Xavier Barsalou-Duval
Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I would love to have the opportunity to live in la-la land like my colleague opposite, but I think the reality is somewhat different from what he described in his speech. Let us get back to the matter at hand.”
“Mr. Speaker, let us look back on the last couple of weeks. The chair of the transport committee was the guest of honour of the Canada Truck Operators Association, or CTOA, which is a Driver Inc. lobby group. The Liberals forced the committee to go in camera to prevent any discussion about Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, for the first time in recent history, more than 100 people died on our roads last year in accidents involving heavy-duty trucks. There were 102 fatalities. That is nearly 20% higher than the average for the previous five years. What has changed recently that could explain this? The answer is, of course, Driver Inc.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Montmorency—Charlevoix on his speech today. This week, I had the opportunity to sit with him briefly on the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, of which I assume he is a full member.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. We might say that he tirelessly defends his party with all the enthusiasm he is known for. That said, although we may not agree on much, I am going to take the liberty of asking him a question.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his speech. Today's debate on Build Canada Homes has led me to reflect on why the government created this agency. The fact is that it did so because of the current housing crisis. What caused the housing crisis?”
The complete record
Every one of 556 lines we hold for Xavier Barsalou-Duval, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 11 of 12.
“Madam Speaker, my Conservative colleague is asking an excellent question. I cannot say that I have a clear answer to that question. The problem is that, if we get rid of the GST on new homes and for everyone, for first-time homebuyers and for other buyers, it might lead to higher prices. Often, people will offer the maximum amount they can afford in order to purchase a home, particularly in a context where there are bidding wars and where demand exceeds supply. I am not totally convinced that this expansion would help first-time homebuyers. By limiting this measure to first-time home buyers, we are giving an advantage to people who do not yet own a home. I think that measure is well thought out. We would need a more in-depth economic analysis to know if it should be extended to everyone else.”
“Madam Speaker, during the election, no one promised a government whose first priority would be to rub shoulders with oil and gas companies, to work on creating new pipelines and to invite the King. It seems to me that this government has strange priorities. No one told us the government would take the Conservative Party's platform and implement it. That is what Quebeckers voted against. I also think that is part of what Canadians voted against.”
“We are already being penalized because the government took Quebeckers' money to hand out cheques to the rest of Canada. The government owes us $800 million. We have a fake $3.7-billion carbon tax rebate that was given to Canadians. Quebeckers have been—”
“We find it hard to understand why a similar measure was not included in the current bill. The third matter that I am going to talk about is the worst. It has to do with the carbon tax and it is really disturbing. I feel like Quebec has been bamboozled. The government agreed to axe the carbon tax because it was unpopular and the Conservatives did not like it. Then the Liberal government morphed into a Conservative government. For four years the Liberals walked around in orange suits only to hang them up and trade them in for blue suits. People voted against the Conservative Party. The government they ended up with has a Conservative Party agenda. We are in a tough spot. Our environment is in a tough spot. The problem is that Quebeckers are the ones who are going to be penalized.”
“It will not automatically help everyone. On the contrary, people might want to save money by buying an older home. Second, we have to wonder whether there might be a different or complementary method of helping first-time homebuyers. In the Bloc Québécois's election platform, we proposed that parents, who do not necessarily have the cash to help their children, should be allowed to use their RRSPs to enable their children to buy a first home using the home buyers' plan, or HBP. Under the plan, children would reimburse their parents over a period of 10 years, for example. It would have no effect on taxation, since parents will still have to pay tax on the money from their RRSPs when they retire later on. It is a mechanism with zero cost to the government that would have given younger generations access to home ownership.”
