Debates of June 15th, 2021

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

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the parliamentary secretary for his speech.

As the member for Rivière‑des‑Mille‑Îles said earlier, it is music to our ears to hear all the sounds, tones and accents in French that are coloured by people's homelands.

The parliamentary secretary is a great example of the beauty of our beloved language. This is also the intention behind what we, the Bloc Québécois, are introducing today. It is about recognizing our love for this language, including with its many accents.

Madam Speaker, you have no idea how delighted my party colleagues and I are when anglophone members make the effort to speak in French. We know that it can feel somewhat awkward to express oneself in a language without perfect proficiency, but it is really touching and makes us very happy when members do make the effort.

I heard the parliamentary secretary say in his speech that the Bloc Québécois was trying to change the world. That is not at all what we are trying to do. Actually, we are trying to bring people together. Perhaps our message is not getting through, based on the amount of negative comments about francophones on social media for example.

I would like to put the following question to my colleague because he lives in French in an official language minority community.

Does he have any advice for us on how we should communicate our message about the importance of preserving the French language?

Maybe we are doing something wrong and he could provide some advice.

[Darrell Samson, Liberal, Sackville—Preston—Chezzetcook, NS]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and comments.

As I mentioned in my speech, Quebec has always been there for francophone minorities across Canada. That is very important, and we have always been very appreciative. We worked closely with him in several areas. Earlier, I spoke about francophone immigration, which is very important for the linguistic minority and for Quebec. We must work together.

The clear message he is looking for is our message, that is, our party is there to protect Quebeckers and to work with them. We have a strong, French, English, bilingual and united Canada.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport]

Madam Speaker, as a proud Quebecker and member for Hochelaga, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion of my colleague from Beloeil—Chambly.

I moved to Quebec when my parents and I immigrated to the province more than 40 years ago. I am a child of Bill 101 who grew up proud of being a Quebecker. Today, I work and live in French, the language that I also share with my children. Over the years, I have become steeped in the values, ambitions, language and culture of Quebec. I consider myself a Quebecker first and foremost. I chose and deeply love our nation.

Nationalism is not exclusive to one parliamentary group. Our identities are not mutually exclusive, they are complementary. We can be proud Quebeckers and hope that Quebec is robust, but still believe in the strength of a federal model. It is our duty, as Quebeckers, to focus above all on the aspects that unite us and allow us to thrive in the model that Quebeckers have chosen and that we have chosen.

With its French language, Quebec is a strong nation with a unique identity, a strong artistic community and a growing entrepreneurial culture, a nation that is always looking for new ways to create in French. These are certainly distinctive traits that give our Quebec nation its unique identity.

Quebec nationalism belongs to me. It belongs to all Quebeckers. Our nationalism transcends political parties. It is about affirming that Quebec's future is intimately linked to its ability to assume its rightful place in Canada and the world. It is about affirming that Quebec is a model of language protection and immigrant integration, and that Quebec can pass on its national pride to future generations and the rest of the world. We must work together to ensure a sustainable francophone future for those who come after us. Let us focus on our similarities and our common goals to create a unifying discourse that respects Quebec's unique character and builds an influential nation.

By supporting Quebec's desire to enshrine its unique francophone character in its section of the Constitution, we are looking toward the future. Let us remain squarely focused on the future and join forces with Quebec, particularly when it comes to protecting the French language. We need to ensure the survival of French if we want to keep it and our linguistic duality alive. I would like to remind members that, in 2016, the House recognized that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada. That was 15 years ago. The Quebec nation is clearly a flagship province and the cradle of the francophonie in North America.

Our government is the first federal government to recognize the decline of French. We clearly recognized that we need to work together to do more, a lot more, to protect French across Canada, including in Quebec. We are determined to take all the necessary legislative and administrative steps to make that happen.

Let us remember that, in the 1980s, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms provided for the principle of advancing the equality of status and use of our two languages. This principle of advancing the equality of use and status required significant efforts to protect and promote French in our institutions and communities. However, we know and see that the use of French is in decline, despite the charter and provincial legislation, including that of Quebec.

