Debates of May 11th, 2010

Opposition Motion--Quebec's Traditional Demands

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague, the Minister of the Environment, is proposing an approach with more specific targets. We will take action, as we have done since we arrived in 2006, unlike the ex-government party opposite, who, for 13 years, let greenhouse gas emissions increase by more than 30%. They did nothing. They signed agreements, but they did not follow through. We are going to continue to improve our targets and to work for the environment. Sustainable development really is one of our priorities.

I applaud the initiative of the Minister of Finance who, with his parliamentary secretary, continues to tour the country to listen to arguments and refine the jurisdictional details for pension funds.

It is important to remember that 90% of the country's pension funds are under provincial jurisdiction. Above all, we must not hurt businesses with our actions. People say that a company's pensioners must be put ahead of bank creditors, but we have to understand that, if the banks no longer lend money to those companies, they may well go into bankruptcy.

Studies are being done at the moment. We really have to see how the financial analysis—

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I am sorry to interrupt the member. Order, please.

The hon. member for Portage—Lisgar.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, yesterday I had the opportunity to travel with other members of a committee I sit on to Lac-Simon, a first nations community located in Quebec.

The chief and council specifically thanked the government and the minister for the work that has been done through Canada's economic action plan. They specifically thanked us for the funds that we have provided and they mentioned the hon. minister by name. That is not a riding that we represent, but we are working on behalf of Quebeckers. They would not have a voice if it were not for the minister. They also said that the long gun registry really is affecting their first nations community.

I wonder if the minister could comment on these two issues.

[Denis Lebel, Conservative, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question.

In the month of April, 108,000 jobs were created in Canada. We are on the way back to a stronger economy, which will allow our young people to have a future. They want jobs. We will continue to work to create jobs in all the regions of Quebec. I was happy to hear my colleague's comment, because in all the regions—Abitibi-Témiscamingue, Gaspe and Îles de la Madeleine, the North Shore, where I will be again next week—we are trying to help the whole community, including first nations who are going through difficult times with a population explosion.

I will add one more thing, in response to my colleague, on the long gun registry. In the eyes of those who live in large urban centres, the long gun registry is one thing. But it is a totally different thing in the eyes of those who live in all the regions of Quebec. I was saying the other day that hunters' associations throughout Quebec speak to me about this issue when I am in the regions and ask that we abolish the long gun registry. That is a fact. What my colleague just reported from the aboriginal affairs committee is not a unique or isolated occurrence. It is true in rural areas throughout Quebec. Obviously .410s, .22s and 12 gauge shotguns used for duck hunting are mostly found in rural areas of the province and the country, not in large urban centres. That is why people who live in rural areas, be they hunters, farmers or first nations, are the ones asking us to abolish the registry.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Is the hon. member for Chambly—Borduas rising on a point of order?

[Yves Lessard, Bloc, Chambly—Borduas, QC]

Madam Speaker, you can let me know whether my comments are out of order. My colleague probably forgot that I went with her yesterday to Lac-Simon. But what she is saying here does not accurately reflect what came out in Lac-Simon.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. member, but I think his comments would be better suited for the debate.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order, I would like the chance to respond because the member was given a chance.

Actually, that is exactly what the member of that first nations said. He specifically said, “I want to thank the Government of Canada for the economic action plan and for what it has provided for us in terms of housing”. Then he mentioned the hon. member by name.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I thank the hon. members. I think I have heard enough. It really is not a point of order; it is more a question of debate.

Resuming debate, the hon. member for Westmount-Ville-Marie.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will share my time with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine.

I would like to start by rereading the motion presented by the member for Joliette. It states:

That this House acknowledge that federalism cannot be renewed, since 20 years after the failure of the Meech Lake Accord, Quebec still does not have the power to choose three justices on the Supreme Court of Canada, or to opt out with compensation from federal programs in its areas of jurisdiction, nor does it have a real veto over constitutional amendments and its status as a nation still has not been recognized in the Canadian Constitution.

That is what the motion says.