“We looked at the market in Quebec, where regular people are not buying million-dollar homes, although prices in some Montreal neighbourhoods are very high, and we think $750,000 would have been reasonable. Nonetheless, we understand that the market in the rest of Canada is different. This might be more appropriate for the market in the rest of Canada, especially in this inflationary context with very high rents and home prices and significantly higher interest rates that make it harder and harder for people to buy a first home. I was a first-time home buyer not that long ago, and lots of people I know had a hard time buying a home. Other people would like to buy a home, but they cannot. Will eliminating the GST on new homes be enough? First, people have to want to buy a new home. As we know, new homes are often more expensive.”
“The second thing in this bill is the GST new housing rebate for first-time home buyers. That is not a bad thing. Almost everyone in the House actually agrees on it. At least, the Bloc, the Liberals and the Conservatives have all said there should be a GST exemption on first-time new home purchases. The only difference between the parties was the cap for that exemption. In the Bloc Québécois's election platform, we talked about $750,000. If I am not mistaken, the Liberals talked about $1 million or so in theirs. The Conservatives went a little higher. What we see here is amounts ranging from $1 million to $1.5 million, with a full GST rebate on the amount up to $1 million and progressively less as the home price goes up to $1.5 million. There is no set amount between the two.”
“I am not saying that he is one, but it is important to keep a close eye on the situation. I find that saying he is “taking note” is pretty arrogant for someone who has just taken office and still has not told us exactly where he is going. Basically, he is asking us to write him a blank cheque so he can do whatever he wants. That is pretty much the message we got in the House, which is troubling for the future because, of course, he is serving as the Prime Minister elected to this place by Canadians. We live in a democracy. We are not talking about Louis XIV here. Still, we have no budget and no road map. We have a government that is flying blind and by the seat of its pants. We have a taxi driver who wants us to pay the fare before we even start the trip, and we do not even know where he is going to take us.”
“The House is prepared to adopt certain measures, but the opposition is calling on the government to table a budget because we want to know where the government is headed. (1225) However, we have not received a response to this. The only response we have heard so far in the House is the Prime Minister saying he was taking note. I am pretty sure that, when he worked as a banker, if he had gone to a shareholders' meeting and said he was taking note of what they were saying, he would not have kept his job for very long. The reality is that he is not above Parliament. He is an elected member, as we all are, and the majority of elected members decide. He is not a dictator, is he? He was elected precisely to stand up to someone south of the border who is often described as a dictator.”
“It is important to invest in the health care system and that does not seem to be the federal government's priority. Health transfers are not keeping pace with the rising costs. The question is where is the government going to make those cuts to balance the books. Another important question is whether the government will respect the opposition's proposed amendment to the Speech from the Throne. The Liberals bragged about getting the throne speech and the ways and means motion adopted. Now they think they can do whatever they want. No, that is not how it works. It is a bit like presenting an action plan at a shareholders' meeting. The shareholders might approve the plan in principle, but propose two or three changes. That is what just happened in the House.”
“It will apply to everyone from millionaires to people with low incomes. Moreover, people who do not pay taxes or who have very low incomes will not benefit at all. This measure is going to cost $26 billion over five years. Is that the best use of public funds? We do not know because the government has not presented a budget. We do not know the federal government's financial situation. We do not know what cuts will have to be made to make up this $26-billion shortfall. What we do know is that this government was already running a deficit, and had run massive deficits in the past. Where is the money going to come from? Are they going to run even bigger deficits or are they going to reduce transfers to the provinces? That is a good question. In Quebec, we have problems in our health care system.”
“Will that have an impact on our public services? Will it put us further into debt? Do we not risk falling short of what we need to balance our budget at the end of the month? The fact is, we do not know, because the government did not present a budget. The proposed tax cut will bring the rate for the lowest tax bracket down by 0.5%. That will apply to about 22 million people. This seems like a good idea because it targets taxpayers in the first tax bracket. However, only those with a taxable income of at least $57,000 will derive maximum benefit from the tax cut. The reality is that people who earn around $60,000 will benefit the most. Those people are obviously not ultrarich, but the ultrarich will also benefit because this measure is good for everyone. It is not highly targeted, so it will be very costly.”