Last year, in the Speech from the Throne, our government established that defending the rights of francophone minorities outside Quebec and defending the rights of the anglophone minority in Quebec are a priority, but it also clearly stated, for the first time, that among our two official languages, French is in decline.

In a North America with more than 360 million mainly anglophone residents, we must protect our nine million francophone Canadians, but also the demographic weight of francophones, not only in Quebec, but across the country. That is what we must continue to do.

Last February, my colleague the Minister of Official Languages tabled in the House the reform document entitled “English and French: Towards a substantive equality of official languages in Canada”. It is a statement of our vision for modernizing the Official Languages Act. At the time, we announced our intention to modernize the act to ensure lasting protection of the French language across Canada and in Quebec.

The Prime Minister made it clear in the House when he said, “the best way to ensure a bilingual Canada is to ensure that Quebec is first and foremost a francophone Quebec.”

Our government tabled a bill in the House today based on this reform document. We firmly intend to keep our promises, which include recognizing French as the official language of Quebec. Like all other provinces, Quebec will also have to respect the protections that the Constitution provides for both official languages.

We will recognize the predominant use of the English language in Canada and North America, and therefore the imperative to protect and promote the French language. The act will further promote and protect francophone minority communities across Canada. However, it is important that we recognize the French fact in Quebec.

This legislation will also specify and list the areas in which the federal government will be required to act to protect and promote French. The act will recognize the key role that the Canadian government will play in encouraging federally regulated businesses to promote French. French must be present throughout Canada, in Quebec and in Montreal as a language of service and a language of work.

Quebec has an essential role to play in these changes to our language framework. This is a historic initiative and the first of its kind since the Official Languages Act was first adopted in 1969. We are introducing a bill that recognizes the particular circumstances surrounding the French language by first recognizing its status within the Canadian francophonie.

As a francophone Quebecker, I want to close by saying that I am just as concerned as my Bloc Québécois colleague about the decline of French in Quebec and in Montreal. That is why our government recognized the need to protect the French language in Quebec, as the demographic weight of francophones is declining.

It is time to modernize the Official Languages Act. We are already working on it, without waiting for the Constitution to be amended.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, I salute my colleague. I am encouraged to hear that she feels comfortable and connected to the French language, much like each and every Quebecker. I would like to think that she will vote in favour of our motion.

In the second part of her speech, she talked about what her hon. colleague was up to. We have been wanting to talk about this reform for months. Why, then, was it introduced today, when there are just a few days remaining in the parliamentary session? It will be very difficult to move forward with this bill when we know full well what could happen in the coming months.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her important question.

Our government has been working on the official languages issue for months and years now. Last February, the minister had already announced that we would introduce a bill to modernize the Official Languages Act. That is what we did today.

The thing to keep in mind today is that the government means business. Many of us Quebeckers, on both sides of the House, are strongly committed to protecting the French language right across Canada, but especially in Quebec.

[Heather McPherson, NDP, Edmonton Strathcona, AB]

I apologize, my French is not very good.

The Liberal government has promised legislation that would protect minority language rights, including post-secondary education in minority language communities. When will the government announce financial support for Campus Saint-Jean?

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I want to congratulate her on her speech in the House last night, which I listened to very carefully.

I would like to say to her that I also sit on the Standing Committee on Official Languages, which examined the case of Laurentian University. I want to assure my colleague that our government is firmly committed to protecting the French language, particularly when it comes to French-language education.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, let me start by saying that it will be my great pleasure to share my time with my hon. colleague from Drummond.

I want to express just how honoured and moved I feel to be taking part in today's debate. This Bloc Québécois motion is about the core of who we are.

In my past life, I had the opportunity and the immense privilege to be a member of the House of Commons and the National Assembly of Quebec. My swearing in here in Ottawa was not a moment of celebration because I spent the whole time thinking about my Acadian ancestors who were deported on the grounds that they refused to pledge allegiance to Her Majesty. I was thinking about my Canadian ancestors who were not allowed to hold positions in government if they refused to swear the oath of allegiance.

