Debates of March 1st, 2022

Opposition Motion—Representation of Quebec in the House of Commons

[Lori Idlout, NDP, Nunavut, NU]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for Jonquière.

To some extent, I agree with the Bloc regarding its nationhood. It is not lost on me that the Bloc is arguing this as settlers, whereupon Inuit and first nations have lived and thrived since time immemorial. I agree that linguistic and cultural criteria should be of paramount importance to the electoral redistribution process.

I must ask the member what his party will do to ensure that Inuit, first nations and Métis are represented within his party.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always found similarities in what Quebeckers and indigenous nations have been calling for. Unfortunately, sometimes we get in each other’s way, and we know why.

Regarding the two major rounds of constitutional negotiations, Meech and Charlottetown, why did indigenous peoples never managed to gain recognition afterwards, even though they also seek political autonomy? It is because federalists are afraid of setting a precedent. By setting this precedent, they will be forced to grant the Quebec nation the same thing. Unfortunately, it will take courage on the part of people who hold a federalist point of view to offer recognition to the indigenous nations and, by the same token, offer recognition to the Quebec nation as well.

We have a lot of things to share together.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Salaberry—Suroît, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to listen to my colleague. He is so eloquent and intelligent and has a passion for literature, the great researchers and the great writers. My question is a little more down to earth.

He also comes from a region, Jonquière, which is known as the Saguenay—Lac‑Saint‑Jean region. Could he explain how people living in sparsely populated, rural and remote areas stand to lose the most if the Canada Elections Act is overhauled? There is also the matter of land use, which is at the heart of our discussions.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my whip is so wise.

I did not mention this in my speech, but yes, we must ensure that the distribution between major urban centres and the regions is balanced. I am a country mouse. I come from the regions, and the way we identify politically is different from people in urban areas. We need to have a voice and this needs to be taken into account as well.

I am happy that my whip was there to bring this up.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share my time with my colleague from Hochelaga.

It is with great pleasure that I rise to discuss an important issue, the readjustment of Canada's federal electoral boundaries.

My speech today will focus on a key aspect of the electoral boundaries readjustment process, which has now officially begun.

The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act sets out the process by which the seats of the House of Commons are redistributed every 10 years. Why every 10 years? It corresponds to the timing of the release of decennial census data, which is used by the Chief Electoral Officer to calculate seat allocation.

As all hon. members know, the Chief Electoral Officer used this data to do the necessary calculation in October 2021. Since then, 10 independent commissions have been created, one in each province. These three‑member commissions include a chair, who is appointed by the chief justice of the province, and two members, who are appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons.

I would like to take a moment to thank these distinguished Canadians for agreeing to do this work. The commitment they have made cannot be overstated, and I know all my colleagues agree with that.

A cynical person might say that, as MPs, we have a disproportionate level of interest in this process, but I would like to remind members that this work has a direct impact on the way each of us serves Canadians. As a result, public consultations play an essential role in the redistribution process.

I am delighted to say that, when the independent electoral boundaries commissions publish their initial boundary proposals, there will be at least one public hearing held in every province. Thanks to these public consultations, Canadians in all 10 provinces will have the opportunity to have their say about the proposals. What is more, members of the House of Commons will have the opportunity to provide input at the public hearings and voice any objections they may have.

The electoral boundaries commissions have started to develop an initial series of revised electoral district maps, which will be published in the coming months.

Then, pursuant to section 19 of the act, the commissions will publish their respective proposals in the Canada Gazette and at least one newspaper of general circulation. It is important to note that the proposal must include the dates and times of the public hearings. Under the act, the commissions must organize at least one public hearing, and it must be held 30 days after the proposal is published.

It is important to note that the commissions can hold more than one public hearing. In fact, history confirms it. During the 2012 redistribution process, 132 public hearings were held in Canada's 10 provinces.

It will come as no surprise, but the larger provinces held more public hearings than the smaller ones. For example, there were 31 public hearings in Ontario, 23 in British Columbia, 21 in Quebec and 15 in Alberta. What is more, in order to encourage participation, many of the public hearings were held in the evening.