I have no doubt that the Bloc member was sincere in presenting this motion. I want to make something clear, however. The member wants Quebec to become independent, but he wants all the advantages that come from being part of the Canadian federation. In other words, the member wants to have his cake and eat it too.

Over the past 20 years, the Bloc consistently rejected Meech or any improvement to federalism. Some Bloc Québécois members have been here ever since their party's inception. Even now, 20 years later, they are bent on working against anything that would improve how federalism works. The fact is that federalism is a system that can evolve and, with a minimum of good faith on the part of everyone, it can improve. But my colleagues from the Bloc have no interest in that, hence my criticism. Instead of being constructive, they want to destroy. Instead of contributing, they want to withdraw. Separation is their goal. That would mean zero senator, zero member of Parliament and zero minister in Ottawa. It would also mean zero judge from Quebec at the Supreme Court. It would mean zero dollar in equalization. Frankly, it is sheer hypocrisy to feign ripping up his shirt now.

Equalization is constitutionally guaranteed and it has allowed Quebec to receive tens of billions of dollars during the past 20 years, which is no small contribution to the province's budget. On the subject of separation, both sides of the issue have to be presented, and the truth has to be spoken. They cannot have their cake and eat it too. Every speech from the Bloc since its arrival here has contained demands. All we have been hearing are complaints about injustice and inequity. We have not heard a word about the great benefits Quebec is drawing from the Canadian federation. Not a word either about the efforts made by the Canadian federation to accommodate Quebec by recognizing its uniqueness. No, for the Bloc Québécois, there is only injustice and inequity.

My party, the Liberal Party, shares Quebec's values of mutual help. That is why, for example, Paul Martin entered into an asymmetrical agreement on health care with Quebec. My party, the Liberal Party of Canada, also shares Quebec's view of the environment. We agree that 1990 should be the reference year for greenhouse gas reduction targets. My party recognizes the need to invest like never before in green technologies. In that regard, we are seeing eye to eye with Quebec.

But the Bloc keeps working to divide instead of unite. The Bloc wants to tear down instead of build. The Bloc is refusing to work together in good faith towards a solution that would be acceptable to all of the provinces, including Quebec, thus building a stronger, more united country.

My party, the Liberal Party of Canada, shares Quebec's cultural values. My party is committed to doubling the funding for the Canada Council for the Arts, which would be of great benefit to Quebec.

My party is committed to restoring programs that have been eliminated by the Conservatives and that would share Quebec's culture with the world. My party has committed to ensuring stable, long-term funding for CBC/Radio-Canada because it truly recognizes the essential role that this institution plays in the preservation and growth of Quebec's language and culture.

My party, the Liberal Party of Canada, recognizes the importance of preserving the vitality of Quebec's regions. We know that our beloved Quebec is not only defined by its cities, but also by its rural communities. That is why my party wants to work with Quebec to ensure that development is province-wide.

That is why we have committed to maintaining and increasing the vitality of Quebec's rural regions through the following: a forestry sector strategy that will revitalize the sector and allow us to benefit from increased processing of raw materials and from research and development; a national food strategy, which would have a major impact on our agriculture producers; a commitment to encourage more doctors and nurses to move to the regions; a refundable tax credit for volunteer firefighters in the regions in recognition of their important contribution to rural infrastructure; a commitment to broadband Internet access for all regions in Quebec and in other provinces; and a moratorium on the closure of rural post offices in recognition of the need to offer the same services to all citizens, whether they live in cities or rural communities.

Although few Quebeckers realize it, there is a major federal presence in Quebec with respect to science and research. I know this from personal experience because I had the honour and privilege of serving as president of the Canadian Space Agency for several years. I know that Quebeckers are proud of the agency. Based in Saint-Hubert, the agency is helping to create a world-class aerospace cluster in Quebec.

We all know that the Canadian Space Agency and more than a dozen other Quebec-based federal research and development institutions, including Natural Resources, Fisheries and Oceans, Agriculture and Agri-food, the NRC and others, would have to shut down in the event of separation. The Bloc never talks about those significant consequences, but Quebeckers are aware of them and do not want to lose these important assets.