When I first arrived at the National Assembly of Quebec, the swearing-in ceremony was a solemn and uplifting experience. The oath of allegiance in Quebec is the same as the one here in Ottawa, but we also pledge allegiance to Quebec's constitution and its people. Every member of the National Assembly of Quebec, no matter where they are from, what their first language is or what faith they profess, swears an oath to the constitution and people of Quebec.

To me, that makes all the difference in the world between the oath of allegiance we must swear here in the House of Commons and the oath of allegiance we swear at the National Assembly of Quebec. In the latter case, we do not need to explain to anyone, regardless of their ethnic origin, the religion they practice or their mother tongue, that Quebec is a people. It is assumed and patently clear.

Nor do we have to explain to Quebec MPs that there is a constitution of Quebec, which unlike the Constitution of Canada is not written in black and white on paper. They are constitutional conventions, I would even say constitutional traditions and a certain number of founding documents, including the Charter of the French Language, which establishes that French is the only official language of Quebec and the common language of all Quebeckers.

The purpose, in the spirit of Camille Laurin, was to ensure that in every schoolyard in Quebec, young Quebeckers speak French to one another, no matter their origin, religion or mother tongue. Quebeckers are a people.

As early as the 16th century, natives of this country were no longer called French. They were Canadians on Canadian land, and Acadians on Acadian land. Those who were born in this country were already no longer being called French.

After the conquest, a distinction was made between the English—who had just settled on the land, or more generally the British because of course there were Scots as well—and Canadians, who were descendants of the French. When the English started to identify as Canadians, descendants of the French started distinguishing themselves by referring to themselves as French Canadians and in Acadia as Acadians.

There was a pivotal moment called the Estates General of French Canada, during which Quebeckers asserted that they were not just French Canadians, because of their territory, their history and their distinct character, especially with respect to the law. Unlike the rest of Canada, Quebec uses civil law, not common law.

All these distinct characteristics meant that Quebeckers, not unlike Acadians, whose identity was forged by the absolutely horrific deportation, began to distance themselves from a French Canadian identity and embrace a Québécois identity.

People from Sri Lanka, Romania, Nigeria and Argentina found it difficult to adopt a French Canadian identity because of the history associated with that name, but it was much easier for them to identify as Quebeckers. In my previous stint as a federal MP, I debated this with some of our colleagues who were very attached to the notion of French Canadians. There was an integrative element to the change that came about in Quebec during the 1960s in the wake of the Quiet Revolution.

In the wake of the Quiet Revolution, we wanted to affirm the French character of Quebec through Bill 22, which was introduced by Robert Bourassa's government, as well as through Bill 101, which was introduced by René Lévesque's government in 1977. However, in 1982, a major change occurred, namely, the unilateral patriation of the Constitution, including the integration of a charter of rights and freedoms, which led to the invalidation of entire sections of the Charter of the French Language.

Today, we are seeing the results of that. Despite this protection, French has lost ground, even in Quebec. I commend this government for recognizing, for the very first time in the history of Parliament, that French is in decline, including in Quebec. I am willing to do that.

I am of Acadian descent and proud of it. I have always said, and I will say it again here, that the fate of Quebeckers is closely linked to that of Canada's francophone and Acadian communities and their fate is closely linked to that of Quebeckers. That is why it is extremely important for Quebec to be able to reaffirm its French character through Bill 96, which was introduced by the current government led by Premier François Legault. That bill proposes using a provision of the Constitution Act, 1982—the same Constitution that gutted entire sections of the Charter of the French language and that has led us to face the tragic fact that French is in decline in Quebec too—in order to reaffirm the fact that Quebec is a nation and that French is its official language and the common language of its members.

Now, does this mean, as in the days of the Estates General of French Canada, that Quebec wants to distance itself from the rest of French Canada? Of course not. On the contrary, I think that the more Quebec is able to affirm its French character and its distinctiveness, the more it will be able to extend its influence to all francophone and Acadian communities in Canada, and even in the United States, because I believe, and I reiterate, that our fates are intimately linked to each other.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Madam Speaker, what a wonderful testimony. It is very interesting to hear from colleagues with various experiences who can speak about where they are now.