“There is something wrong with this government. It always says that it is there for Canadians, but when real problems arise, it is not there to solve them. Today, we are talking about Bill C‑4 , but I wanted to point out the current government's lack of priorities to address the real problems at hand. Nevertheless, the bill does contain some good things. First, there is the tax cut. As we know, during the election, the Conservatives and the Liberals fought over who would offer the biggest tax cut. The Bloc Québécois said it was somewhat skeptical of that, but not because we are opposed to tax cuts, quite the contrary. Everyone would be happy to pay less tax, myself included. However, the question is whether that is a priority at this time. Is that really where the money should be invested first?”
“That is the reality. It is sad to see that this was a sham, especially since businesses are suffering right now. ArcelorMittal, a steel manufacturer in my riding, has 1,500 employees and is receiving no federal assistance. We asked the government how it planned to deal with the crisis caused by the dreaded U.S. tariffs that are now being increased to 50%. We were told that it had held discussions. Unfortunately, that will not save the jobs of people who will be laid off. It will not add any shifts for people on reduced hours. It is not going to solve the problem. Of course the government is talking to the Americans, but it seems to me that the 25% tariff has been in place for months. The 25% tariff has been in effect for three months now. It has just been increased to 50%, but no additional support had been provided before that.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am rising today in the House to speak to Bill C‑4 . It is interesting because we are still in the early days of this Parliament, which is often the time when we assess a government's priorities, by observing the first steps that it takes. Usually, after an election, a government seeks to implement its priorities. Our first disappointment in looking at this government's priorities, Bill C‑4 notwithstanding, is the matter of the budget. The government spent the whole election campaign saying that we were in the midst of a crisis, that it had a plan, that it knew what to do and that it would explain to us how to solve the problem. However, now that the election is over, a question remains: Where is that plan? The government does not have a plan and it does not have a budget. It does not know where it is going.”
“Mr. Speaker, in her speech, my colleague from Côte-Nord—Kawawachikamach—Nitassinan talked about the infamous cheques related to the government scrapping the carbon tax, which were sent out even though no money was collected elsewhere in Canada. These cheques were sent everywhere in Canada except Quebec, even though the government did not collect anything from the rest of Canada. This means that, in the end, money was collected from Quebeckers to hand out to the rest of Canada. Why are Quebeckers treated like second-class citizens in this country?”
“Madam Speaker, one does not respect Quebec's jurisdictions by attacking Quebec's laws. I do not think the minister really understand his role. By spending $1 million in legal fees to challenge Bill 21 before the court proceedings have even begun, the federal government is proving one thing: It will stop at nothing to crush Quebeckers and undermine Quebec's secularism. It will stop at nothing to attack the notwithstanding clause and the ability of Quebec and the National Assembly to pass its own laws, laws that we want and that Quebeckers want, but that are not the laws of Canada. The federal government wants to fight the will of Quebeckers no matter what the cost, but why is it taking their money to do so?”
“Madam Speaker, $1 million is not the next 6/49 jackpot; it is the amount of public money that the federal government has already wasted fighting Bill 21, Quebec's secularism bill. The Supreme Court has not even begun hearing the case, but the Liberals have already spent $1 million of our tax dollars on attacking secularism in Quebec. Is there a limit to the amount of money Quebeckers will have to shell out to fund the Liberals' attack on their own laws with their own money?”
“Does my colleague think that is fair? Does he think it is all right to treat Quebec this way? At the end of the day, we got played. We got ripped off. We paid out $800 million to the rest of Canada. What does my colleague think?”
“Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague that is particularly relevant to Quebec, but that may appeal to his Canadian spirit. We often hear about the infamous equalization payments and the fact that English Canada, especially in the west and Alberta in particular, sends a lot of equalization payments to the rest of Canada. This time, however, it seems that Quebec made a large lump-sum equalization payment when the federal government scrapped the carbon tax. The first thing the Prime Minister did after he was elected was abolish the carbon tax, yet he still sent out cheques. One could even say that he was writing NSF cheques, since people had not actually paid the tax to begin with. A total of $3.7 billion was paid out to all of Canada except Quebec. In the end, Quebec is left with a bill of $800 million.”