My party shares Quebec's values in terms of culture, regional economic development, health care and freedom of association. My party wants to work with Quebec because it believes in a convergence federalism with federal and provincial jurisdiction and shared responsibilities. This kind of federalism is possible, and we invite Quebeckers to join us in creating the kind of Canada that reflects who they are. Our vision is very different from the Bloc's, which is all about separation, destruction and isolation.

It is time for the Bloc to face the facts. After 20 years, the Bloc needs to think about whether it is still relevant. Its founder, Lucien Bouchard, has raised this issue openly and publicly in the past few months. Lucien Bouchard understands that Quebec is no longer headed for separation, independence and the destruction of our country. Yes, Quebec has demands, but that is normal. All of the provinces have demands. We can work on these issues in a federalist structure. Quebec can develop within Canada with its language and culture, its vibrant rural regions and an environment in which air and water quality meet its standards. It can work with Canada to achieve that.

As I said at the beginning, I do not doubt my Bloc colleagues' sincerity. They have their vision of the future and are focusing their efforts on making that dream come true. At the same time, I want to tell them that in life, it is better to work together, to share one vision, to try to accommodate one another and get along. That is what the majority of Quebeckers want.

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am somewhat disappointed in the speech made by the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who is frankly playing the bogeyman today. I listened to his proposition, and the problem is with his basic assumption. He says that federalism, as a system, can evolve as long as there is the will. That is what the member just told us, and that is where the problem lies. Federalism has not evolved since 1982, since his government unilaterally patriated the Constitution, since the Meech Lake accord was deep-sixed. There has been no evolution in Canadian federalism because there has been no desire to see it evolve, as the member just said.

This became abundantly clear over the weekend. Both the Canadian population and our colleagues in this House criticize us, as the member did, for speaking only on behalf of Quebec. We are not ashamed of that. I see the member is nodding. Yes, he said that. Let me say one thing: we are not ashamed of defending Quebec's interests, because that is our role.

How can the member say that the federal system can evolve if there is a will, when there has never been any political will whatsoever, neither in the House nor among the Canadian public?

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his comment. I find it regrettable that, after so many years, the Bloc is at a standstill. The Bloc plays the same record over and over again, and its members must get tired of it from time to time because they cannot stop complaining. The Bloc refuses to see that Canada has evolved over the last 20 years. My colleague might not exactly be pleased with the way things have changed, but there has been an evolution nonetheless. However, 20 years later, the vast majority of Quebeckers recognize that this is something that must be pursued if we want federalism to thrive.

My colleague from the Bloc, sadly, strives to attain something that is less and less relevant, but he does not seem to realize it.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to congratulate the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie for his comments.

There is an article in the May edition of the periodical, Policy Options, from which I am going to read a brief quote on this subject. It talks about Quebec separation:

In the spring of 2010 it does seem almost like an afterthought, not a centrepiece. The Bloc Québécois Leader...on the verge of retirement, has completed a curious tour of English Canada explaining how much he loves Canada. That his enthusiasm to divide Canada is simply a product of his greater love for Quebec, is his pretzel logic. Bloc founder Lucien Bouchard publicly flails his former colleagues and declares that there is no prospect of a separate Quebec in the foreseeable future. Parti Québécois Leader Pauline Marois may be competitive in Quebec provincial politics, but her increasingly desperate defence of the separatist vision appears to flirt dangerously with racial/religious identity.

I wonder if the member has any thoughts on that passage.

[Marc Garneau, Liberal, Westmount—Ville-Marie, QC]

Madam Speaker, my interpretation of the situation with respect to the leader of the Bloc's tour of the country is that the Bloc is in a very painful situation. It has been 20 years since it began its quest. I do not doubt its members' sincerity and hard work in trying to achieve that quest, but it is a painful situation in which they find themselves. On the one hand, they would like to celebrate being around for 20 years and on the other hand, they would like to not celebrate being around for 20 years.

I believe that the leader of the Bloc is at loose ends as to finding a new strategy to make the quest of the Bloc relevant. He fell upon the idea of doing a tour of the country, perhaps hoping this might revive emotions in Quebec. However, the reality is that Quebeckers have moved on to other things. I think the leader is getting tired. I think he would like to do other things, perhaps provincially, but the door is not open to him there either.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to participate in this debate on the Bloc motion and I will say at the outset that I fully support the Liberal Party position, specifically, that we cannot support the Bloc motion.