My question for my colleague is very simple.

What will happen after the vote, which, in theory, will pass? What actions or consequences will result from this motion for the Quebec nation?

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, unlike others, I believe that words have meaning and that words are not innocent. I believe that the Government of Quebec is fully within its rights to include in the Constitution Act, 1982, under the provisions introduced in the Constitution of 1867, the fact that it is a nation, whose official language is French, which is the common language of all Quebeckers.

I am convinced that this law, which can certainly be improved by the members of the National Assembly, will reaffirm and reassert, if I may say so, the National Assembly's authority to better protect the French language in Quebec.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank and congratulate my colleague from Montarville for his brilliant speech. He is passionate about the language, francophone culture and Quebec culture, and has been a great defender of them since the beginning of his political battle.

The question I would like to ask my colleague has more to do with the bill that the government has chosen to introduce today, the day the Bloc Québécois is proposing a motion that is intended to be unifying, that is intended to be peaceful and that calls for the recognition of Quebec for what it wants Canada to see in it.

I would like my colleague to give me his impressions on the relevance and the opportunism of introducing this bill today.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I think my colleague is quite right to point out that it is a strange coincidence to choose this very day when the Bloc Québécois is proposing this motion to finally come up with a bill that has been announced for ages, and to introduce it so late in the day that it will not even be possible to discuss it before the adjournment, and possibly not before an election.

As a result, introducing this bill does not really commit the government to anything; it is a symbolic gesture meant to show that the Bloc Québécois is not alone in wanting to defend the French language and that the Liberal government also has a fine bill to amend the Official Languages Act. What else does it have to offer? Beyond the symbolism, because the government's gesture will remain symbolic, what else is there? That is what we are interested in.

I understand that the current federal government wants to protect French, not just in Quebec, but elsewhere in Canada. However, that must not remain just wishful thinking. It must not remain just words. As long as legislation remains unpassed, it is nothing but words.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to rise to speak today on this special day as we celebrate the 30th anniversary of my party, the Bloc Québécois.

Contrary to what some uncharitable souls have said, the Bloc Québécois has always been relevant. As evidence of this, for our opposition day, the Bloc Québécois is moving a motion to have the French language recognized as the official language and the only common language in Quebec. Through our actions, the Bloc Québécois is forcing the government's hand to some degree, and now the government is taking this opportunity to introduce its bill on reforming the Official Languages Act. It is bizarre, to say the least, shall we say.

That said, I will now get back to the subject at hand. Today I want to talk a little more about the Quebec identity and my beloved French language. We all have different reasons to be proud Quebeckers. One of the things I am most proud of as a Quebecker is precisely our language. There was a time when I used it as a tool, one that I have always tried to respect, to use well and to pass on to my children and those around me. By default, the way we express ourselves reflects on those around us; we have an influence.

Like it or not, Quebeckers have always been a distinct nation. My colleagues who spoke earlier stressed that repeatedly. In the 18th century, Bougainville said of Quebeckers, “It seems that we are a different nation”. Governor Guy Carleton said that the province of Quebec is completely different from the others and that these special circumstances cannot be ignored. In 1976, René Lévesque said, “We are not a small people. We may be something like a great people.”

The status of French in Quebec is very worrisome. French has always been a language that needed to be protected and maintained, but it has never been in danger until now. I do not want to get caught up in figures, but the number of people in Quebec who use French as their primary language has not dropped below 80% in decades. That demands a response. That means we need to take action.

The first thing we can do is to at least acknowledge this state of affairs and recognize that Quebec must be supported, protected and valued. Decisions must be made, political decisions, decisions by citizens, by residents of different regions of the country to learn to speak to us, to learn to respect us, to learn to communicate and to learn to share this love that we have for this language.

I put the question to a few colleagues. Perhaps we did not get things right. Perhaps we did not properly convey our message. That is possible. I might surprise my colleagues. I am going to tell that about my love and affection for Canada.

I know that my colleagues will say that it is difficult to believe that I had a life before politics because I am so young. However, in a previous life I had the great pleasure and privilege of being the host of a cooking show on television. For a few years there was an English version of this show. I urge colleagues not to Google it.