“He may be aware that $3.7 billion was paid out in carbon tax rebates to the rest of Canada, but not to Quebec. That means we handed over $800 million for Canadians, even though no money was being collected. In short, money was paid to Canadians, even though they did not pay either. This is a serious problem. As a Quebecker, does the member opposite think it is right that Quebec is not getting its fair share?”
“Madam Speaker, I have two questions in one for our esteemed Minister of Finance, the member for Saint-Maurice—Champlain. I would assume that, as a seasoned parliamentarian, he has a solid understanding of the value of Parliament and the importance of respect and consideration for Parliament. His government was pretty pleased with itself for getting the throne speech and the ways and means motion adopted. I wonder if he intends to respect what Parliament added to the Speech from the Throne, that is, the request that a budget, or at least an economic update, be presented before the summer. That is my first point. I will now turn to the bill we are debating today. The member is also a member from Quebec, so I would assume that Quebec is important to him.”
“Mr. Chair, this situation has been going on since October 2024. We are in June, which means it has been more than six months, even eight months. In the meantime, Via Rial is losing customers and keeps experiencing delays. It is a Crown corporation that falls directly under the government's authority. Is the future of this Crown corporation important to the minister? If so, why is it taking so long to resolve the problem?”
“Mr. Chair, time is flying, and there is another topic I would like to discuss. The minister must be familiar with Via Rail. Since October 11, 2024, its trains have been forced to slow down because of a dispute with Canadian National, or CN. Last December, the government asked CN to produce documents to justify its decision. Litigation made its way to the Superior Court. On April 23, the Superior Court ruling essentially said that it is not up to the court to rule on the matter. Rather, it is up to Transport Canada and the minister, who has all the powers to do so. Will the government resolve this situation soon?”
“Mr. Chair, we will have to look at the entire budget to see whether we will indeed vote in favour of it. It would be helpful if there were positive measures for electrification. Let us talk about electrification. The government made many promises during the election. Right now, we see that one of the Prime Minister 's priorities is to meet with oil and gas companies and to try to ensure that new pipelines are built. However, we see that there is no firm commitment to the electrification of transportation. Is the government still committed to electrifying and decarbonizing transportation?”
“Mr. Chair, if the government intends to resolve the situation, that means we can expect the $9 million to be refunded to SMEs in Quebec and the $11 million to be refunded to SMEs in Canada. However, can we also expect the return of the much-touted subsidy for zero-emission vehicles in general, beyond the money that was owed?”
“Mr. Chair, I thank the minister for her beginning of an answer. In Canada, dealers have lost $11 million. They paid rebates out of their own pockets. I think that selling electric cars is a good thing. We know that there were availability issues, and we know that there was also some resistance in the industry. I believe that it is a very positive development that dealers decided to join in the effort to electrify and decarbonize our transportation industry. I think that the least that the government can do is to then support them. There was a program in place in the past. Dealers in Canada had to absorb an $11-million loss because the government was unable to honour its promises. In Quebec, we are talking about 80%, or roughly $9 million. Is the government committed to reimbursing this money?”
“Unfortunately, when we looked at the appropriations that the government announced for government operations and submitted to the House for approval, we did not see any additional funds allocated for this program. Does the minister know how many car dealers in Quebec have been affected by this situation? Does she know what costs dealerships have had to absorb by granting rebates on vehicles in good faith when they failed to receive the money from the government afterwards?”
