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 8 of 12.
“Multiculturalism is a slippery slope that is becoming even slipperier in our time, given that, for example, supposedly progressive Canadians are going so far as to challenge bilingualism on the pretext that it could hinder the emancipation of many people who speak several languages but not French. The most compelling and most recent example is the decline in the appointment of francophones to certain positions requiring at least some knowledge of both English and French. We only need to think of the appointment of Mary Simon as Governor General of Canada, although this is not an isolated case. In today's multiculturalist Canada, French is being transformed into a barrier to diversity, as if French is not part of that diversity, particularly in the context of primarily English-speaking North America.”
“Canadian multiculturalism is a slippery slope that allowed Justin Trudeau to go so far as to claim, in 2015, that Canada was the first postnational state, as though Quebeckers do not form a nation. If Canada wants to be a postnational state, that is its business. We, in Quebec, are a nation in our own right, and we have no intention of getting engulfed in that. The Quebec nation does not exist anywhere else in the world, and our provincial status leaves us in a dangerously weak position vis-à-vis a central government controlled by the Canadian majority.”
“It is as though newcomers have settled on a virgin land called Canada, where there is no history, no culture, no values. It is a veritable tower of Babel. Canada misuses and trivializes other cultures by freezing them in time and inviting people who come here to define themselves by their country of origin rather than their host country. Whether they have been here for one generation or 10, they are immigrants and they will remain immigrants. They are exiles for eternity. How can we build social cohesion, social solidarity and a society with shared values and a common vision for the future, when some people glorify the isolation of communities? I do not know.”
“This is when the focus shifted to multiculturalism. As Quebeckers, we collectively transitioned from an imagined position as a founding people to denying our very existence as Quebeckers. That is what was shocking about Pierre Elliot Trudeau's multicultural policy. That is also why Quebec rejected the 1982 Constitution. It was rejected not only by the premier at the time, René Lévesque, but by every premier since then as well. It is also why the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords failed. Quebeckers have never gotten over this betrayal. It should also be noted that the Canadian model does not even recognize the existence of Quebeckers or indigenous peoples. In fact, according to multiculturalism philosophy, there is no such thing as founding peoples, and there is no such thing as a host society.”
“Some folks even began calling for Quebec, which was de facto bilingual, to become francophone with Bill 22, followed by Bill 101. They even dreamed of making Quebec its own country. That bothered a lot of people in English Canada because, to them, French Canadians and Quebeckers were the proverbial drawers of water, and there was no question of that ever changing. (1105) The outcome of all this was the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, which came close to achieving recognition for linguistic and cultural duality, known at the time as biculturalism. Then along came someone who would make that impossible: Pierre Elliot Trudeau. He supported linguistic bilingualism, but staunchly opposed the recognition of French-Canadian and Quebec culture—something new in Quebec. Quebec's affirmation had to be defeated.”
“From that moment on, my ancestors began to understand that Quebec was the only national home for French Canadians, the only place where they could truly feel at home and safe. This has been confirmed over time by the ban on French in almost all Canadian provinces, especially in school education when French-language schools were closed. Rather than defining themselves as French Canadians, French Canadians living in Quebec gradually began identifying as Quebeckers and wanting to develop their own quasi-state. Corporations like Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec were created, along with Hydro-Québec, which nationalized the hydro sector. All these efforts served as a means to affirm Quebec as a nation, an expression of our transition from a French Canadian to Québécois identity.”
“Many people wanted to believe in this tale of two equal founding peoples walking joyfully along hand in hand, to the point where many French Canadians considered settling in Ontario and western Canada. Some even went so far as to do so. They wanted to live the dream of the two founding peoples being friends and equals. Louis Riel's hanging was a brutal indication that Canada would never accept a significant francophone presence in the rest of Canada. This also applied to first nations, as Louis Riel worked and lived among the Métis and first nations. The only place where French would be tolerated was in the bilingual province of Lower Canada, and that is where it had to stay. That is the message that was sent at the time and that is the message that was received.”