While filming this very rewarding show, I had the privilege of travelling across Canada. I went to Peggy's Cove and tasted one of the most memorable chowders. As I talk about it, I am getting hungry, my mouth is watering and I want to go back there. I fished for salmon in Miramichi. I cannot tell you how many times I ate peameal bacon sandwiches at the St. Lawrence market in Toronto while on my way to the magnificent Niagara region. I shopped at West Edmonton Mall. I rode horseback in the Calgary foothills. I visited Vancouver countless times. I love that city and that area. Who would not love the magnificent Okanagan Valley? I saw Whistler and other places, and I still have many places to visit.

In all my discoveries and travels across Canada, one thing stands out. Despite all of the amazing places I have discovered and the wonderful people I have met and bonded with, bonds that continue to this day, I always felt that I belonged to another nation and that my identity had a home somewhere else. I felt that way every time I came back to Quebec. I had nothing against the rest of Canada. My head was filled with memories, my heart was grateful, but whenever I came back to Quebec, I felt the way an Italian might feel returning to Italy after a trip or a Spaniard might feel returning to Madrid. I felt like I was coming home. This showed me in a clear, obvious and concrete way that I belonged to the Quebec nation. That did not prevent me from truly loving my neighbours, the Canadians, but Quebec was my nation, and it still is today.

I have always been convinced that the best way to promote something, whether it is a simple idea or a societal undertaking like the one my colleagues and I hold dear, is through persuasion, not division. There is no shortage of persuasive arguments for the great undertaking that my colleagues and I are advocating for. French, a beautiful language that sounds as melodious in spoken form as it does in song, will always be the most charming conveyance for those arguments. No other language in the world sounds as good in song. No other language in the world makes wordsmiths as happy as French does. Our language is the envy of the entire world. People have told me that our language is so beautiful, but it sounds so complicated and they wish they could learn it, master it and be able to make it sound the way we do. What a compliment.

As I said earlier, when our colleagues in the House make the effort to speak French during their interventions, we are very touched and honoured. I am honestly proud when my colleague from Kitchener—Conestoga conducts sound tests at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage in French, because he is taking French courses and he wants to show us the progress he is making in learning French. I find that touching.

I am also touched by the fact that the member for Parry Sound—Muskoka will be travelling to La Pocatière again this summer to take French courses. I think that is wonderful, and that is what is so great about our undertaking.

Anglophone artists have chosen to write and sing in French because they prefer the way it sounds. It is a magnificent language for music. I commend the greats like Jim Corcoran, whom I have always admired. I have always been a die-hard fan of his. Born in Sherbrooke as an anglophone, he chose to express himself in French because he loves our language. He still has his charming little accent when he sings, but he is one of the most incredible wordsmiths, one of the finest songwriters that Quebec has ever known, yet he is an anglophone.

The motion we are moving today simply calls on the House to acknowledge a reality and 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. There is no trap there. It is not a non‑confidence motion. It is a peaceful motion that simply calls on the House to recognize Quebec as it wants to be seen, in other words as a proud, full nation that is welcoming and open to everyone who chooses to be a Quebecker.

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

Madam Speaker, our colleague makes us want to carry on and talk about people like Vigneault, Leclerc and Ferland. On June 24, we will celebrate our national holiday, and it will be an opportunity to remember just how proud we are to be a nation whose only common language is French.

I also want to come back to something that he said. I too see this Bloc Québécois motion as an opportunity for recognition, not a threat.

At the same time, I am wary of support that seems to be fleeting rather than heartfelt. Of course, we are not the only ones capable of loving the French language.

Does my colleague agree that, without the Bloc Québécois, this debate to stand up for, defend and promote the French language as the common language of Quebec would never have happened during this Parliament?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. Unfortunately, I have to answer yes. There are issues that Quebec cares a lot about, and all members of the Bloc Québécois promised to defend and represent the values and interests of Quebec in the House of Commons.

