Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, before the parliamentary secretary lectured us on morality, he did something that he does not often do: He opened up to us and told us the truth. He said that when there were constitutional negotiations, he was in the Manitoba legislature. He said that the Constitution was a compromise that included the notwithstanding clause, and that he did not like that compromise because it reflected the balance of power at the time. He is not happy with the Constitution because he lost.

What he is telling us is that, since the balance of power is not the same today, he wants to use the courts and the judiciary, rather than democracy and Parliament, to ensure that the courts make a different interpretation of section 33, even if it is absolutely clear, written in black and white.

Is my colleague not showing a lack of courage? Instead of having the courage to reopen the Constitution and discuss it, he prefers to say that he is a sore loser and that his government will make sure that judges do the dirty work.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I do not see that at all. When I reflect on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which was signed in 1982, I believe the essence of what is there is to show, through the notwithstanding clause, that Parliament is supreme, that the legislatures are supreme, in the laws they are making and passing. That was assured by the notwithstanding clause, but there was a sense that this was a clause that people would not be turning to constantly.

I take a look at the years between 1990 and 2010. How many times was the notwithstanding clause used? I suspect members would be surprised by the degree to which it was used, as I do not think it was. I cannot recall it offhand. Maybe members opposite can tell me if, in fact, it was used. I contrast that to the last number of years and how it is being used. That should raise some red flags.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that was certainly a sanctimonious speech by our colleague from Winnipeg North. It was definitely not his first time lecturing us, nor is it likely to be his last.

His argument does not hold water. He says we need to ask the Supreme Court for an opinion because the role of the Attorney General, through the government, is to defend the Charter. The notwithstanding clause has been around for more than 40 years. If there was no prior intervention, if the Supreme Court was never asked for a legal opinion, does that mean the government was not defending the charter?

I have a simple question. Is my colleague saying that the government has not been defending the charter for the past 40 years because it never asked for a legal opinion even though the notwithstanding clause was used more than 100 times during that period?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause has been in place for 43 years. It is going before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General of Canada, and I would like to think everyone in this chamber should support this, has a role to play in defending Canada's interests. By Canada's interests, I mean those of every woman, man and child, no matter their age, their sex or what language they speak.

There is a judiciary responsibility for Canada to be at the table. If we were not at the table, I would, quite frankly, question whether the government of Canada was doing its job. I believe that no one should be surprised that the federal government is doing its job in protecting the interests of Canadians. It is before the Supreme Court.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise for the first time today to take part in this important debate.

I agree that the notwithstanding clause should be used only sparingly. I think it should go to the Supreme Court, but I also have deep respect for my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois. I have deep respect, and I felt that, at one point in the member's speech, he dismissed the concerns of Bloc Québécois members, because of their wanting to break up the country.

I want to say very clearly to my own constituents and to other members in this place that what I see in the Bloc Québécois members of Parliament is a deep commitment to serve Quebec, as each of us should serve our own communities. I do not see them as destructive. I see them as constructive allies in seeking progressive values.

I think Bloc Québécois members are really good MPs.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I think there are phenomenal members who advocate for their regions, their provinces and their municipalities. Different people come to the House of Commons for many different reasons.

When we talk about the national interest, having something of this nature elevated to the Supreme Court of Canada dictates that the Attorney General of Canada has to express the interests of all Canadians.

I am a very proud Manitoban, but I am a Canadian first and foremost.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague claims that it is not the substance of the issue that is at stake, but rather the issue of the notwithstanding clause, which is not strictly a Quebec issue. I have a very simple question for him. What does he think of Bill 21?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, in my speech, I could have talked about the many different uses of the notwithstanding clause, but to go through and start itemizing them, I would then be criticized for provincial autonomy.

I respect that the provinces do and should have the ability to access and invoke the notwithstanding clause. My primary concern is the potential of automatically hitting the renewal button every four or five years. I am interested in what the Supreme Court of Canada has to say on it. I think it diminishes the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased because I love asking the member for Winnipeg North questions.

First, I am going to ask him about his reaction. I was in the hall near the lobby earlier, and I heard him say that a separatist party was proposing this. He is right. I would encourage him to continue.

Later on in his speech, he asked what the Bloc was doing here. We defend Quebec's interests because Canada does not do a great job of that, In fact, it often works against Quebec's interests. As our Green Party colleague pointed out, perhaps he should listen to what we are saying, because we are much more constructive than destructive. What we want is not to break up Canada, but to build Quebec. That is very different. It means taking charge of and developing our destiny as an autonomous nation. I would like him to think about that tonight as he goes to bed.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to build up the prairies because I believe it would make Canada stronger and healthier. I want and advocate for the province of Quebec to be built up. Where I take exception to the member's comments is that he is trying to give a false impression, but the federal government does not do what he is trying to imply.