Beyond the Canadians and MPs who made presentations, either orally or in writing, during the public hearings, the commissions agreed to consider comments received by email, fax and other means. Saskatchewan's commission received nearly 3,000 presentations in various forms, including emails, letters and petitions.

It is highly likely that the commissions will do everything they can to reach as many people as possible in their province.

I think it is also fair to say that, given the rapid changes in the information and communications environment since 2012, the commissions can probably reach an even broader public this time around. In other words, this broad public consultation, which is set to begin between April and October 2022, will allow the commissions to gather valuable information when they are revising and finalizing their proposals.

Before getting into the opportunity that MPs have to participate, I must note that in 2012, community groups, municipalities and other organizations submitted many presentations. This contribution is essential, because these stakeholders represent communities' points of view in a way that is different, but equally important for MPs.

As I mentioned earlier, all members can present their views at these public hearings. I therefore encourage any member who feels compelled to do so, since we have unique local knowledge of our constituencies and the needs of our constituents.

Furthermore, once a commission has submitted a revised report, members may also file written objections with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Once the committee has considered these objections, a copy of the objections and the committee's minutes will be forwarded to the relevant commission. Under section 23 of the act, the commission shall then consider objections that may result in changes to its boundary proposal or to the names of the proposed electoral districts.

Before I close, I would once again like to emphasize a point I made at the beginning of my speech: The electoral boundaries commissions are fully independent and responsible for producing and finalizing the boundary proposals. Although the commissions are solely responsible for this important work, as I tried to explain during my speech, there are many opportunities for the public and every member of the House to participate.

I want to close by emphasizing that all Canadians deserve to have effective representation in the House of Commons. Does this mean that we have to perfectly match a province's population to the proportion of seats assigned to that province? The answer is no, of course not. Representation must reflect the unique character of Canada.

I believe that all members will agree that what is most important here is the notion of effective representation. The commissions will consider the most recent census data, as well as such factors as the importance of protecting communities of interest and historical boundaries.

What does effective representation mean to Canadians? It means knowing that their MP is sensitive to their concerns. I know that is something we all take to heart, and it is probably the reason each of us decided to run for public office. We want to serve the Canadians who voted for us.

Every day, voters turn to their MPs to obtain advice on a certain number of issues. These issues are quite varied. It could concern progress on an immigration or visa application by a family member. Others want information about federal assistance programs. I do not have to tell my colleagues just how important this point of contact and this representation were during the two years of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Now more than ever, we must show leadership and help all Canadians be heard. I hope that my colleagues will join me in encouraging that result.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague for his very detailed, educational and informative speech. Unfortunately, I will only speak to the final comments because I cannot summarize all of it.

What stood out for me was the notion of effective representation. In that regard, does my colleague believe that, with its motion, the Bloc Québécois is right in wanting to maintain Quebec's weight, its weight as a nation, within Canada?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to perhaps inform my colleague that I was one of the three people who first proposed that Quebec be recognized as a nation at a convention of the Quebec section of the Liberal Party of Canada in 2006. Two other Liberals joined me in doing so.

I am very pleased that, a few months later, the House gave its unanimous consent to recognize Quebec as a nation. I have always supported this important recognition for my province.

I also mentioned how the distribution of seats has an impact on the efficacy of representation. I look forward to hearing what all Canadians have to say about this issue, particularly in my province of Quebec. It is important to hear what they have to say, and we need to recognize Quebec's unique differences.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

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

I would like to ask him the following question. Does he think it makes sense for Quebec to lose a seat in the redistribution of the electoral boundaries? Given that this could set a precedent because no province has ever lost a seat before and given that the same thing could also happen in other provinces, the commission should expect opposition from Quebec and even some of the other provinces.

Can the government tell the commission not to bring about this type of scenario?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

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

He raises an important point. Historically, no province has ever lost a seat. That is an extremely important consideration in this discussion between us and with all Canadians.