Yesterday I read an article in the local news section of Le Devoir by columnist Chantal Hébert. The article was in the Monday, May 10, 2010, edition on page A3, under the headline, Meech, 20 years later.

I think it would be very interesting for all members of this House, especially those who do not usually read Le Devoir newspaper, to read that article.

I intend to read it and I hope to be able to read the entire article, because I think she raises some important points. In it she says:

The leaders of the Quebec sovereignist movement judged the Meech Lake accords negotiated 23 years ago very harshly. According to them, by accepting those provisions, Quebec was negotiating its future on the cheap in a framework that was dangerously simplistic for its national aspirations.

I apologize, but I have to read with a magnifying glass, because I have poor eyesight.

During the three years of animated debate the accord set in motion, their opposition never flagged. The day the Meech proposal died, the sovereignist leaders heaved a collective sigh of relief.

At the time, few of them predicted that the idea of a Canadian solution to the issue of Quebec's political status would still be as tenacious two decades later. Against all odds, it continues to be significantly more unifying that the prospect of a sovereign Quebec.

Twenty years after the death of Meech, there is still a consensus in Quebec on its main provisions. According to a poll conducted for the Bloc Québécois and the Intellectuels pour la souveraineté, four out of five Quebeckers support entrenching Quebec's status as a nation in the Constitution. The rest of the poll results run along the same lines. But the Canadian blockage that led to the 1990 constitutional crisis is just as intact.

This blockage was the focus of much attention from sovereignist supporters who gathered around the tomb of Meech this past weekend to exorcize the ghost of a Canadian arrangement between Quebec and the rest of the federation. Nevertheless, it is not the newest or, from the sovereignist standpoint, the most disturbing aspect of the current relationship between Quebec and Canada.

The rift that scuppered the Meech proposal and, later, the Charlottetown proposal served as the backdrop for the 1995 referendum. In addition, the Bloc Québécois has just marked 20 years of calling attention to its existence from atop its very visible federal platform. Yet interest in a Canadian solution to the issue of Quebec's political status is not waning, whereas support for sovereignty is stalling.

In fact, in the 20 years since the failure of Meech, the connection between support for sovereignty and the state of Canada-Quebec relations has grown weaker. Strained relations between Quebec and the ROC [rest of Canada] are fuelling the sovereignist cause less and less.

In the most recent federal election, the debate over culture, an issue that speaks to Quebec's identity if ever there was one, did not enable the Bloc Québécois to go over the 40% mark. The Bloc's 2008 score against the [then leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, the member for Saint-Laurent—Cartierville] and the [Conservative leader, who is now Prime Minister] differs by only two tenths of a percentage point from the results the [Bloc leader, the member for Laurier—Sainte-Marie] achieved after the clumsy campaign he waged as a neophyte leader in 1997.

In the past, sovereignist sentiment was generally at its highest when federalist governments were in power in Quebec. Today, however, the prevailing unpopularity of the Charest government and its indecision in matters of identity and language have no great consequential effect on sovereignty.

Twenty years after Meech Lake, the majority of Quebeckers, for whom the bar, albeit low, was set sufficiently high to justify their allegiance to Canada, seem less and less inclined to equate their grievances with Canada with their desire for sovereignty.

That is very significant.

The sponsors of the poll that stimulated debate on sovereignty this weekend were careful to avoid asking respondents where they ranked constitutional reform on their lists of priorities. It would have been interesting to see what percentage of Quebeckers would have placed an active search for new constitutional arrangements ahead of the economy, heath, education or the environment.

Given the lack of pressure on the current premiers in Canada and Quebec about this issue, it is reasonable to suppose that Quebeckers are in no more of a hurry to see their federalist leaders advance to the constitutional front again than they are to see their sovereignist leaders sound anew the call for a referendum debate.