Without the Bloc Québécois here, many of Quebec's concerns and interests would likely be simply swept under the rug or shelved for later on the pretext that they are not pressing or urgent. Without the Bloc Québécois here working hard, I am afraid that many of the issues that Quebeckers care about would still be forgotten today.

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Montarville, QC]

Madam Speaker, I really enjoyed the part of my colleague's speech where he took us on a virtual tour of Canada, showcasing its beauty and vastness. I completely agree with him on that. However, I also appreciated what he said about how Canada is indeed a magnificent country, as are many other countries, but it is not our country.

I think he captured Quebec's Frenchness. Quebec is not yet a country, but it is only a matter of time because that is what we truly want, and we are working to make it happen. I would like my colleague to comment further on that. It is what I would consider an esoteric factor that makes our English Canadian colleagues deeply uncomfortable because they do not understand how anyone can love Canada yet feel that it is not their country.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Montarville for his question.

It is certainly something I find difficult to explain. For some time now, the more I think about it, the more I believe we should perhaps do things differently and change the way we communicate and share our vision and our plans.

I always thought we would do better to be good neighbours than difficult bedfellows. When it comes down to it, we would be so much better off if we both had our full powers and our independence. Instead, we are stuck in a kind of shackle where we understand each other very poorly and where we are both somewhat retreating into our corners, holding positions that are perhaps more historical than factual or actual.

I also want to mention that I am a little disappointed that I am not getting more questions and comments. As I was saying earlier, our motion was not intend to be provocative; quite the opposite. I had hoped for a little more interest on the part of my colleagues from the other parties. I hoped they might express some curiosity about what is prompting us to move this motion today. I have to say that, in the end, it looks like maybe it does not interest them all that much, but I still wanted to point that out.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

I was born in Ontario, in Niagara, surrounded by Franco-Ontarians. I chose to go to Quebec at the age of 25 to study civil law, and I settled there. That is where I made a career of teaching civil law in both French and English, and I had my children educated in French.

I am with the majority of Quebeckers who identify with both Quebec and Canada. This is complicated, but I would like to remind my colleagues on the other side of the House that the vast majority of Quebeckers identify not just with Quebec, obviously with pride, but also with Canada, with pride as well.

It is not every day that we have the opportunity to dwell on the procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada. My remarks will address the scope and nature of the indisputable authority of provincial legislatures to amend their provincial constitutions. I wish to make three points today.

First, since Confederation in 1867, provincial legislatures have had the authority to unilaterally amend certain aspects of their provincial constitutions.

Second, while the exercise of this constitutional amending power typically relates to the machinery of government, it can nevertheless be carried out by a provincial legislature that wishes to amend its provincial constitution by adding provisions relating to the specific nature of the province.

Third, although the procedure for unilateral amendment by provincial legislatures allows for certain adjustments to a province's constitution, those adjustments must necessarily be limited to that province.

That means one province cannot affect another by this amending procedure, nor can it affect, by this amending procedure, other provisions of the Constitution of Canada or the norms whose existence was essential to the compromise leading to Confederation.

The provincial legislatures have always had the authority to amend their own constitutions. Section 92(1) of what was then known as the British North America Act, permitted provincial legislatures to exclusively make laws in relation to the matters that included the amendment from time to time of the constitution of the province, except in regard to the office of the lieutenant-governor. That provision was repealed and replaced in 1982. The authority for the provinces to amend their own constitutions is now located in section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which provides that, subject to section 41, which deals with matters protected by unanimous consent procedure, the legislature of each province may exclusively make laws amending the constitution of the province.

As the successor to the provision under the former British North America Act, this provision has been held by the Supreme Court to be essentially equivalent in scope to its predecessor. For the legislatures to exercise the authority conferred by these unilateral amending procedures, all they need to do is legislate in the ordinary course. In short, then, we are not dealing with a new or even controversial power. Rather, it is a power as old as Confederation itself.

The constitutional amendments made under section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, and under its precursor in what is now known as the Constitution Act, 1867, have generally been in connection with government institutions.