“What is more, on the day of the vote, the Quebec National Assembly also adopted the following motion: THAT the National Assembly recall that, as a distinct host society, the Québec nation has its own national integration model; THAT it declare that the Québec national integration model fosters social cohesion and counters isolation and communitarianism; THAT it affirm that the national integration model is distinct from Canadian multiculturalism. I would like to begin by explaining where Canadian multiculturalism comes from. To do that, we need to go back to 1867, to the early days of Confederation. In French Canada, Confederation was sold to the public as a pact between two founding peoples, the English and the French, with no mention of the first nations.”
“The bill has become even more important with the new situation in Quebec. My colleagues in the House may not be aware of this, but on May 28, 2025, the Quebec National Assembly passed Bill 84, the Act respecting integration into the Québec nation, which gives Quebec its own integration model. It is therefore clearer than ever that Quebec has its own integration model that is not the same as Canada's multiculturalism model.”
“moved that Bill C-245, An Act to amend the Canadian Multiculturalism Act (non-application in Quebec) , be read the second time and referred to a committee. Bill C‑245. Second reading He said: Mr. Speaker, I am proud to start debate on Bill C‑245, which I tabled on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. The purpose of our bill is to exclude Quebec from Canadian multiculturalism so that Quebec can apply its own model for integrating immigrants. It is simple, just a bill with a single section, stating that the Canadian Multiculturalism Act does not apply in Quebec. This bill was largely inspired by the work of my colleague from Montcalm who tabled Bill C‑393 during the 42nd Parliament and Bill C‑226 during the 43rd Parliament, that is, in 2018 and 2020. Why are we raising this issue again today? It is because the context has changed again.”
“Mr. Speaker, members across the way keep saying that it is because of an anti-immigration attitude that people are critical or would have preferred that the amendments tabled in committee be adopted by the House. I find it really interesting that they are telling us this. I am not an immigrant. If I go abroad and my children are born abroad, their children will not have Canadian citizenship if they do not spend at least three years here. Why are we victimizing immigrants? It is not immigration that is being targeted here, it is the issue of not granting citizenship to people who do not have sufficient ties to Canada and ensuring that the people who are granted citizenship are people who have demonstrated that attachment. The issue that divides us is determining the level of attachment required, not whether or not to grant citizenship.”
“Mr. Speaker, my question is simple. Serious work was done in committee. The Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois proposed some amendments. Now the government is joining forces with the NDP to get rid of all the amendments and all the work done in committee. I know that a party that does not sit on committees and is not recognized in the House is allowed to propose amendments, but normally, when amendments are brought forward at report stage, they must be amendments on subjects that have not already been discussed. Why is the House proceeding in this manner when we have worked hard on these issues and discussed them?”
“Mr. Speaker, despite what the government refuses to say, the Parliamentary Budget Officer tells us that this bill should allow 150,000 new people to vote. These are people who do not live here. We wanted to propose amendments to limit the scope of this bill. Second-generation individuals who do not live here, who live abroad but were born to Canadian parents, are required to have resided in Canada for three years in order to obtain citizenship. We proposed that this requirement be five years instead. This is the same criterion that applies to permanent residents who want to obtain citizenship. Why is the government refusing to use the same rules that apply to new citizens for people who live abroad?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebec is already doing its job to solve the problem. The chief coroner ordered a public inquiry, which the federal government is unwilling to do at this time. The Government of Quebec is going to equip highway traffic controllers with firearms. The Government of Quebec is going to make driver training mandatory. However, the problem comes from Ontario, not Quebec. Almost all the Driver Inc. drivers are from Ontario. Federal rules allow foreign workers to incorporate and allow companies to take advantage of them. Again, only Quebec is taking action, even though the problem lies with Ontario and the federal government. When will Ottawa do its job?”
“Mr. Speaker, Driver Inc. truckers are not just a danger to the public on our roads. They also pose a threat to Quebec workers. Over the past three years, 1,000 Quebec truckers have lost their jobs. Meanwhile, the industry is booming in Ontario. In the last five years, 77% of new truckers in Canada have been part of the Driver Inc. scam. We are losing our Quebec truckers to the benefit of Ontario companies that employ fake truckers who got their driver's licences from a Cracker Jack box. The Bloc Québécois has proposed 10 measures to solve this problem. When will Ottawa take action?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague across the floor says that the amendments are designed to ostracize immigrants and that they are anti-immigration. I would therefore like to ask her the following question. Suppose I go abroad and my children are born abroad, if they decide to stay abroad and then have children of their own, will this law also apply to them, or does it only apply to immigrants?”
“Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on her speech. On reading the bill, we see that it includes some provisions related to asylum seekers. These provisions are similar to past requests made by the Bloc Québécois. When we made those requests, the government called us all sorts of names. Then, 10 years later, suddenly these solutions are applicable. I would like to know how my colleague explains that.”
“The system became bogged down and all sorts of crises were created, including the housing crisis, the homelessness crisis and the public service crisis, just because this government did not want to deal with the problems.”
“Mr. Speaker, the real problem is that asylum seekers are supposed to be people who are coming here because they fear for their safety, because they are in danger in their own country. However, we have seen that the asylum process increasingly became a completely separate immigration stream used to get around the regular immigration process. This was tolerated by the government and suited its purposes. When we spoke out about this situation, members on the other side of the House called us every name in the book. It was very problematic. What is unfortunate is that we could have resolved this situation 10 years ago. Everything in this bill, or most of it, helps to address the problem.”
“Mr. Speaker, I cannot really comment specifically on part 7(a). Earlier, I spoke in general about part 7, which the Bloc Québécois saw as a positive because it seeks to combat certain fraudulent claims that might have been made or certain massive claims that might be made to bog down the system. If the bill prevents fraudulent claims and attempts to bog down the system, then I think that is a good thing. Obviously, we will see whether further amendments are needed after hearing what the witnesses have to say in committee. After asking many of his colleagues the same question today, what I would have liked my Conservative colleague to tell me is whether the Conservatives agree that we need a fair distribution of asylum seekers across the country.”
“Mr. Speaker, I agree that the study by the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security will probably improve the bill and help us to understand it better. Witnesses will come and tell us what needs to be done differently. However, the question we need to ask is this: Why did it take so long before something was done? The government has been in power for 10 years. We have been complaining about this situation, about the government's lax approach at our borders, for years. Every time we raised the issue and proposed measures like the ones now set out in this bill, the government called us every name in the book, claiming that we were being unwelcoming. However, Quebec currently takes in 40% of asylum seekers in Canada, even though it represents only 20% of the country's population. That amounts to twice its demographic weight.”
“With the safe third country agreement, if a person could come to Canada and hide here for 14 days, they would not have to go back to the United States or another country and could file their claim in Canada. The new measure in the bill means that people will be sent back to their country after the 14 days. That means it is in their best interest to turn themselves in to the authorities quickly rather than go into hiding. We see that as a fairly positive thing. For the first 14 days, a person caught during that period would simply be sent back to the United States. Obviously, Canada does not have extradition agreements with all countries. This would not apply in those cases. Furthermore, people whose lives are in danger could still report that. (1205) Will this bill fix all the problems? No. Will it help solve some of them?”
“However, we know that what often happened at Roxham Road was that people were leaving the United States and coming to Canada to file a claim for refugee protection because they believed that they had a better chance of being allowed to enter Canada or that they would receive better treatment in Canada. That led to a large influx of asylum seekers that Quebec had to take in, since Roxham Road is in Quebec. We found that problematic because we felt that if someone were really in a life-threatening situation, they would not cherry-pick the country they want to settle in. They would go to the first country they could move to to be safe, and this is perfectly legitimate. We felt that this was a problem, but part 8 closes some loopholes.”
“With these kinds of powers, the minister will be able to share information with Public Safety and cancel these fraudulent visas and permits so that the government can take the kind of action that is long overdue. We applaud this step, though we wonder why it was not taken sooner. We now turn to part 8, which is the most substantial part of the bill and the one that has got the most people talking. I think this is the part that will probably have the greatest impact. Part 8 addresses the Bloc Québécois's concerns regarding the safe third country agreement. Under this agreement, a person wishing to claim asylum must do so in the first safe country they reach after leaving the country where they were in danger.”
