Mr. Champoux.
Evidence of meeting #122 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Evidence of meeting #122 for Canadian Heritage in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
June 4th, 2024 / 4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I've heard some people say that they're afraid that this will complicate the process and that it will delay or complicate access to the program.
We recognize Quebec as a nation, and we recognize that Quebec has legal traditions that are distinct from those of Canada. We aren't just talking about a regional distinction, we're talking about the recognition of a distinct nation, with distinct legal traditions, values that are unique to it, and a number of areas of jurisdiction that fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the National Assembly of Quebec.
We're not putting obstacles in the way of the program. We've said many times that we think the Court Challenges Program is a good program, if it's administered properly and if it's intended for the right clientele. So we don't want to prevent people from accessing the program, quite the contrary. We don't want to prevent people from having access to the courts and all the means by which they can challenge laws that they feel are discriminatory.
However, we think it's relevant, in the case of Quebec, to establish guidelines during negotiations. We don't impose them, we're not banging our fists on the table, but we want the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the Government of Quebec to negotiate these guidelines, particularly to recognize that the federal government won't go in a certain direction in a given situation if it falls under Quebec's jurisdiction.
Once the negotiations have been completed and concluded, there's no reason why this would delay the administration of the program and impede access to the program for anyone in Quebec and Canada. It's simply a matter of being consistent with the fact that the House of Commons has recognized, on more than one occasion, that Quebec forms a nation, with different values and different legal traditions. In our opinion, adding a framework agreement to such a program, which has an impact on Quebec's jurisdictions, values and legal distinctions, is not at all exaggerated or far‑fetched.
I'll leave it there, Mr. Chair.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Are there any other comments on BQ-7 as discussed?
(Amendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2 [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Shall the short title carry?
4:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
We move on now to BQ-8.
Mr. Champoux, I'll have you move this first. Then I will have some words to say on it.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I move amendment BQ‑8. I will wait for your comments before arguing about the amendment.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you very much.
The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble.
As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774:
In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill.
In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is substantive and is therefore inadmissible. That's the ruling on BQ-8.
4:35 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
4:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Martin Champoux Bloc Drummond, QC
Mr. Chair, I'm proud to move amendment BQ‑9, which talks about recognizing French as the official language of Quebec.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Thank you very much.
The amendment seeks to make a substantive modification by adding new elements to the preamble.
Again, as House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states on page 774, “In the case of a bill that has been referred to committee after second reading—
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
Suspense? Good.
In the opinion of the chair, the proposed amendment is substantive and is therefore inadmissible.
Now we go to G-3.
I will turn it over to Mr. Noormohamed.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I would like to bring this forward as amendment G-3, if I might.
4:40 p.m.
Liberal
Taleeb Noormohamed Liberal Vancouver Granville, BC
I would like to amend Bill C-316 in the preamble by replacing lines 13 and 14 on page 1 with the following:
Whereas it is of utmost importance that it be possible to bring before the courts test cases of na-
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Vice-Chair Conservative Kevin Waugh
It says here that, if asked, the amendment is admissible, since G-1 was adopted.
Mrs. Thomas.