In a weekend speech, the Bloc leader stated that Quebeckers who still believe in a Canada renewed along the lines they would like to see are deluding themselves. But, compared with their counterparts in the ROC, they are dreaming with their eyes wide open.

In the rest of Canada, people are more and more concerned about dysfunctional federal institutions and are wondering about the role of the Bloc Québécois in the succession of minority governments in Ottawa. But the circumstances that gave birth to the Bloc are largely absent from the prevailing official discourse and eyes are closed to the obvious fact that Canada in the 21st century will be continuing to work with institutions designed in the 19th century as long as there is no political will to normalize relations with Quebec.

This column is very significant, first, because Ms. Hébert very clearly shows that sovereignty is not at all a priority for a large majority of Quebeckers and, second, that four out of five Quebeckers would like to see Quebec included in the Constitution to which it is already legally linked. This shows that Quebeckers want to stay in Canada. They want to do their share as part of Canada. They want to influence Canada. I would really like the members of the Bloc, for whom I have a lot of respect and with whom I have had the pleasure to work in the 13 years I have been here, to use their creativity and their innovative ideas so that we can take a look at our federal institutions to ensure that they serve us well in the 21st century and so that Quebec can grow and develop as it should in Canada.

Let me end by saying that I do not support the Bloc Québécois motion. I think that these are ideas from the past and that Quebeckers—and I include myself among—and all other Canadians are facing greater challenges.

[André Bellavance, Bloc, Richmond—Arthabaska, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was not fear-tinged like that of the member who spoke before her, the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who reminded me a little of Jean Chrétien, only the language was more refined. He said Quebec would be losing several institutions if it became sovereign, a country of its own among other nations in the world. Quite honestly, this is not the kind of thing we should be hearing in 2010.

Could the hon. member give us an example of renewed federalism? During the seminar she spoke about, over the weekend, polls told us that the overwhelming majority of Canadians outside Quebec do not want to renew in any way the federalism that is embodied in the Constitution so that Quebec could have a place in this federal system. This is not what the rest of Canada wants.

I respect the choice made by my colleague to remain a part of Canada. And I have the utmost respect for people in Quebec who believe Quebec should be a country in its own right.

Are my colleague and her party supporting the establishment of a single securities commission in Canada? Her party is debating the issue, and I would like to know her opinion.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank the Bloc Québécois member for his question.

First, as regards the poll sponsored by the Bloc Québécois, the overwhelming majority of Canadians living outside Quebec said they were not interested in new negotiations on a constitutional amendment, unlike 80% of Quebeckers, who would like a constitutional amendment allowing Quebec to ratify the 1982 Constitution. Here again, it is all about priorities.

As Chantal Hébert mentioned in her column, which I just read in its entirety, the poll did not ask Quebeckers where a constitutional amendment fits in their priorities. The answer obtained in the rest of Canada is not, in my opinion, a rejection of Quebec and its importance within Canada. Rather, I think it has more to do with a degree of weariness and the fact that people have other priorities right now. That is how this answer should be interpreted.

[Sylvie Boucher, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary for Status of Women]

Madam Speaker, in her speech, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine forgot to mention that support for Quebec sovereignty at the height of the sponsorship scandal reached levels that had not been seen since referendum night, on October 30, 1995. Instead of reforming the Canadian federation after the dismal outcome of that referendum for Quebec federalists, the Liberals decided to create the dark sponsorship program, which only succeeded in tarnishing Quebeckers' reputation outside the province.

Moreover, the nice rhetoric used by the member opposite does not change anything to the fact that there is $40 million of Canadian taxpayers' hard-earned money still missing.

My question is: where are those $40 million? Canadians are still waiting for answers.

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Madam Speaker, instead of uttering lies, the Conservative member should read justice Gomery's report in its entirety, and also the report of the Auditor General of Canada on the sponsorship program. She will see that what the so-called analysts and politicians of his party are saying is not true. End of story.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Madam Speaker, so that people following our debate can understand what it is all about, we are discussing a Bloc motion aimed at establishing that there is no use trying to do better in Canada. It is hardly surprising that the New Democratic Party, devoted as it is to establishing winning conditions for Canada in Quebec and winning conditions for Quebec in Canada, does not share this rather sad, dispirited point of view.