“Mr. Chair, I would like to thank the minister for joining us today. I am pleased that she is willing to participate in this exercise. I hope it will be positive and constructive as well as informative for those who are listening. First, I would like to mention that I will be sharing five minutes of my time with the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj . On January 10, the government announced that it would eventually run out of funds for the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program. That was on a Friday, and 48 hours later, on Monday, January 13, suddenly there was no more money in the incentives for zero-emission vehicles program.”
“Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her election and on her speech. Although I do not agree with everything she said, the fact remains that she is here to represent her constituents. I assume that what she says is also representative of her constituents' views. Since we are talking about representing the voices and views of our constituents, the Prime Minister of Canada decided, when it came time to read the Speech from the Throne, to bring in King Charles III, a person to whom nine out of 10 Quebeckers feel no attachment whatsoever. We know that 87% of Quebeckers feel no attachment to the British monarchy. Given that nine out of 10 Quebeckers reject the monarchy, does my colleague think that the government's decision helped promote the Canadian unity we hear so much about?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election. I welcome him to the House. As we all know, there are currently major forest fires burning in western Canada. We lived through forest fires in Quebec not so long ago. It was not easy. We also know that these forest fires release huge amounts of carbon. According to publicly available data, the forest fires we have experienced over the last few years have emitted even more CO2 than human activities. That is quite serious. In the face of this situation, we have a government that is abandoning the fight against climate change. Over the weekend, the Prime Minister chose to meet with gas companies first. Is my colleague not concerned that we might accelerate these forest fires and make the situation worse if we continue to bury our heads in oil?”
“Seeing as this Parliament is made up of a very large majority of Conservatives and Liberals who are in perfect agreement about giving up on fighting climate change and shifting this country to the right, does my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie still love Canada as much? Does he not think this country needs to go back to the social-democratic values advocated by progressive parties like the Bloc Québécois?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie on his re-election. During his speech, I heard him underline something that I myself have raised several times today regarding the Speech from the Throne, and that is the absence of any serious commitment from this government regarding climate change. It is very disappointing. I would go so far as to say it is worrisome. I am pleased to see that I am not alone in thinking that. I would add that the current Liberal government also seems to be essentially copying the Conservative agenda in its ideas and policies. The Liberals are taking a hard right turn these days. This may also be worrisome, especially for a party like the NDP.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate my collegue on being elected in the riding of Beauport—Limoilou. I knew his predecessor, Julie Vignola, who was an excellent MP from 2019 to 2025. She worked hard on the issues and was very interested in the Quebec City region. I think that my Liberal colleague will have some big shoes to fill in the coming years. How does he intend to continue the work that his predecessor, Julie Vignola, did for the Quebec City region?”
“Mr. Speaker, I am concerned about my colleague's last statement that any measure limiting greenhouse gas emissions should be axed completely. On the contrary, I think it is important to have incentives to limit emissions. However, I will move on to another topic since I already asked his colleague that question and I expect he would give me the same answer. In his speech, the member talked about how important infrastructure is to him. I believe I heard him mention a wharf in his riding that needs investment. There is a wharf in my riding that needs investment too. The federal government has been neglecting the Verchères wharf for about 20 years now. It is a real disgrace. It is an eyesore right in the middle of our village. Unfortunately, it is all too common for the federal government to give up on its infrastructure.”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his election. I listened carefully to his speech, but there seemed to be one thing missing from it, and that is the issue of climate change. I was wondering if my colleague had any concerns about that. There was also no mention of this subject in the government’s throne speech, even though we know that unprecedented forest fires are currently raging in western Canada. In that context, does my colleague not agree that we need to think about the fact that we are only adding fuel to the fire by consistently proposing oil projects that will only worsen climate change?”
“When my ancestor, François Guertin, cleared his land 300 years ago, he could hardly have imagined one of his descendants rising in Parliament to mark the 275th anniversary of his village, one of the most beautiful villages on earth. I wish all the people of Saint-Antoine a happy 275th anniversary.”