At the same time, as I said, we need to recognize certain historical facts and certain things that are unique in all the provinces. That has already been done in the Constitution Act, 1867. We need to debate it. I look forward to hearing from other members of the House, but also from Quebeckers and people from our other provinces.

[Taylor Bachrach, NDP, Skeena—Bulkley Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, the member spoke to the idea of effective representation, and while it is a little beyond the scope of the current motion, I am curious as to his views on the idea of moving to a truly proportional system in the way we hold elections, such as the mixed-member proportional system that is common in European countries. Could the member share his personal view on that idea?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have always been very clear, as far back as 2013, that I personally favour a preferential vote approach. I have always said that publicly and that has been my position from the beginning.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask another question on the same topic as the one from the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley.

Perhaps the member for Notre‑Dame‑de‑Grâce—Westmount could clarify his response.

I am very pleased to hear that he remains opposed to the first-past-the-post voting system.

I think he would prefer a preferential ballot system, but the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley asked if he supported a proportional representation voting system in the House.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will try to clarify my answer.

I told the member for Skeena—Bulkley Valley what my personal preferences would be. That is what he asked me and that is what I said.

However, we had a debate on what voting methods we should use. That went on for a long time after the 2015 election. As the Liberal Party very aptly put it, there was no consensus in Canada and no large majority in favour of one system over another. That is why we still have the current system.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Diversity and Inclusion (Housing)]

Mr. Speaker, today it is my turn to rise in the House to address one of the important processes of our democracy: electoral redistribution. Indeed, the official process of redistribution of electoral districts must, by law, take place every 10 years.

For 60 years, independent, non-partisan electoral boundaries commissions have been responsible for redrawing our electoral maps. These commissions were created in 1964 when Parliament passed the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. This independent approach was introduced to avoid the risk of political interference in this important process. It is an approach that aims to maintain the integrity and transparency of our democratic systems and institutions. Moreover, we have seen, through several events in recent years, and again recently, how fragile the public's confidence in our democratic institutions can be. This is why it is so important to properly follow the process of redrawing the electoral map.

While this process has already begun, Elections Canada has already made a proposal that, as a member from Quebec, I find surprising. No matter what anyone says or does, it is not the federal government's decision to reduce Quebec's weight in the House. This proposal comes from a completely independent institution and is not a political matter. Still, for the Bloc Québécois, this is another way of trying to create debates and disputes between Quebec and the federal government.

The fact is, the Bloc Québécois is not the only party making sure Quebec's voice is heard in the House. The Bloc Québécois is not the only party fighting for Quebec. The Bloc Québécois certainly does not have a monopoly on being Québécois. As a proud member from Quebec and a proud Quebecker, fighting for Quebec is what I do and have done every day since being elected. The people taking action for Quebec are not the ones on the opposition benches; they are the ones in government. Since 2015, that is exactly what we have been doing every day: delivering concrete results.

We are making a difference in the lives of all Quebeckers. We invested a record $1.8 billion to build housing and tackle the housing crisis affecting all of Quebec, especially our wonderful metropolis. We signed a $6‑billion agreement to create thousands of child care spaces in Quebec because we know there is a shortage of spaces for Quebec families. We invested $172 million to take effective action in partnership with cities against homelessness in Montreal and elsewhere in the province. We will connect all Quebeckers to high-speed Internet thanks to record investments in Canada-Quebec operation high speed. We were there with the Canadian Armed Forces to help seniors in long-term care homes at the height of the pandemic. Our armed forces also supported the vaccination campaign during the pandemic in Quebec.

That is what we have been doing. We take concrete action for Quebeckers ever day. Getting things done for Quebec comes from having Quebec MPs in government. I am very proud to be part of a team of 35 Liberal MPs who are getting results for Quebec every day.