I will read the Bloc motion all the same and people can see that it starts with the conclusion and finishes with the premise. This is very telling when it comes to the mindset of the Conservatives and the Bloc members because the conclusions are determined in advance.

The Bloc Québécois has decided that Canada is not worth the effort while the Conservatives do all they can to destroy Quebec’s place in Canada. Look at the conclusion at the beginning of the Bloc motion. “That this House acknowledge that federalism cannot be renewed—” This is their conclusion. The Bloc then proceeds to a false premise, saying in effect that no constitutional offer that would meet Quebec’s traditional demands has ever come or will ever come from a federal government of any kind.

It is quite a feat to predict this. The Bloc members here in the House, in the month of May 2010, are able to gaze into their crystal ball with all the prowess of a Nostradamus and announce that forever more, over centuries and centuries, no government will be able to meet their demands.

There is something about this. When I read the motion, I really wonder what it does to help Quebec—and this from a party that claims to be here in order to advance Quebec’s interests. The last time the Bloc introduced a motion, it was constructive and positive. It aimed at something that could help Quebec. Its purpose was to maintain Quebec’s political weight in the House of Commons, the most important legislative body in Canada. We had no problem supporting the Bloc on this. All my colleagues, including those from British Columbia, Alberta, Manitoba and Ontario, joined to support it.

The reason why they supported the motion is they knew that two things need to be done to rebalance our democratic system. There has been a major increase in the population of some other provinces and representation by population is a basic democratic principle. We therefore had no problem substantially increasing the number of seats in British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario in particular.

Nonetheless, if we are sincere about Quebeckers forming a nation within a united Canada, that has to actually mean something. And here the NDP, as a resolutely federalist party, believes that Canada is worth the trouble and that Canada is better off with Quebec and Quebec is better off with Canada. That is what we believe and that is what we will work toward. That is the very meaning of the Sherbrooke declaration proposed by the leader of the New Democratic Party, who is the first leader of the NDP born in Quebec. He understands the pressing need for this fundamental recognition of Quebec.

The Bloc’s motion refers to an event that occurred 20 years ago, namely the Meech Lake accord. To hear them today and to read their motion, an observer from another country who might be watching the debate today from the gallery would think that the Meech Lake accord was of interest to the Bloc Québécois. He would think that the Bloc Québécois and the sovereignists were in favour of the Meech Lake accord the way they are lamenting it today.

I refer to what my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said earlier. He said that the accord had been deep-sixed. That is his term and not mine. They are lamenting the death of the Meech Lake accord. The little problem with the logic of the Bloc Québécois is that they fought tooth and nail against the Meech Lake accord, the same accord they are lamenting today. They got the result the wanted, namely the death of the Meech Lake accord.

That is one little problem of logic inherent in the Bloc Québécois’ analysis, but that is not all. Soon afterward, we saw another attempt to reform the Constitution, which was called the Charlottetown Accord. As one, the entire sovereignist movement attacked the Charlottetown Accord.

I referred earlier to an attempt made recently in good faith by the Bloc to freeze the number of Quebec’s seats in the House to at least its current weight, which is 24.35% of the seats. The Charlottetown Accord would have given us 25%. The Bloc was against that. Now they are trying to hold on to 24.35%.

The big loser in the revision of the number of seats proposed by the Conservatives is Quebec. Quebec is the only province in Canada, and let us be clear on that, the only one, which with this change sees its demographic weight fall beneath its representation by population. It is the only loser from the Conservatives’ actions in this whole manoeuvre.

The Bloc still has a problem with logic and consistency. Having fought against the recognition of Quebec and its 25%, what did it have left as an argument? It does not even want Quebec to stay within Canada, but it is pleading for better representation. That is a contradiction inherent in its logic, insurmountable on every level.

I remember when a former prime minister, who unfortunately had other difficulties in life—we should be getting the Oliphant Commission decision soon—had an idea that he expressed in these infamous words. He said that he wanted to bring Quebec back into the Constitution with honour and enthusiasm. He worked tirelessly towards that goal.

