies under federal jurisdiction. The Quebec government has implemented certain initiatives. It has done some very good work, and I hope it will continue. What we at the federal level need to do is guarantee the right of workers to work and interact in French.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to be speaking right after my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, not only because his speech was extraordinarily profound and important, but also because he is one of the greatest defenders of minority language rights in the House and, of course, the defender of French in Quebec. His words and his actions are proof of that. He understands that we always need to strengthen the French language, not only in Quebec, but across the country. I have an enormous amount of respect and esteem for him.

As the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie just mentioned, today's motion is important, but it merely reiterates things that were already settled in the past. The fact that Quebeckers form a nation was of course recognized and reinforced by a motion in the House of Commons in 2006. The fact that French is the only official language of Quebec has been recognized since 1974, and the fact that French is the common language of the Quebec nation has been recognized for a long time as well. These facts are constantly being reinforced.

There are some concerns about the decline of French. Certain measures are providing hope, which is important, and my party, the NDP, has always been the only one that defends French and wants to strengthen it both in Quebec and across Canada.

Our record makes that clear. As my colleagues know, the NDP was the first party to talk about enacting an official languages act. It was also the first party to proclaim Quebec's right to self-determination, and the first party to advance the rights of linguistic minorities outside Quebec.

I will get back to this a bit later, but it was an NDP provincial government that set up the French-language school systems in British Columbia and Saskatchewan. Once again, in Manitoba, it was an NDP government that enacted the Official Language Act. In Ontario, it was an NDP government that created the college system.

I want to remind the House of our history and the work of NDP members like Léo Piquette in Alberta, Elizabeth Weir in New Brunswick and Alexa McDonough in Nova Scotia. In every respect, the NDP has always understood the importance of French at both the provincial and federal levels. As my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie so eloquently put it, ever since Jack Layton and the NDP adopted the Sherbrooke declaration, we have always borne in mind the need to respect the Quebec nation and to ensure that every federal program allows Quebeckers to opt out with full compensation.

I would also like to talk a bit about the trips I have taken to francophone regions over the course of my life. As my colleagues know, at 24, I decided to learn French, so I moved to Chicoutimi. Even in Chicoutimi at the time, as a young anglophone who spoke only a few words of French, I received services in English at the Jonquière office of the Société d'assurance automobile du Québec when I went to exchange my British Columbia driver's licence for a Quebec one.

In addition to my time in Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean, I also lived in the Eastern Townships east of Montreal, where I worked for several years at Champlain College and Bishop's University, two entirely English-language institutions in a beautiful region of Quebec where English-language institutions are still alive and well. I also lived in Montreal and in the Outaouais, and in all these places I found well-funded and very pleasant English-language institutions. Whether we are talking about hospitals or schools, the network is there.

What is important is to maintain these institutions, but we must especially make sure that French is protected and that it can develop throughout Quebec. This is an important aspect of what the NDP has always supported. Where I differ from my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, is about the need to talk about the importance of French outside Quebec.

I worked in northern New Brunswick and in Acadian territory, and I can say that the French language and French-language institutions are extremely strong there. That is important for the francophonie across Canada. Having also worked and lived in eastern Ontario, and as a francophile from British Columbia, I understand the importance of these French-language institutions, as well as of the federal government that finances and supports them across the country. This has not been the case in recent years, under either the Conservatives or the Liberals. The underfunding of French-language institutions puts the very strength and prosperity of francophone communities at risk.

In British Columbia, where I now live, the number of francophones is on the rise. Several factors contribute to this increase. One of the important elements is the fact that, in British Columbia, there are francophiles, people like me, especially young people, who are learning French as a key asset for supporting the francophonie in British Columbia.

I am now one of 300,000 French speakers in British Columbia. This is an important point that is not often considered by my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. The fact that there are 300,000 of us and that the number keeps rising reinforces the cultural aspect and the importance of the cultural economy of French in Canada. When Quebec or Acadian artists come to Vancouver, they perform before packed houses. The vitality of the francophone community is apparent everywhere in British Columbia. It is apparent in the increase not only in the number of francophones, but in the number of francophiles as well. Francophiles are often the ones packing the house. Right now, with COVID‑19, there are few performances, but we hope to see that change soon.

The fact that francophiles contribute to this major increase in the popularity of French in British Columbia has a lot to do with the fact that parents stand in line for an entire weekend to register their children for French immersion. There are a number of French schools for people whose first language is French, but there is also a system of French immersion schools. As a result, there are more and more consumers of Quebec, Acadian and Franco-Ontarian cultural products. This contributes to the growth of French on a national scale.

It is very clear that French must be strengthened in Quebec. I do not deny that, and the NDP fully supports that idea and the measures that come with it, but it is also important to have a federal government that strengthens the presence of francophone institutions across the country. This is the best way to strengthen French across Canada and truly build a future where the French language can thrive across the country.

[Luc Desilets, Bloc, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is true that today’s motion does not really have any legal weight, but we must not lump it together with Bill 96. We are hearing a lot today about how the amendments proposed by the Bloc Québécois are symbolic. I totally disagree, because they clearly have a binding aspect. I am certain that any constitutional provision can be binding.

What does my colleague have to say about that?

Does he believe that the motion introduced by the Bloc Québécois is binding?

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, it reinforces important aspects of things that have already been reiterated in the House of Commons in 2006 and in the Quebec National Assembly in 1974. It is important to raise these points, and I see that these are things that everyone could support.

I will reiterate the important comment made by my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, which is that it is important to make it clear that we also want to see indigenous languages thrive in Quebec and throughout Canada. This is an important aspect that must be reiterated, and I am pleased that the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie—