Mr. Speaker, I cannot remain silent on such a debate and on the words of my colleague and good friend.
I share with my friend and hon. member a number of values as a Quebecker, but I do not share his vision for the future of Quebeckers and neither do a good number of our colleagues in this House.
I always marvel at Bloc Québécois members who say they have been defending the interests of Quebec in this chamber since 1993. They make countless references in their speeches to the best interests of Quebec, or the interests of Quebec.
But it is action that counts. I have a question for my hon. colleague. I can anticipate his response and it will not be the one I am hoping for. I know full well that in his heart, he is not in favour of reforming Canadian federalism. If he were in favour of reforming Canadian federalism, he would not be here in the House.
Rather than find ways to honestly and truly represent what Quebeckers have done, said and asked for—I am talking about a population that has twice in its history chosen to stay within a united Canada, to remain a nation within a united Canada—the Bloc focuses on its own agenda.
In my opinion, this is a relatively clear signal. For everyone here, this means we have to work on reforming Canadian federalism. I would like the hon. member to tell me how an unelected upper chamber, in its current form, can necessarily advance the democratic governance of our country. I would ask him to explain just that. I do not want him to look back at 1992, or 1993 or Meech or all that. I would like him to say a few words specifically on this.
When someone says they are here to represent interests, I could play cat and mouse with him and ask him why his political party voted against the economic statement, thereby refusing to allow Quebeckers to have $12 billion in tax cuts, both in income tax and the GST. But I would not do that.
I would like him to stick closely to the wording of my question.