Just now, I was listening carefully to the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce. I am sure that it was an inadvertent error, but she said something in her presentation that did not correspond with the truth. She said that a poll yesterday showed that four out of five Quebeckers wanted Quebec to be brought back into the Constitution. That is incorrect. The poll showed that four out of five Quebeckers want the recognition of Quebec as a nation to be enshrined in the Constitution.

That is what the New Democratic Party wants. Our party wants the recognition to be real and to be enshrined in the Constitution of Canada. Then we would avoid the sad spectacle of the Conservatives taking away Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons. We would avoid the sad spectacle of the Conservatives and their token Quebeckers lining up to vote against bilingual judges.

It is as if being bilingual makes one less competent to sit on the Supreme Court. The Official Languages Act was passed in 1968, that is more than forty years ago. Anyone aspiring to a Supreme Court nomination today was in law school after the Official Languages Act was passed and understands the importance of knowing both languages.

I was the speaker of a student parliament at Queen's University, one of Canada's great universities. I was a little surprised to hear so little French in the debates from the three hundred or so students who were there. I chatted with the students after my session as speaker and I simply asked how many of them had been in immersion for all or part of their studies. I was not surprised to find that two thirds—200 out of 300, that is, because it is a good school that attracts good candidates—had been in immersion. I winked at them and said in English: “If you don't use it, you'll lose it.” If they did not practice their French, they were going to lose it.

The message the Conservatives and their token Quebeckers are sending—they should be ashamed to vote against their own language—to any brilliant young law student in the rest of Canada is that he should not bother going to Laval University for a summer session to improve his French, nor should he take a course, as did Brian Dickson, former chief justice who, late in life, made it its mission to learn French. The message the Conservatives and their pitiful token Quebeckers are sending is, “Do not even bother”.

“French does not matter in this country. It will never mean anything for you anywhere in your political or professional life. You can go to law school in Canada. You will never learn a single word of French. You will never practise French and you can go to the highest court in the land, even if you do not understand a single word that is being said to you in French”.

I remember seeing a now infamous recording of chief justice McLachlin asking a francophone lawyer who was pleading before the Supreme Court:

“Could you please slow down. Judge Rothstein can't follow you with the translators”.

Knowing that the time available to lawyers before the Supreme Court is subject to very strict rules, it is not really surprising that Quebec's best litigators have no choice but to use English before the Supreme Court so as not to be penalized. That is where we are now with the Conservative government and its token Quebeckers who have the gall to say that they recognize Quebec as a nation but who, through all their actions, are doing everything they can to undermine this reality.

This motion marks the anniversary of the Meech Lake accord but, just recently, we celebrated the anniversary of another infamous event, the Brinks affair. For those who do not remember, it was a media event staged by the Quebec Liberals, the cousins of the federal Liberals. They used Brinks trucks to transport security certificates to the other side of the border, in Ontario. Now they do not even have to make an effort because the Conservatives are in cahoots with the Liberals to get the whole securities industry out of Quebec. Thousands of brilliant students and graduates from Quebec who are now able to work in this area in Quebec will have to leave if the plan orchestrated by the Conservatives and Dalton McGuinty becomes reality.

The bright and talented Dalton McGuinty—the one who is in the news today—is comparing Toronto's banking sector to Wayne Gretzky. It seems to me, but this is just an opinion, that the premier, with its base in Toronto, is not in a position to talk about hockey with the rest of Canada, but this is just friendly advice to him on my part.

Whenever we talk about Quebec, the Conservatives are opposed to any real recognition. Whenever it matters, the Liberals side with the Conservatives against Quebec. Earlier, I alluded to the number of seats in the House of Commons. The Liberals and the Conservatives form a united front. They get together to oppose a true recognition of the importance of giving, preserving and maintaining Quebec's political and democratic weight in the House of Commons. If they were sincere when they say that Quebec is a nation within Canada, they would not vote to reduce Quebec's democratic weight to below its demographic weight in this chamber. Yet, that is precisely what the Conservatives and the Liberals did.