“Governments always want to have more flexibility, but we do not necessarily agree. We will see how this goes. The bill also adds an interesting provision that would allow the minister to personally suspend, refuse to process or cancel permanent or temporary resident visas, work permits, electronic travel authorizations or study permits. We think that is quite interesting, because we know that there have been many allegations of fraud in relation to permits and visas. The problem is that if people obtained documents, visas or resident status fraudulently, we should not simply allow them to run loose without taking any action. We should not just say that now that they have a visa, there is nothing we can do. That is more or less what is happening now.”
“Placing it under the Department of Defence would, at a minimum, enhance coordination and information sharing with the Department of Defence, particularly when it comes to interventions that require the presence of National Defence or individuals who are better equipped to face a possible threat. For that reason, we think part 4 is very positive. I will now turn to part 7. Obviously, I will not go through all the sections. Part 7 of the bill grants more powers to immigration officers to suspend, vary or cancel a visa or document under conditions to be prescribed in regulations. Immigration officers will be given more powers to suspend or vary visas, but the details will be prescribed in regulations. That is all interesting, but we would have preferred to see more details. Bills always provide more certainty than regulations do.”
“(1200) Another point that we would like to address with respect to this bill is part 4, which amends the Oceans Act to allow a minister other than the Minister of Fisheries to be responsible for the Coast Guard. Essentially, this would transfer the Coast Guard from the Department of Fisheries to the Department of National Defence. We completely agree with that. Transferring the Coast Guard to the Department of National Defence was actually in the Bloc Québécois's election platform. From an accounting standpoint, it would make it possible to increase defence spending, enabling Canada to fulfill some of its commitments in that area and enhancing coordination between the two services. We know that the Coast Guard is not armed, and this occasionally limits its scope of intervention.”
“Also, will the 1,000 additional employees mentioned in the government's election promise be enough? The answer is no. The Customs and Immigration Union says that 2,000 to 3,000 people are needed. The election promise covers one-third, and we do not even know whether the government is really going to try to keep the promise, because we have no indication that it is really going to give the CBSA what it needs to do a reasonable job. We know that it takes resources to secure the borders and deal with illegal immigration, arms trafficking, drug trafficking and auto theft. Unfortunately, that is not in the bill, because bills do not prescribe the hiring of staff. If it could be done, however, perhaps it should be, to ensure that this government hires the necessary staff to do the work that needs to be done at our borders.”
“The bill includes measures that would make it easier for them to open containers as needed and inspect the goods inside without the many authorizations required in the past. We see that as something positive. However, this provision raises the challenge of resources. We can provide customs officers with all the extra authority, infrastructure and facilities we like, but if there are not enough officers to do the work, we have a problem. The Liberals, incidentally, made that promise during the last election campaign. They promised 1,000 more customs officers and 1,000 more RCMP officers. Although one of these two promises—the one concerning the RCMP—made its way into the Speech from the Throne, we are still waiting to see whether it had any tangible impact on RCMP staffing. As for the CBSA, the wait continues.”
“These include auto theft, a crime that is plaguing Ontario, Quebec and, presumably, the rest of Canada as well. Resources are an issue, of course, but there is also the matter of facilities for doing the work, especially in rail yards. If they want to pull a rail car out for examination, for example, they need a place to put it. There will now be an obligation to provide facilities so customs officers can do their job. Without facilities, without dedicated areas for the inspection of goods, this was becoming problematic. One of the problems raised by customs officers was that they needed to get a warrant every time they wanted to open a container. The process was becoming difficult, complicated and time-consuming.”
“We are keeping an open mind and are willing to work with all members of the House and with the witnesses who will testify in committee. I will not have the opportunity to sit on that committee, but I wish I could. Without going into a comprehensive analysis of the bill, I will nonetheless raise a number of points that merit our attention. The first is part 1, which makes amendments to the Customs Act to expand customs officers' law enforcement powers, including access to facilities. It is that access to facilities that I wish to discuss. Often, when CBSA officers inspect goods, they are goods coming into the country. Goods leaving the country, however, are usually not inspected, and this causes all sorts of problems, as the media recently reported.”