For example, provincial legislatures initially exercised this authority to adopt legislation regarding their privileges and immunities. This authority also enabled the provincial legislatures to abolish their own upper chambers. When that happened, some provisions of the Constitution Act, 1867, the founding document of the Canadian Confederation, became obsolete.

For my last example, I will mention that provisions in a provincial law regarding the operation of the province's public service were deemed constitutional. There is therefore no doubt that the provincial legislatures can amend their province's constitution to a certain extent by adopting provisions regarding the operation of a provincial government body.

The instrument targeted by a constitutional amendment is important for determining the appropriate formula. That said, this factor alone must not be given undue weight. It would be impossible for a provincial legislature or for Parliament to indirectly amend the intangible provisions in the Canadian Constitution by adopting incompatible provisions in a separate piece of legislation.

The same is true for the rules of law in the provinces' constitutional texts. These provincial constitutions, along with the Canadian Constitution, are not all found within a single document labelled as the constitution. Rather, they consist of a set of texts, principles and agreements of a constitutional nature regarding the provincial governments. What matters is the nature of the amendment and the effect it will have. We would be putting form above substance if we were to only look at the title of the document being amended.

That being said, provisions enacted through the unilateral amendment procedure cannot amend the provisions of the Constitution of Canada, the supreme and entrenched law of the country. The authority that section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, provides is limited to amending the constitution of the province. To make an amendment in relation to any provision of the Constitution of Canada that applies to one or more, but not all, provinces would require proceeding by way of the bilateral procedures set out in section 43 of the Constitution Act.

This would be the case, for instance, if a province intended to make an amendment to one of the provisions that relates to the use of English or French language within the province. It is through this procedure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was amended to included section 16.1, which enshrines the equality of the French and English linguistic communities in the Province of New Brunswick.

An amendment may also be beyond the authority of the provincial legislatures under section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, even though it alters the provision that bears on the operation of an organ of the government of the province. This will be the case where the provision is entrenched as being indivisibly related to the federal principle or to a fundamental term or condition of the union at Confederation. This is the case for section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867.

While it relates to the use of English and French in Parliament, in the legislature of Quebec and in the courts, it cannot be amended through either Parliament's unilateral amendment procedure or the provincial unilateral amendment procedure. Likewise, an amendment through the unilateral amendment procedure could not insulate provisions that conflict with the charter.

For instance, section 23 of the charter guarantees minority language educational rights to citizens of Canada. An amendment to this provision, which grants language rights to all Canadians in all of the provinces and territories, would require proceeding by way of unanimous consent procedure for amending the Constitution of Canada. This would require resolutions from the Senate, the House of Commons and the legislative assemblies of all 10 provinces.

That, however, is not what is being proposed by the bill introduced in the Quebec National Assembly. The amendment procedure relied upon in this case is the unilateral amendment procedure; because of this, the Constitution of Canada cannot be amended either directly or indirectly. The amendment may only relate to the constitution of the province. In that sense, the choice of procedure should guide our understanding of the proposal.

Keep in mind that the source of section 45 of the Constitution Act, 1982, goes back to the days of Confederation. This limited authority to amend certain aspects of a province's constitution is reflected in section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982, which authorizes Parliament to unilaterally make certain amendments to the Constitution of Canada. These provisions recognize that Parliament and the provincial legislatures are equal partners in the Canadian constitutional structure.

While some elements of our constitutional order are, quite rightly, virtually immutable, others can still be amended in accordance with the constitutional architecture as a whole.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for his intervention.

On the defence and protection of French in general, I would like to ask him this.

Why introduce a bill on modernizing the Official Languages Act today, when there are six days left in the session?

Does that mean there will not be an election this fall?

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Montreal for his question.

That is a question he should ask my colleague, the Minister of Official Languages. I know that she has worked hard throughout the session to move this bill forward, which I believe will be released shortly.

Governor General’s Literary Awards

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, today I would like to recognize two outstanding authors in my riding. They are both recipients of the 2020 Governor General's Literary Awards.

Eric Walters, accomplished children's author and one of the key founders of I Read Canadian Day, was the winner of the young people's text literature category with his book The King of Jam Sandwiches.