We have the five major projects. The port of Montreal will benefit immensely because of the passage of Bill C-5, which, by the way, the Bloc opposed. That particular project is going to create literally hundreds, if not thousands, of jobs for people in the Montreal area, and all of Canada will benefit.

We all have a responsibility to advocate for the strengths of our provinces and regions to build a stronger, healthier Canada.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

Why does he think that no government in Quebec has ever signed the Constitution Act, 1982 and its draft charter?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I have some personal thoughts on that issue. Maybe one of these days, when I attempt to visit where my ancestors grew up in Saint-Ours, Quebec, the member will join me for coffee and we can talk about it.

That is not what today's debate is about, nor is it about singling out any specific province. It is a constitutional issue, an obligation Canada's Attorney General has a fiduciary responsibility to fulfill.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my esteemed colleague from La Pointe‑de‑l'Île, who is sure to speak truth to power, as he does so well.

I thank everyone here and I thank everyone seated in the House who is listening to the arguments we are making here today. Not everyone listens. Some people have their lines prepared and have the nerve to tell us they work for the interests of Quebec since they are voting in favour of Bill C‑5. I just heard that. It is crazy how surreal things can be around here.

A lot of things have been said about today's motion. Several people have read it, so I will not reread it, but I will sum it up because some people are not great listeners. What we are asking is for the government to withdraw from the case. The Liberals have told us all day long that the court is independent. They are using our money to fight our laws that were legitimately passed by our parliament, our National Assembly. Then they tell us that the court is independent. We want the government to withdraw and withdraw its ridiculous factum.

We also wanted to speak out today against the weaponization of the courts, because that is what this is all about. This weaponization is done on our dime, as I just said. We are fed up. Let us manage our own affairs.

That is Canadian history for you. The Quebec nation manages itself and does pretty well with the imperfect institutions that have been given to it and sometimes imposed on it. I would remind the House that today we are talking about the 1982 Constitution that was signed at night, behind our backs, while the premier was sleeping. I am not making this up. If it were a TV show, half the audience would tune out, thinking this could never happen in a democracy. However, it happened here. Then they tell us that this is the best country in the world. That takes some nerve.

This is not the first time the Bloc Québécois has worked on this. It is not the first time that it has brought this issue before Parliament. In 2023, we moved a motion explaining to parliamentarians that the Quebec government has every right to invoke the notwithstanding clause. Quebec is using a clause in the Constitution that the government created and whose parameters have already been properly defined. These parameters do not need to be defined again. If they do not like it, if they do not like this clause, then they need to reopen the Constitution. However, I do not think they will, because they do not have the courage to do so. They know it is impossible to get all the provinces to agree to the slightest change if it would benefit Quebec.

Let us go back to the 1990s. The Meech Lake accord was fairly straightforward. It was so bare bones as to be humiliating, and still it was rejected because it was too much. Charlottetown was a second attempt. It was even more ridiculous. Quebeckers voted against it because it was too little, and Canadians voted against it because it was too much. That is the Canadian Constitution. That is the Canadian federation.

Today, we are speaking out against an attack on secularism. The government can be hypocritical and say that the problem is the use of the notwithstanding clause and that it is used too often. What triggered this move? The Act respecting the laicity of the State. The fact that Quebec is different. We have a different way of seeing society and the world. We have a different way of integrating newcomers so that they can fully participate in society. We do not want people to ghettoize and live in separate groups. We want to build community and enable newcomers to enrich Quebec's culture with their own. That is why we practice interculturalism, not multiculturalism.

People on the government side do not understand that. They do not like it because it is not based on the British model. They want to stamp it out. Regardless of what they say, they are doing everything they can think of to obliterate it. The tragedy here is a lack of understanding.

As I said in my previous question, we are here to be constructive. I feel that we are being pretty constructive and pretty nice. We are basically the only group here that respects the Constitution, which we have not signed. That is really something.

Various political parties here are constantly advocating for even greater encroachment on provincial powers. Members should consider that for a moment and think before claiming that we are the troublemakers here. I do not think we are troublemakers; we are here to defend the interests of our people. That is what we are doing.

We will continue to do so, because it is our duty. Days like today are not a waste of time. We are educating the public and MPs in the House of Commons about the disgraceful act that is being committed: The federal government wants to crush the Quebec nation once again. That is what we are doing. I need to calm down, because I am getting upset. It is upsetting to hear that. There is something dismissive about it. It is as though they are condescendingly thinking to themselves, “Not surprising, they are separatists.”

We are being constructive and asking them to get out of the way. The notwithstanding clause was already framed by the Ford decision in 1988. It was clear. It says that as long as they follow the conditions set out in the Constitution, they are following a piece of legislation. When people go to court for a case, the judge does not up and decide that he is going to interpret things this way or that way because he is having a bit of a bad day. He does not rule a thing unfair or excessive because something was said four or five times, or because something rubs him the wrong way and he is going to fix things. He reads and applies the law. That is what we do, and that is what the legislatures of the provinces and Quebec do. Just let us get on with it, that is all. The message is simple: Stop interfering. Even after all that, people are still shocked that we want independence for Quebec.

The situation is utterly ridiculous. Speaking of utterly ridiculous situations, have members seen the federal government's brief? It says that we might bring back slavery, take away civil rights and abolish unions. Come on. I can hardly believe I am speaking words like these in Parliament. I thought it could not be true when I read the summary at the beginning. I thought it must have been a mistake, that it could not possibly say that, or it was a joke and the Liberals were making themselves a laughingstock. But no, they meant what they wrote. Then they turn around and tell us that this is the best country in the world and we should stay put.

We just want to protect our model. I will explain secularism once again for those who do not understand what it is. It is not discriminatory. On the contrary, it is the model that most respects individual religions because every individual, when using government services, is not discriminated against, since the person providing the service is neutral. Canada does the exact opposite. It prioritizes the individual right of the worker who says, “I have the right to wear my symbol and I will impose it on the 50 people I serve today.” The 50 people served today will be subjected to his or her symbol. It might not bother some people, but it likely does bother others. That is the idea behind secularism. It protects personal beliefs and allows people to practise their religion at home, as they wish. We will never make places of worship illegal. What is being presented to the Supreme Court is madness. It completely boggles the mind.

Canadian history has always been about erasing Quebec's distinctiveness. With the Royal Proclamation of 1763, they wanted to assimilate us. In 1774, there was the American Revolution, and they used us by giving us gifts and making us believe that everything would be wonderful afterward. That did not last long because in 1791, the Loyalists arrived. They divided up the territory and created democratic institutions, thinking that the French knew nothing about that and would not be able to manage. Surprise, surprise, we were really good in parliament, just as we are today. I think we are still good.

This caused so much unrest that they decided to try to crush us again in 1840 with the Act of Union. Not only did they take away our democratic power, but they also made us pay the debts of others. However, we still found a way to work things out by forming an alliance, the Baldwin-LaFontaine alliance, to save what we could and preserve the French language and our culture. Since they did not like that, they came up with the idea of making us believe that they were forming a confederation, when in fact it would be a federation, and then, little by little, through mass immigration and gradual measures, they would stifle these people and make their government disappear. Today, this is yet another brick in that edifice. Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois will always stand in the way of this very negative project of Canadian nation building, because we want to continue to exist. They want us to disappear. Multiculturalism is part of that. That is the overall picture.

Our message today is that we must be allowed to make our own choices. We have a deadline next year in Quebec, and we are going to work toward it.

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

Mr. Speaker, allow me to make reference to the factum that the member refered to. He talked about the issue of labour, and he kind of ridicules the government, asking why one would include that as an example. If we look at the usage of the notwithstanding clause and who has actually used it, we will see that labour was a part of it.

Does the member not recognize that having the Attorney General of Canada express an interest in how the notwithstanding clause could be used, repetitively, might actually affect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? Is that not a serious issue?

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the member directly.

I am against the Attorney General of Canada assuming that Quebec could abolish individual rights, allow summary executions and do away with all class action rights. I object to that.

I object to the fact that this government is trying to go through the courts instead of having the courage to stand up, reopen the Constitution and change what it does not like; it knows that we would have other demands as well. I would remind the member that we respect the Constitution. We would have had other demands, which is why the government did what it did. It is not going to work.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleague from Berthier—Maskinongé on his speech.

Today, we hear the Liberals repeating over and over that they want to defend the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but the one who inherited the charter, the Canadian Constitution and its 1982 repatriation was Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

Obviously, I would be happy to remind the House of Quebec's motto: Je me souviens, I remember. I will repeat for my colleagues on the other side of the House what the heir to the Charter and the Constitution said, which is that he was not afraid of the use of the notwithstanding clause. Instead, he kept repeating that it was always the elected representatives, voted in by the people at the ballot box, who had the last word, not the courts.