“Mr. Speaker, today, the House is debating Bill C-12 , a reincarnation of Bill C-2 . Bill C‑2 sparked a great deal of criticism regarding privacy rights, so the government was forced to go back and make revisions. It has returned with a new version of Bill C‑2, now called Bill C‑12. The main difference we see is the removal of the controversial elements of Bill C‑2 involving invasion of privacy, most of which were found in part 4 of the bill. They would have allowed Canada Post and customs officers to open people's mail. These provisions drew heavy criticism. Generally speaking, we in the Bloc Québécois were already open to working on Bill C‑2, sending it to committee, and working collaboratively on moving it forward. With Bill C‑12, we have even more reason to want to see this bill advance.”
“I would like to know whether my colleague believes that other Canadian provinces should do their part and accept a fair share of the number of asylum seekers Canada receives, based on their population.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask the same question I asked another colleague from the same party earlier, since I did not receive an answer. The question was simple, actually. Among other things, the bill deals with border restrictions in order to address situations where asylum seekers are abusing the system. We know that some people are applying for asylum when they perhaps should not be. This would reduce the volume and ensure that cases are processed more efficiently. The problem is that Quebec receives approximately 200,000 asylum seekers, or nearly 40% of the Canadian total, while our population represents only 20% of the country's population.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am sure my colleague knows what I am going to say because this has come up a number of times in the House. Currently in Quebec, roughly 200,000 asylum seekers are waiting for their case to be processed. That represents roughly 40% of the total number of asylum seekers in Canada, while Quebec makes up roughly 20% of the Canadian population. In other words, the number of asylum seekers in Quebec is twice our demographic weight. We know that this bill deals with the treatment of asylum seekers. Does my colleague think that the provinces should also help and take on their share of asylum seekers, instead of letting Quebec carry that burden?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague opposite about asylum seekers. We agree that Bill C‑12 is a step in the right direction. It will help improve the system. However, let us look at the past 10 years. The Liberals came to power in 2015, and it is now 2025. They have been in power for 10 years. During that time, the number of asylum seekers and the number of people crossing the border illegally has skyrocketed. Is my colleague proud of his government's record? In Quebec, resources are stretched thin. The Government of Quebec has repeatedly said that it is overwhelmed; it is no longer able to teach French to all these people and integrate them.”
“Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that my colleague's speech was not so much about Bill C‑10 as it was about how passionate he is about oil development in his province. Good for him, if that is something that is important to him. However, it seems to me that the bill before us is the main topic of discussion. The government does not have a particularly good record when it comes to respecting indigenous rights, particularly with the passage of Bill C‑5 last spring. Indigenous groups spoke out about that bill in every possible way, but the government forced it through anyway. I would like to hear my colleague's opinion on respect for indigenous rights, because the current government does not seem to respect them. I wonder if the Conservatives, if they came to power, would respect them any more.”
“Mr. Speaker, there is a public danger on our roads because of the Driver Inc. scam. It mainly involves immigrant truck drivers in Ontario who are being exploited by companies to save costs and who are driving heavy trucks without the proper qualifications. This is causing fatal accidents. Vulnerable people are being abused, and truck drivers who follow the rules are facing illegal competition. Ottawa must launch an investigation, tighten the screws on businesses, and prohibit temporary immigrants from incorporating. It is simple. There are 10 steps to take, but the federal government is looking the other way. When will the government crack down on dangerous drivers?”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to highlight the work of the parliamentary secretary, who always has something to say about virtually every bill introduced in the House. We can see that he has a thorough understanding of each of the issues raised. Since he is so knowledgeable about these issues, I would like to know whether his government has communicated with the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Québec to ensure that this bill does not interfere with Quebec's affairs.”
“Madam Speaker, the bill spells out in black and white that the federal government intends to collaborate on cybersecurity with the provinces and territories. This caught my attention, and I want to come back to the word “collaborate”. Collaboration often means that Ottawa imposes its will and everyone else does as they are told. I would like to know whether, this time, the word “collaborate” means true collaboration, where the government consults the other parties concerned, gathers their advice and ultimately reaches a joint decision. In other words, Ottawa does not impose a decision. Since the government claims that it wants to collaborate on this bill, there should perhaps be some guarantee that Ottawa has held consultations with the Government of Quebec and Hydro-Québec, which will have to live with the consequences of this bill.”
“Why were the reservations and concerns that the Bloc Québécois previously expressed not taken into account in Bill C‑8, given that the government already had the opportunity to hear these arguments? It also already had the opportunity to hear Quebec's concerns. How did the Liberals respond to these concerns?”
“Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who did a good job explaining how Quebec is already doing a lot to ensure its security. Hydro-Québec is doing a lot in this area, because its infrastructure is massive and important to us. We want to protect it, because we care about it so much. The federal government is proposing new standards and new ways of doing things that would create jurisdictional overlap and even force Quebec to do things differently, even though it already has the expertise and is capable of countering these threats. It is not really surprising to me that this is coming from the Liberals, given their penchant for centralizing everything in Ottawa. Bill C-8 looks a lot like Bill C-26 .”
“Madam Speaker, $52,000 is a lot of money. The $52,000 spent on French lessons for the Governor General reminds us that, last year alone, the monarchy cost us, wait for it, $71 million. Imagine what we could do with $71 million. For example, today everyone is talking about the postal strike and the reduction in public services. Does the government not think that $71 million to offer mail delivery to our seniors would be a better investment than spending it on royal trinkets?”
“Madam Speaker, we need to keep talking about the Governor General, because it gets even worse. She has spent more than $52,000 on French lessons since she was appointed; that is 52,000 of our tax dollars. That is more than the average salary in Quebec after taxes. However, she still does not speak a word of French. I am sure all francophones will agree that that is a lot of money just to mock us. Do the Liberals now understand why unilingual anglophones should never be appointed to bilingual positions?”
“Mr. Speaker, municipal elections are in full swing in Quebec. On November 2, voters will go to the polls in more than 1,000 Quebec municipalities. It will be an evening of high hopes for all candidates and it will also be the end of an era for our elected members who decided not to run again. On behalf of the Bloc Québécois, I want to thank all the mayors and the councillors who served the public over the last term. They took on a role that is often difficult, sometimes rewarding, but always essential, with heart and determination. I also want to wish the best of luck to all those who had the courage to put their face on a billboard and run for office. Voters will make their choice, but there are only winners when thousands of people offer to devote their energy and intellect to the well-being of their fellow citizens.”
“Since they know that they will not be able to amend the Constitution, they are asking the Supreme Court to do it for them. Does my colleague not think that this shows a lack of courage on their part?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have never hidden it: They have always said that Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State bothered them. Quebec's laws defending French also bother them. Now they have realized that Quebec is using the notwithstanding clause to defend its identity, language and secular principles. Since the notwithstanding clause exists in the Constitution, they are stuck with it and are wondering what the solution is. For them, the solution is to ask the Supreme Court to reinvent the law in their stead because they do not have the courage to amend the Constitution themselves. They know that they will get neither the support of 50% of the public plus one, nor the support of seven out of 10 provinces, as required by the procedure for amending the Constitution.”
“Mr. Speaker, although this point has been made since the day started, I think it is important to raise it again. Upon reading the brief submitted by the Attorney General of Canada with regard to the Supreme Court challenge of Quebec's legislation, An Act respecting the laicity of the State, one can detect something of a sanctimonious tone. The document seems to presume bad faith on the part of the provinces, Quebec in particular, as though they were dangerous. Conversely, the federal government portrays itself as a beacon of virtue, a bulwark against provincial abuse, including at the hands of the people of Quebec. First, I would like to know whether my colleague shares that opinion. Second, in light of the past 150 years of history, is that what we are actually witnessing?”
“The reality is that it was imposed by the other provinces—not even by Quebec, but by the other provinces—in order to ratify the Constitution that was imposed on us. Since the Constitution does not suit the government, is the government admitting that its Constitution is not so great after all? What it all boils down to is that, since the Liberals cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution, they are giving the Supreme Court a political role.”
“Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are having this debate today, and my colleague did not mention this in his speech, is that Quebec decided to use the notwithstanding clause to implement the state secularism act to ensure secularism in Quebec. Quebec also used the notwithstanding clause to protect the French language in Quebec. It is funny, right? The Liberals on the other side of the House and all the governments before them never said that using the notwithstanding clause was wrong, until Quebec decided to use it to protect secularism and the French language in Quebec. That is the reality: We are dealing with complete hypocrisy, although no one will call it that. In short, what is happening is that the Liberals are realizing that the notwithstanding clause bothers them and that it does not suit their purposes.”