Dr. Madhur Anand, professor, author and scientist, was the winner of the non-fiction category with her memoir This Red Line Goes Straight to Your Heart.

I encourage everyone to read Canadian, and in particular during #IndigenousReads month, to show their support to our talented indigenous authors and illustrators. This also supports our publishers and our local bookstores. People can use the #IReadCanadianDay to share their favourite stories.

Parry Sound—Muskoka

[Scott Aitchison, Conservative, Parry Sound—Muskoka, ON]

Madam Speaker, as Canadians are now finally receiving their vaccinations, and we are slowly getting past this pandemic, Parry Sound—Muskoka is eager and ready to be open and welcome visitors again.

From the towering windswept pines clinging to the rocky shores of Georgian Bay in the west to the pristine canoe routes of Algonquin Park in the east, and from the Trent-Severn Waterway in the south to the Dokis first nation on the shores of Lake Nipissing in the north, the natural beauty of Parry Sound—Muskoka will rejuvenate one's soul.

Whether one camps, glamps or stays at a five-star resort, whether one prefer s'mores by the campfire or fine dining by the water's edge, whether one prefers the nighttime chorus of the forest or stage performances of world-class artists, Parry Sound—Muskoka is the destination.

To seasonal residents, visitors and tourists, Parry Sound—Muskoka is ready when they are. Let us bring on the summer.

Infrastructure Funding in Scarborough—Agincourt

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Madam Speaker, last week I was joined by the Minister of Infrastructure and Communities, other levels of government and community partners in announcing funding for the Bridletowne neighbourhood centre in my riding of Scarborough—Agincourt.

This announcement marks the first substantial piece of non-transit infrastructure for Scarborough, and families will benefit from it for generations to come. Thanks to the investing in Canada plan, our government is providing more than $26.7 million for this hub, which will house a 50-unit dialysis centre by Scarborough Health Network; spaces for child care, youth and seniors; a pool and fitness centre by the YMCA, a Hong Fook nurse practitioner clinic; and spaces for social agencies led by the United Way. This will all under one roof.

I am thankful to work with our partners in continuing the work of my late husband, former MP Arnold Chan, to provide this much needed space for our diverse community in which everyone can thrive.

30th Anniversary of the Bloc Québécois

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, today is the 30th anniversary of the founding of the Bloc Québécois. Thirty years ago, on June 15, 1991, I hosted the founding convention in Sorel-Tracy. On that day, Quebec rallied behind a party, its party, that would defend its interests unequivocally. Every day since then, the Bloc Québécois has fought on all fronts for the Quebec nation.

Today, by chance or a quirk of fate, our anniversary coincides with a historic debate on enshrining Quebec in Canada's Constitution as a nation whose official and common language is French.

Thirty years later, the Bloc Québécois is the only party that can present this measure to affirm Quebec. At every opportunity, the Bloc represents our identity, our values, our language and our culture. Thirty years and many historical events later, the Bloc Québécois continues to turn the established order on its head, and it is proud of the trust placed in it by the Quebec nation to be the standard bearer for its will and aspirations.

Louise Harel

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Madam Speaker, it is my turn to rise today in the Parliament of Canada to recognize an exceptional woman, Louise Harel.

Although we are not from the same political family, we do share a love for Hochelaga and its people. Louise Harel is a feminist, a sovereignist and a proud resident of Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.

She was a member of the National Assembly for over 30 years in Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, held various ministerial positions and was the only woman elected President of the National Assembly of Quebec. Although she is already an officer of the Ordre national du Québec and a recipient of the Grand Cross of the Ordre de la Pléiade, I wanted to state that the City of Montreal has just awarded her the title of citizen of honour.

Ms. Harel has dedicated her entire life to improving the lives and dignity of the most vulnerable, as well as to promoting intercultural ties and defending the French language. She leaves an immense legacy in Quebec, including the Pay Equity Act and legislation on family patrimony. I always found our discussions on diversity and the role of women to be truly inspiring.

Thank you, Louise, for your compassion and your integrity, for your many struggles for the common good and for continuing to be a model of a progressive woman of conviction.