“Mr. Speaker, in 1724, François, Jacques, Jean and Pierre Archambault, four brothers under the age of 20, settled in New France on the banks of the Richelieu River, on land that was then part of the seigneury of Contrecœur. Other families joined them, and in 1750, the community was large enough to get its own church. After the deportation in 1755, the community became home to many refugees, who settled in what is now known as the Rang de l'Acadie. On November 23, 1837, reinforcements from Saint-Antoine helped secure a Patriotes victory in Saint-Denis. One of those reinforcements was Georges-Étienne Cartier, who later switched allegiances. To this day, Saint-Antoine retains both its character and its history.”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague talked about unity. That is very interesting, because those who want unity act accordingly and reach out. Instead, what this government decided to do was invite the British monarch, who is rejected by nine out of ten Quebeckers. I find that mind-boggling. Had the Liberals proposed that during the election campaign and 44 Liberal members were elected, then perhaps it would be acceptable, since it would be the decision of Quebeckers. However, what we are seeing here is Quebeckers being divided. Unfortunately, that is what this government is doing. It seems as though we are being...”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague asks a very good question. Upon reading the Speech from the Throne, we see that the issue of climate change is nowhere to be found. It is as if it no longer exists, as if there is no more pollution or tar sands, and as if climate change went away and everything is fine. I find the Liberals' conversion into Conservatives on this mind-boggling and unbelievable. It is as though the Liberal Party decided to put on a Conservative mask, cater to the oil companies and forget that there are forest fires across the country. I find that completely irresponsible. Unfortunately, that seems to be the vision on the other side of the House, and I hope that this will change.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that members of the House listen again to what I said and reread what I wrote to see whether I used the words “fearful or “cowardly”. I do not believe that they will find them anywhere in my speech. However, what I did say is that a large number of Quebeckers held their noses and voted Liberal, and many of them made no secret about it. When I was knocking on doors, I heard people say that they were, just this once, going to get behind what the Liberals were proposing in order to take on Trump because there was a fear campaign. However, after that, the first thing that the government did was not to defend Canada. It invited a foreign monarch to read the Speech from the Throne in order to show that we are not really sovereign, that it is not the people who decide, and that we are still in a monarchy.”
“Now Canada is telling us that it has not changed, that the same royalists are still around. The royal romanticism we see today is celebrated like a sort of nostalgia for the loyalist Canada of the good old days. Surely members can understand why I am not really interested in partying with them. I do not understand why they cannot grasp why Quebec is not joining them and why we are not celebrating everything I just described alongside everyone else. These are actually horrors. I have a suggestion for them. They can have their monarchy party. They can have their fun. They can spend as much of their tax money as they want on crowns and trinkets, but they need to do it on their turf. What we are going to do is build our country on our turf. That is my suggestion, which I hope will meet with strong support in the House.”
“This is clear proof of an anglocentric view of the world. To them, the world is the Anglosphere. They think that the world revolves around them. The invitation to the King was, above all, a concrete example of the old English Canadian loyalist tradition. English Canada was founded by loyalists who left the United States after it gained independence 250 years ago. They did not want to be part of a republic, a sovereign country. They decided to flee to Canada, where there was still a king. Afterwards, they tried to make us disappear by any means possible. It became a country of Orangemen. The Durham Report was implemented, the Métis were brutally repressed, Louis Riel was hanged and French was banned in every Canadian province. The reality is that Canada is a country built on our exclusion and marginalization. That is the reality.”
“In Quebec, we are not going to ask Emmanuel Macron to come and help define who we are. We know that we are Quebeckers. We know who we are. We then heard the member for Saint‑Maurice—Champlain say that it was a great day for Canada, that the entire world was watching with great excitement. The Bedouins in the Sahara were watching with bated breath. In the trenches of Ukraine, the fighting stopped because they had to watch the King's speech. Prayers were interrupted at the Vatican, in Jerusalem, in Mecca. I mean, come on. Aside from the U.K., who is interested in some old man reading a speech written by someone else? I would say pretty much no one. It is completely ridiculous. When they say "the world", they mean the U.K. That is pretty much the only place where people would have taken an interest in the throne speech.”