I would like my colleague to comment on this historical reference.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

Mr. Speaker, indeed, he talked a lot about the charter. It is true that he reiterated his desire to protect it.

The only problem is that they did it without us. They forgot to ask our opinion when they implemented it, when they passed it. They avoided asking us because they knew we would make too many demands. However, if we had been there, we might have been able to point out that there was a chapter missing from their charter, namely the one on collective responsibilities and solidarity. That is the difference. That is why charters have notwithstanding clauses.

Some of the members may be hearing for the first time that Quebec is ahead of Canada yet again. That is because we adopted the Quebec Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1975, seven years earlier, and our charter also has a notwithstanding clause because no one can foresee everything. That is what it is for.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my Bloc Québécois colleague and I heard the term “secularism”.

One of the things that really motivated me to settle in Canada and choose to live in the province of Quebec as a Quebecker was its secular nature. Here, however, we have to be tread very carefully. There is a big difference between secularism and secularization. Secularization is really about imposing a certain culture on a newcomer, and that is very important.

My question is this: What harm does it cause to the service you receive if someone wearing a kippah or a veil shows up when you come to see a nurse or an educator? Why would it bother you if someone wears a conspicuous religious symbol? Other people who hold religious beliefs may be wearing a cross but keep it out of sight.

What is the difference, then? I ask because, in both cases, the people are genuine believers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before recognizing the chief whip of the Bloc Québécois, I would remind the member that he must address the Chair.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

What does this have to do with the federal government, and why does it want to get involved? If my colleague chose Quebec because he liked the secularism model, he could have come to Quebec City and told me the same thing.

Why is this so upsetting? The government must be neutral.

I will make a quick comparison.

I was a high school teacher before becoming an MP. I then became president of the Bloc Québécois, president of the Parti Québécois and many other things. I did not show up in class with my PQ or Bloc lapel pin, because I was representing my government. I had a duty to remain neutral. That is what government is all about.

For a nurse or anyone else, that is the secularism model. It is about respecting people who use government services.

It is true that this does not bother everyone, but it does bother some people.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Peace River—Westlock, Oil and Gas Industry; the hon. member for Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, Agriculture and Agri-Food; the hon. member for Calgary Crowfoot, Natural Resources.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers care deeply about state secularism. The first demands came from the Patriotes of 1837 and 1838. In their declaration of independence, they called for freedom of conscience and a strict separation of church and state.

Secularism is one of the driving forces behind the birth and development of modern Quebec. The Quebec nation has a special history where the Catholic faith had a very strong presence. At one point, the church controlled a lot of institutions. Modern Quebec was born out of questioning that model, which made it practically a religious state.

After the Parent commission report was tabled, Catholic teachers were asked not to wear their religious symbols. There was no legislation, but people co-operated and they complied. Then, the system of Catholic and Protestant school boards was abolished. Today, secularism is not discriminatory; it applies the same way to all religions.

Laws similar to the Quebec legislation have been deemed perfectly compatible with human rights by several courts around the world, including Europe's highest court, which has historically developed human rights. It recently ruled that prohibiting the wearing of religious symbols in schools does not constitute a violation of religious freedom. Belgium, France, Bulgaria, Austria and Denmark have even banned the full veil from public spaces.

The Quebec people have a unique identity with distinct norms and values, namely Quebec values. However, Quebec is a minority within Canada. Quebec is a national minority that, in reality, is not recognized as such by the English Canadian majority.

That much is obvious when we look at the Official Languages Act. Starting in 1969, with Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the Official Languages Act defended the principle that English Canadians are a minority in Quebec, even though the people of Quebec have endured 200 years of British colonialist domination and English Canadian economic domination. Until the 1960s, its institutions were largely underfunded.

The Canadian majority imposed the Official Languages Act on us. Rather than trying to repair the damage caused to Quebec by 200 years of underfunding French schools in Quebec, the government decided to support English schools and the anglophone education system exclusively. It decided to promote English in public services in areas under Quebec's jurisdiction.

That is the problem. This was done despite the fact that Quebeckers make up 90% of Canada's francophone minority. That is more or less what is happening right now. We are told that the Constitution, with its Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, seeks to protect minorities from the dictatorship of the majority, but it does exactly the opposite for Quebec's national minority.

Whether we like it or not, Canada is a multinational country. There are the first nations, Inuit, the Acadian nation, francophone communities descended from the French Canadian nation, such as the Quebec nation, and the English Canadian nation.

