44th Parl. 1st Sess.
June 2, 2022 10:00AM
Mr. Speaker, could our colleagues please move their conversations somewhere outside the House?
Even though I am next to the member for La Prairie, I cannot hear what he is saying.
31 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the member for Winnipeg North, who I find very interesting and enjoy hearing from.
I do not mean to insult him, but I noticed something in his presentation that I see frequently and that I would describe as “predatory federalism”. I apologize for using that phrase, but it means that the Quebec nation and the French language are great as long as they remain a quaint curiosity.
If we look back in history, we have seen this predatory federalism on several occasions. I could even go back to the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which could have led to Quebec being recognized, since Canada was supposed to be a bilingual and bicultural country. However, the federalists got scared and resorted to predatory federalism. They thought that if they granted recognition to Quebec, they would have a problem later on because that recognition could be leveraged for political power. That is why they went with multiculturalism instead.
That was the first time Quebec was rejected, but it was far from the last. Just think of Meech Lake or Charlottetown. Every time Quebec has asked for the political power to which it is entitled as a nation, the federalists have said no and invoked what I call “predatory federalism”. It goes without saying that Quebec is trying to protect itself in response to that.
If they recognize us as a nation, why not give us the power and the potential that belong to a nation? I would remind my colleague from Winnipeg North that this assembly was once prepared to recognize Quebec's political power by giving it 25% of the seats in the Charlottetown accord. Unfortunately, that accord was never adopted because people got scared, as my colleague explained earlier.
I do not see why he is afraid to add a Quebec clause to Bill C‑14. I do not know what scares him about that prospect, other than the fact that it would give Quebec a certain recognition. I believe that is clear enough. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I move:That this question be now put.
358 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking why we are in such a hurry. Simply put, we have been waiting a long time for the Quebec nation to be recognized.
Earlier, I was talking about the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which was in 1963, if I am not mistaken. It proved to be a failure for us. Then, in 1982, the Quebec nation suffered another setback with the patriation of the Constitution. Then there was Meech Lake and Charlottetown, two more disappointments for the Quebec nation. Then came a referendum, and we were so close to achieving our destiny. In the end, our victory was stolen, perhaps by the sponsorship program, which my colleague may have heard about.
I do not know about him, but we are losing patience, which is perhaps why we are acting quickly.
135 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, the procedure is very straightforward. We want this assembly to vote on the motion moved by my colleague. It is as simple as that.
We can talk about it now. We spent an entire day doing so. As members know, there was an opposition day about Quebec's political weight during which we discussed an issue similar to this morning's issue. The House had a chance to vote then.
This is very simple. We want this assembly to vote. It is as simple as that. We do this all day long.
94 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member for Winnipeg North’s approach very interesting.
Actually, I am not the only one to mention the Constitution. Earlier this week, we spoke about Bill 21 on state secularism.
His colleague from Mont-Royal said that the notwithstanding clause should never be applied. However, it is part of the Constitution. Does this colleague not respect his voters, since he talks about the Constitution and says the notwithstanding clause should never be applied?
I spoke earlier of predatory federalism. When it suits them to put Quebec in its place, saying that the notwithstanding clause should be removed, saying that it is not up to Quebec to decide how to manage secularism, the Liberals talk to us about the Constitution. When it comes to Bill 96 to protect the French language, the Liberals are ready to talk about the Constitution and to say that they do not want to hear about the notwithstanding clause.
However, when it comes to recognizing the Quebec nation as we ask, talking about the Constitution is like talking about a shameful disease.
They need to make up their minds. My colleague from Winnipeg North’s remarks are not in line with what his colleagues and the people in his own party are saying.
215 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I would like to answer my colleague by saying that informed politicians who are familiar with Quebec and Canadian politics would know that we have been talking about these issues for more than 50 years. At some point we need to stop debating; we need to do something.
We are moving this motion today. I do not think it is illegitimate or irrational to ask that a nation like the Quebec nation be ensured 25% representation in the House for the time it remains in Canada. I do not think that this is unreasonable. As I said earlier, it was part of the Charlottetown Accord. We talked about it on our opposition day.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North often uses closure these days to say that we must move things forward. This is the Bloc’s answer to that. It is the Bloc’s closure. We want to move our issues forward. I invite my colleagues to look at it that way, in a spirit of friendship and cordiality.
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to point out to my colleague from Winnipeg North that he and I are the only ones debating the Constitution. The motion is specifically about Quebec's political weight, not the Constitution. I would also point out that it was his party that raised the constitutional issue by saying that the notwithstanding clause should not be used. It was his party that raised this, not me.
If my colleague wants to be consistent, he should also be talking about secularism, and not the notwithstanding clause.
90 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, according to the hon. member for Winnipeg North, defending the Quebec nation means playing politics and obstructing Parliament.
I will be frank: Earlier, I referred to history, by saying that in 1963, Quebec was sidelined by the Laurendeau-Dunton Commission. In 1982, when the Constitution was repatriated, Quebec was sidelined. In the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords, Quebec was sidelined.
I was referring to what I called predatory federalism. I did not want to launch a constitutional debate. The only people who launch constitutional debates these days are the hon. member for Mont-Royal, who said that the notwithstanding clause should be removed from the Constitution, and the Prime Minister, who is prepared to defy a legitimate Quebec law, Bill 21 on secularism, and to try to stop Quebec from legislating on the French language. These are the only people who are prepared to talk about the Constitution.
150 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