“In fact, it is rather incredible that 150 years after it was founded, Canada is still a country that is incapable of existing on its own. It absolutely needs to revive its old colonial connection to justify its existence. Do we really want to be butlers, a sub-country? I believe that Canada also has the right to evolve at some point. We are told that we had to invite the King because we wanted to prove that we are different from the United States. If having a King is the only difference between Canada and the United States, then we have a problem. They must really be desperate. In fact, this really says a lot about English Canada's identity crisis. They are incapable of standing up on their own. If we need the King to prop us up, then we are on shaky ground.”
“Next came the Governor General, and then the Prime Minister. The more legitimate people are, the further back they go. It was the same for members of Parliament. When the King arrived in the Senate and sat on his throne, the unelected senators sat comfortably at their desks, while members of Parliament, who are elected by the people, stood at the entrance. (1320) It is shameful. We are not in the middle ages. Given that, the government said that we needed to send a message to President Trump. The message sent by the government to President Trump is more or less that Canada cannot be his subject because it is already someone else's subject. Canada already belongs to someone else: the King of England. What is next? Are we going to replace the flag with the Union Jack or replace the national anthem with God Save the King, while we are at it?”
“She surrendered it to us, in a sense, because it has not been revisited ever since. Now, thanks to the Liberals, we have gone back 100 years. Journalists asked the Prime Minister why he invited the King. He was a bit surprised by the question and did not understand why he was being asked that, because it seemed quite obvious to him. He replied that he saw it as a symbol of our sovereignty from the United States. The question then becomes exactly whose sovereignty are we talking about, because it is not our sovereignty. It is the sovereign's. I do not think that having a foreign monarch come here is a sign of sovereignty. It is more like a sign of subservience and submission. The proof is in the order in which they walked when the King arrived. That said it all. First came the King.”
“Back when I was in university, I took a constitutional law course where I was taught that if a power goes for too long without being used, it gathers dust, and eventually that power starts to smell musty and it becomes obsolete. It is like an old car parked at the back of the driveway that is starting to rust. At some point, it cannot be driven anymore and has to be scrapped. This is pretty much the same thing. In fact, a kind of break happened recently. I say “recently”, but it was before I was born, which, in terms of all of Canada's history, could mean recently. As everyone knows, the Constitution was repatriated in 1982. Incidentally, Quebec never agreed to it, but that is another story. What exactly happened at the time? The Queen brought the Constitution over from London, saying that it was no longer her responsibility, but ours.”
“Had that been the Liberal message during the recent election, I have a feeling that there would have been fewer Liberal members. There is no hiding the fact that the King is the living embodiment of old colonial oppression. The Prime Minister decided to invite the King because, for him, royal power is not just an insignificant old relic. It means something to him and he sees it as important. One does not extend a royal invitation on a whim. Nations are built on symbols, which are a way of expressing who they are. The decision to invite the King was a way of embracing this dreaded symbol that Quebeckers reject, of reminding them of it, and of rubbing it in their faces. However, it was starting to fade from memory, since it had been half a century since a monarch was in Parliament.”
“When I saw that, I thought it was ridiculous, that the government was laughing at us, thumbing its nose at us, that something was happening that was not right. However, no, this was serious and not just a joke. We know that the Acadians were deported because they refused to swear allegiance to the King. We know that after the conquest, an oath of allegiance was forced on the newly conquered people, requiring them to renounce their Catholic faith in exchange for the right to hold public office. We know that in 1837-38, the Patriotes were hanged in the name of the monarchy. However, after all that, Quebeckers have been told to be Canadians and to vote for Canada. Now that the election is over, do they feel like throwing a big party paid for with their taxes, attending a royal parade and inviting Charles III?”