The best demonstration of how anglophones are not just a minority in a province, but part of the Canadian majority, is the fact that the Constitution and the charter were imposed on us in 1982 to weaken our language planning. This Constitution remains the Constitution of English Canada to this day, since no Quebec government has signed it. Under that Constitution, federally appointed judges dismantled Quebec's Charter of the French Language. As some have said, the Supreme Court is a bit like the tower of Pisa; it always leans the same way.

That is essentially what we are going through. If we do not learn from our history, it repeats itself. We keep hearing that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms defends minorities, but that is clearly not the case. Professor Henri Brun said that the highest court is federal because of judicial appointments. Consider the recent appointment of McGill's Robert Leckey, an enemy of the Charter of the French Language. He was appointed by Justin Trudeau and confirmed by the current Prime Minister. According to Mr. Brun, judges appointed by Ottawa are naturally guided by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. As such, religious freedom in Quebec's charter cannot be interpreted differently from the courts' interpretation of religious freedom in the Canadian charter. This is a blatant example of how Canada tends toward charter uniformity. It is one of the greatest perils facing Quebec and all other minority nations around the world. The courts and the government of judges have a homogenizing effect.

We also must not forget that, as we said earlier, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982 was adopted one evening next door, at the Château Laurier, by the federal government and the nine provinces of English Canada during negotiations that were described as the “night of the long knives” because Quebec was excluded from those negotiations on the night of November 4 to 5, 1981. The notwithstanding clause was not Quebec's idea. It came from the other provinces, which agreed to Ottawa's introduction of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the condition that a notwithstanding clause be added, thus allowing Quebec to make its own choices. The notwithstanding clause is an essential element of democratic life and the democratic process. The precursor to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Canadian Bill of Rights, included a notwithstanding clause, as did the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms, the Saskatchewan bill of rights and the Alberta Bill of Rights, all of which predate the Canadian charter.

Even Trudeau senior said that the notwithstanding clause is “a way that the [provincial] legislatures...have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts”. After the 1982 constitutional power grab, René Lévesque used the notwithstanding clause for all laws in Quebec. Today, it is used for 41 laws, not just for the Act respecting the laicity of the State or Bill 101. It is also used for very progressive legislation, such as the small claims division legislation.

The federal government never challenged the notwithstanding clause in connection with any of these laws. Now, all of a sudden, it is challenging the notwithstanding clause. It is not against secularism, but it is challenging the notwithstanding clause. The current Prime Minister, like Justin Trudeau, sees this clause as unnecessary. He wants to curtail Quebec's right to self-determination. The Prime Minister says that the notwithstanding clause should never be used pre-emptively. Apparently he thinks we should pass laws, wait for them to be struck down by courts all the way up to the Supreme Court, then rewrite them with the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause was used to keep lawyers out of small claims court. Imagine all the cases that would have to be retried.

We condemn the use of the courts for political purposes. Why intervene in this matter? The federal government is intervening with our money to challenge our laws. This proves that, as long as Quebec remains in Canada, it must battle for its very existence in an unfair fight with the Canadian majority. The only way forward for Quebec is quite simple: independence.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I admire the Bloc Québécois member's eloquence, and I also admire the image he chose, the image of the tower of Pisa, which always leans the same way.

Along the same lines, can he not see that the Bloc Québécois is also like the tower of Pisa in a way, because it always leans toward the majority? The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects minority rights above all. However, in his speech, I never heard him or his colleagues talk about minorities or what they might experience on their difficult migratory journey. It is very important to remember that today.

Can he at least explain how he could also protect minority rights with these elements?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but he just revealed that he did not really listen to my speech, because I did talk about minorities.

Quebec is a plurinational state. The charter is supposed to defend minorities against the dictatorship of the majority, except for the Quebec national minority. I do not think Quebeckers are the majority in Canada. He cannot dispute that. We are not recognized as a minority. We are being presented as a big, nasty majority, simply because we want to continue living in French. My God, it is appalling. The only way to be “correct” is to become anglophone.

Quebec is a minority that has the right to exist. The people of Quebec have the right to exist with their own language, with their own values, just like first nations, just like other minorities.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will use my turn to denounce the outrageous remarks made earlier by the member for Winnipeg North. He said that if the Bloc did not agree with the Liberal Party line, they had no place here. To the member for Winnipeg North, some elected members have value and others do not. He stands up and gives us lessons in democracy.

Beyond that, if he thinks that Bloc Québécois members have no place here because they defend the consensus of the National Assembly of Quebec, what does that say about the Quebec members of Parliament who are elected on the other side, who follow this party line, and who, time and time again, day after day, week after week, stand up to vote against unanimous motions adopted by the 125 duly elected members who make up their national parliament in Quebec City?