What this motion is trying to do, to some extent, is to show that the federal government is disconnected from Quebeckers and that it does not hear their concerns. Quebec's political weight has always been important, and it will not be eroded in 2022 under our government, which is there for Quebec. We must not politicize this debate. Unfortunately, it is being implied that the federal government has contempt for Quebeckers, but the reality is quite different. I still remember an announcement that our government made in 2017. For the first time, the federal government invested $2.4 million to fund Quebec's national holiday. The Bloc Québécois may have already forgotten that this was the first time the federal government funded Quebec's national holiday, that federal money was invested in the national holiday.

It was also our government that invested $750,000 to develop Espace René‑Lévesque in New Carlisle, the hometown of one of our great democrats from Quebec. I would like the Bloc Québécois to admit that and to commend the federal government on such initiatives, which preserve the memory of René Lévesque.

It will also be our Liberal government that will bring forward the modernization of the Official Languages Act to protect our beautiful French language. We are also taking action to protect the French language and francophone culture on major digital platforms.

These are several examples of how the Liberal Party is taking concrete action for Quebec.

We still have a lot of work to do, but I can assure the House that the 35 members from Quebec on this side are working hard to improve the lives of Quebeckers. Whether it is to defend our culture, our languages, our progressive values, or the desire to leave a green future, we will always be there to fight for Quebec.

We all agree that the demographic weight of a francophone nation must be preserved. However, I do think that it is a shame that we have politicized this debate today instead of taking a more unanimous stance.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am extremely disappointed with the tone taken by my colleague from Hochelaga today. I do not know what mood she was in when she read the Bloc Québécois motion. I do not see where she got the impression that it criticizes the work of the government or the work of the members from Quebec, regardless of political stripe.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Members from Quebec of all political stripes should see this motion as an opportunity to work better for Quebec, to come up with the tools to continue to work better for Quebec, and to better represent its interests. We have plenty of opportunities to criticize what the government is doing, but I can assure the House that there is nothing of the sort in the motion that we have tabled today.

I would like to hear my colleague’s thoughts on the possibility of losing a seat here in the House of Commons and the real impact that this could have on Quebec’s political weight and on the work that members from Quebec, regardless of political stripe, can do for their constituents in the House of Commons.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it is unfortunate that every time the Bloc Québécois moves a motion, it is also a way for them to make partisan political gains. Yes, I did say partisan gains. In this instance, an independent commission is dealing with this issue. We work together every day for the good of Quebec. Today's debate in the House, however, is politicizing the issue.

Quebec's demographics and weight depend on many things, not only on representation by its members, but also on the growth of its population, especially its francophone population. This is also the Quebec government's job, and it must take responsibility for it.

[Gord Johns, NDP, Courtenay—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, here we are debating concerns about the threat to democratic representation in the House of Commons and the lack thereof. We know proportional systems have better representation in terms of democracy. The Prime Minister ran on a platform in 2015 that it would be the last unfair election and that we would get rid of the first past the post system, which we know does not work very well. It certainly could help reduce cynicism and encourage greater political participation if we had a proportional system.

Does my colleague not agree that a proportional representation electoral system would better serve Canadians and reduce the cynicism I talked about earlier? We keep hearing the Liberals say they support changing the system, like their Prime Minister said, yet they continue to say they cannot come to an agreement. Leadership is about making decisions and ensuring representation is real. That is not happening. Maybe my colleague can speak to that.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will not deny that the Liberal Party and the government made commitments on electoral reform in 2015. However, it would be such a major reform based on the democratic rule of law that we cannot base it only on a majority decision.

This reform must be unanimous and the product of consensus. This consensus did not exist at the time, which is why the reform was not carried out. That being said, I still think, like my colleague, that electoral reform needs to be addressed in Canada in order to make it more representative.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister and to the President of the Treasury Board]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask my colleague whether francophone immigration could help bolster Quebec's demographic weight and whether immigration would be a strength or a weakness.

[Soraya Martinez Ferrada, Liberal, Hochelaga, QC]

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

Yes, we must ensure the sustainability of the francophone nation and maintain Quebec's demographic weight.

