That's fine.
It sends a message that there's hope.
Now I'm going to use my turn to discuss the motion for a minute.
First of all, I commend the sensitivity shown in Ms. Bendayan's motion with regard to Quebec. I acknowledge it, and I commend Ms. Bendayan for it. I'm going to vote against this motion, and that's a very strong and well supported “nay” designed to recall the positions of the Bloc Québécois.
I want to note that the logic underlying the division of powers in the Constitution Act, 1867 was that, when something concerned the system, it was federal, and, when it concerned people, it was provincial. As a result, the cultural differences between Quebec and Canada would not prevent the country from functioning. That was the compromise contemplated in Confederation.
Under an amendment made in 1951, section 94A of Canada's Constitution Act gave the federal Parliament legislative authority respecting pensions but acknowledged the preponderant authority of provincial statutes in the matter. Parliament may therefore legislate unless a province decides otherwise and prefers to do so itself. That is a right of the province.
When the federal government introduced the Canada pension plan, Quebec was enabled under section 94A to refuse to participate in the plan and to create the Régime de rentes du Québec and the Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec. It was up to Quebec, and Quebec alone, to make that decision. It has not been Parliament's decision since the Constitution Act was amended in 1951.
The same is true for Alberta. Whether you agree or disagree with the province's choice is of no importance; it is up to Alberta alone to make the decision.
Thank you.