I heard Liza Frulla express her views during a television program called Le club des ex. She said, just before the vote, that the member for Bourassa would never vote against Quebec on an issue such as this one, that the Liberals would never consider reducing Quebec's political weight. Personally, I was not surprised to see the member for Bourassa rise and vote against Quebec—along with the Conservatives—to reduce Quebec's political weight in the House of Commons. I was not surprised at all, because that is how the Liberal Party has been operating since the days of Pierre Trudeau. Over the past 40 years, the Liberals have had only one strategy. They never stop using it. When Meech was in the picture, they had no problem with that. They just sent Pierre Elliott Trudeau, Marc Lalonde and the old gang to block any attempt to give Quebec better recognition within Canada, because such a thing is against their religion. Indeed, under the “Trudeauesque” religion, all provinces are equal. Under the Conservative religion, there is one province that is different, that forms a nation. However, that province is not going to get any real recognition, and whenever the issue is going to come up, its political weight and its recognition will be diminished.

We talked about securities and about the number of seats here, but let us also talk about the language of work. Since August 26, 1977, the Charter of the French Language gives all workers in Quebec the right to work in French, and it gives them the right to get their collective agreement, their employer's memos and so on in French. However, that is not the case at the federal level, because the Canada Labour Code applies to all areas that come under federal legislation.

For example, if a person works at a radio station and is a union member, his union is governed by the Canada Labour Code and not the Quebec Labour Code, even if the station is in Quebec. Radiocommunications and telecommunications come under federal jurisdiction. This is a good example.

If you work for a bus company in Gatineau—the buses cross the border between Ontario and Quebec, even if it is a virtual border— the employer can require its employees to speak English, even if that has nothing to do with the work of a bus driver. It is just to accommodate the employer.

If you work for a cell telephone company in Rimouski and the new unilingual anglophone boss from British Columbia—and this really happened—requires that those around him at least be able to speak to him in English, that constitutes linguistic knowledge to accommodate the employer and not to perform the task. This has been illegal in Quebec since August 26, 1977, but it is entirely permitted at the federal level, and it is still going on.

The NDP has a bill which, while not scrapping the Official Languages Act, would give this right to workers in Quebec. The Conservatives voted against it, but because they are a minority, they still need a dance partner. Who was the dance partner of the Conservative Party when language of work was the issue? The same member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine who, in an article published in The Gazette and the Journal de Montréal, explained very proudly that the Liberal Party of Canada would not support better protection for French as the language of work in Quebec in companies under federal jurisdiction. That is the truth.

Let us drop the meaningless phrases. One such phrase was even invented earlier by the hon. member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, and it is too wonderful not to be repeated. Now they are talking to us about “convergence federalism”. Now it is convergence. Here is what this is converging on: no recognition of the need to be bilingual on the Supreme Court; less political weight for Quebec in the House of Commons; and theft of the provincially regulated securities sector so that it can be transferred to Toronto. That is the Brinks job, part II, voted for and supported by the Liberals and Conservatives.

In the case of Bill 104, the motions tabled in the House might have political weight. The incredibly ill-advised decision of the Supreme Court of Canada made Bill 101 meaningless. We are still awaiting a response from the Quebec government, which is slow in coming.

Motions such as the one we are discussing today may have a concrete effect. It would have been better to have something concrete on the table today. If the Bloc Québécois had said it was necessary to entrench recognition of the Quebec nation in the Constitution, the NDP would have been the first to support it. And who knows, that might have helped Quebec.

Suspension of Sitting

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

I must interrupt the hon. member. We will suspend the sitting because of the fire alarm.

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 11:58 a.m.)

(The House resumed at 12:22 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Order. The hon. member for Outremont has two minutes. I did not think his remarks before were terribly inflammatory, but we will allow him to respond for two minutes, then we will move on to questions and comments.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as you know, I often get fired up when I speak in the House; however, I did not believe things would get so inflammatory, not this time anyway. Evidently, I ignited something. Now that the fire alarm has stopped, I will use my remaining two minutes--

[Bernard Bigras, Bloc, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I believe debate has resumed, but the interpreters have not yet returned. I just want to make sure the translation is available.