I hope my colleagues in the opposition will call on Quebec to increase francophone immigration, because this is one way to maintain this population in Quebec and throughout Canada.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to take a deep breath before I start my speech.

I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Manicouagan.

Not too long ago, an anglophone journalist asked me whether Bill C‑246, which I recently introduced and which would add a so-called Quebec nation clause to the Constitution, was just another frivolous request from Quebec. After a polite pause, she added that, according to some people, this was yet another temper tantrum by Quebeckers who refuse to embrace living in harmony the Canadian way.

In response to these comments, all kinds of words came to my mind, words that common decency prevents us from using in this place, as we speak on behalf of our constituents. Although my constituents would not hold it against me if I let loose an avalanche of words that would enhance Quebec's chrestomathy for my many Canadian colleagues looking to learn the language of Leclerc and Vigneault, I will refrain from dipping into that vast inventory of words learned over decades spent in the shadows of chasubles and cassocks. I would rather take a step back.

Once I stepped back and calmed down, I could see that the comments of this young journalist were not meant to be disrespectful of Quebec society but unfortunately reflected opinions and ideas that are widespread in the Canadian provinces. It is the fruit of decades of conscious and unconscious efforts to dampen the enthusiasm of the Quebec nation in its quest for autonomy and independence.

I cannot really blame that young journalist for her comments, because she was born at a time when the narrative was already well entrenched. The seed had been planted and when the fruit is ripe, we do not think about how it grew. We are living in a time of intellectual laziness where people swallow everything they are served without asking too many questions. In fact, I would go so far as to say that these are rather sad times.

What do we do about that? I think that we need to avoid confrontation and focus on education and awareness. We have to explain why Quebec is so focused on its uniqueness, its cultural differences and its different vision on so many issues. This rather reductive perception of the Quebec nation, its political and cultural heritage and its place in the history of this country is regrettable. We need not be surprised at this view and misunderstanding of Quebec, its historic weight and its resulting legitimate aspirations, because this is all built upon misperceptions throughout Canada's institutional and political evolution.

We can go all the way back to the origins of Confederation in 1867 to better understand the place Quebec has within the Canadian federation. Again, Quebec is not a province. It is the product and the standard-bearer of one of the two distinct national communities at Canada's very origin. This dualism that people would like to forget or reduce to so little is in fact the foundation of the institutions that we are part of today.

Over the past 40 years, almost all of Quebec's aspirations and claims within the Canadian federation have been rejected. After that night in 1982, when all of Quebec was betrayed, all attempts to remedy this situation have failed. Sometimes, these attempts have been symbolic, other times they have been mere administrative accommodations. There are numerous examples.

Does all this make the quest to affirm the autonomy of the Quebec people less legitimate? No, because, I would point out, Quebec is more than just a province. Quebec is a nation. That was officially recognized in this place in 2006, as my colleague from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount said earlier. Furthermore, as was reaffirmed not that long ago, in June 2021, Quebec is a nation whose only official and common language is French. It is the only one on the North American continent.

Our responsibility, as difficult as it may be, is to continue the discussion and the ongoing exchanges unabated, without partisanship, to ensure the message is heard and to have Quebec recognized for what it is.

Consequently, the Quebec nation must be much more than just a symbol.

Its recognition must be embodied in concrete actions and provisions that go well beyond declarations and intentions. This is what we will have the opportunity to do in a few weeks when we debate Bill C-246, which I mentioned in my opening comments. And that is what we are doing today as well, as a preamble, by debating this motion, which was moved this morning by my leader and colleague, the member for Belœil—Chambly.

At the beginning of the Quiet Revolution, Quebec accounted for nearly 30% of the Canadian population. Today, roughly speaking, it accounts for 23%, and this is not getting any better. Indeed, Quebec and Canada must make efforts to correct this trend, and this work must focus on immigration. There is talk of wanting to increase immigration levels. Quebec has its own vision. We want to be able to welcome immigration to Quebec in a coherent and intelligent way. We can say that welcoming 100,000 newcomers is unrealistic if we want to welcome them properly. It is up to Quebec to determine the appropriate number or rate for its immigration capacity. That said, we are also relying on the federal government to not hinder immigration to Quebec. For example, as my colleague from Saint-Jean mentioned earlier, the treatment of student visa applicants from French-speaking Africa and the way they are discriminated against are very concerning.

When Quebec declines, French declines. The presence of French in Parliament declines. I say that with the utmost respect and consideration for francophone communities across Canada, who, like Quebec, are fighting every day for the survival of their language and recognition of their language rights within the Canadian federation. It has been recognized that the Quebec nation is one of the two founding peoples. Well, that reality must push us to take action to preserve the French fact, to maintain the Quebec nation's influence here in the House of Commons and around the world.

Canada prides itself on having two official languages and we like to say that they are English and simultaneous translation, but we must recognize that French is one as well. The motion we tabled today is intended to protect Quebec's identity, to protect Quebec's political influence, to ensure that Quebec continues to be represented as a nation, here in the House of Comments and within Canadian institutions as long as Quebec does not decide to stand on its own.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I indicated earlier, based on what the leader of the Bloc Party has said, how important actions were.

Today we introduced the official languages modernization act. Yesterday we brought forward debate on Bill C-11 in regard to the modernization of the Broadcasting Act. Both of these pieces of legislation, from a national perspective, would ensure the protection of arts and culture. I know that my Quebec colleagues, in fact all of us, see the true value of that industry in the province of Quebec and how it has enhanced the heritage of Quebec.

I am wondering if the member opposite recognizes that one does not necessarily have to be an MP from the province of Quebec, as I am not, as he knows, to advocate for wonderful things for the province of Quebec. I would like to think that members of the Bloc would also advocate for my province when it comes down to the issues.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the question from my colleague from Winnipeg North because he mentioned Bill C-11 on broadcasting, which I obviously care a lot about.

Today's motion and Bill C-246, which I think are somewhat related because they are similar in purpose, do not criticize the government's work or the intentions and work of members from other parts of Canada.

Yes, there are some good provisions in Bill C-11 to protect the discoverability, the showcasing and the presence of francophone content but also content from various communities, such as first nations communities, francophone communities outside Quebec and minority language communities. There are a lot of good things in that bill. In any case, it is what we expect from a government. We expect a government to create laws and regulations for the country as a whole, not just for certain parts of the country. This motion is not criticizing the Liberal government or its work, rather, it is a way of ensuring that Quebec maintains the political weight it deserves as a nation in the coming decades, in the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond; I enjoy working with him on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage.

There is no doubt that the NDP will support the motion. However, it was mentioned in the debate earlier that the Bloc Québécois will be introducing a bill in a few weeks that will essentially say the same thing. This means that there will be a debate in a few weeks.

I am a bit puzzled. There is currently a climate crisis; last summer’s heat wave in British Columbia killed 600. There is also a housing crisis, which has affected Quebeckers enormously. There is also the problem with health transfers, the war in Ukraine, and the pandemic. There are a lot of crises going on right now, but the Bloc is planning to present the same thing in the next few weeks, so we will debate it twice. There is an opposition day every three months. It seems to me that they could have picked two different topics.

Why did the Bloc choose to introduce a motion and a bill on the same topic, when there are so many crises affecting Quebeckers?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will say that I enjoy working with my colleague at the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage meetings.

I have two answers to my colleague from New Westminster—Burnaby's question.

The first thing I would say is that we can walk and chew gum at the same time. It is pretty incredible, but we can. In his speech this morning, my leader said there would never be a right time. If we wait, there will always be something else. I think there is never a bad time to put this issue on the table.

The other thing I want to do is thank my colleague for his advice on the Bloc Québécois's agenda. We can actually make our own decisions, and we will continue to do so. Nevertheless, I am grateful for his suggestions.