Debates of May 11th, 2010

(The sitting of the House was suspended at 12:23 p.m.)

Suspension of Sitting

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

Perhaps we will suspend for a few moments until that situation is remedied.

(The House resumed at 12:25 p.m.)

Sitting Resumed

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I think we are now prepared to go on. I see that both interpreters are in their stations. I thank them for returning and I will hand the floor back to the hon. member for Outremont for two minutes.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to sum up, we have before us a Bloc motion that concludes there is nothing to be done in order to improve the lot of Quebec inside Canada, that not only any attempt at constitutional reform is doomed to failure, but also that no offer Quebec could consider will ever be forthcoming.

We do not agree. We are more optimistic. There have been attempts in the past like the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown agreement. But the Bloc rejected both. They cannot complain about the failure of these agreements. They wanted Meech to fail. They cannot pretend today that they are unhappy that it failed. And the reason why they were against both Meech and Charlottetown is the same.

Any agreement with the rest of Canada would take the wind out of the sovereignist sails and would prove that Canada is worth the effort.

People who are interested in this issue can go to the New Democratic Party website and read the Sherbrooke statement, which was developed under the leadership of our current leader, who is, by the way, the first NDP leader who was born in Quebec. It is a vision of openness aiming at creating winning conditions for Quebec inside Canada, and for Canada inside Quebec.

According to yesterday’s survey, four Quebeckers out of five want Quebec to be recognized. But for now, any recognition is feigned because all that is being done goes against the recognition of the Quebec nation. This recognition should be enshrined in the Constitution if it is to have real meaning.

We would no longer have to watch the Conservatives play their little games when they vote against bilingualism for the Supreme Court judges, when they vote against giving fair recognition to Quebec by maintaining its political weight, when they carry out their deeds with the constant support of the Liberals.

The NDP has a very open vision of Quebec and its future within Canada. It is unfortunate that we do not have more Bloc members who share this kind of vision.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the member for Outremont of a few historical facts.

First of all, the Bloc québécois, as a political entity, did not oppose the Meech Lake accord because the Bloc québécois did not exist when the accord died. I suggest the member take another look at his history books. All the more because the NDP played a major role in the failure of the Meech Lake accord. The NDP is his party. I will remind the House that at the time, Ms. McLaughlin chose to oppose the Meech Lake accord. That created a rift within the NDP, causing Ed Broadbent to literally leave the party. All this was on top of the fact that the Premier of Manitoba, who was a New Democrat, opposed the Meech Lake accord, in particular the parts dealing with the principle of spending powers.

The Bloc did not create the constitutional crisis; in fact, it is actually a victim of the crisis. It was all down to the NDP at the time. The NDP reached record lows in terms of committed voters a few years later, in 1993.

There are no lessons to be learned from the NDP, because although the party may claim today that federalism is a system which can evolve, it was first in line to shoot it down.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, when I hear reactions like that, I realize that it is a prophecy which is fulfilled every time there is a failure. The Bloc québécois’s aim is to create failure upon failure; it is a litany of lamentations. Yes, the Bloc québécois was created in the wake of the Meech Lake accord, that is a fact, but the entire membership of the Bloc, who at the time were péquistes or strong supporters of Quebec sovereignty, worked hard to kill the Meech Lake accord and the Charlottetown accord. When that happened, they started howling because they got what they wanted. That is what it is to be constantly complaining about one’s lot. That is what drives the members of the Bloc. Instead of taking a constructive approach, instead of tabling a motion today to have Quebec’s status as a nation recognized in the Constitution, which is what four out of five Quebeckers want, they moan and table a motion that puts the conclusion before the premise. That is the way the Bloc québécois thinks: the conclusion comes first. That does not work, so they state the premise. The reason it does not work is there is never going to be a way to give them what they want. What they want is not an improvement or change in Quebec’s constitutional status within Canada. Their sole objective is to say they are leaving. The problem is that our institutions are taken for granted.

There is another problem. When Jacques Parizeau said, as he bowed out of political life, that there was an inescapable duty to the million Francophones outside Quebec, was that just a beautiful line from Jean-François Lisée? Are they going to put their heads down and continue fighting to make Quebec insignificant in the House through their morbid actions, or are they going to build for the future? That is the difference between our two political parties.

I will end my comments on the historical role of the NDP by saying that the member for Toronto-Centre, who at the time was Premier of Ontario, was one of the leaders who fought for the Meech Lake accord. It was the biggest province, it had an NDP government, and that is part of the history of the NDP.

[Bernard Généreux, Conservative, Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the member for Outremont claims that our party is trying to destroy everything in Quebec, when in fact no government has ever engaged as flexible an open federalism as this Conservative government has. We are working on building a strong Quebec within a united Canada—I repeat, a strong Quebec within a united Canada—so that the Quebec nation recognized by this House in November 2006 can fully thrive and shine both across Canada and on the international scene. As for the NDP, it has tried and continues to try to create a submissive Quebec within a predatory federal system, as did the Liberals repeatedly between 1993 and 2006.

Could my colleague from Outremont explain to the House why his centralizing party voted against restoring fiscal balance in 2007?

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

How shameful, Mr. Speaker. Shame on the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup and former mayor of one of the administrative seats for La Pocatière. That is what we call a token Quebecker. To rise in the House and have the nerve to defend the Conservative Party, which is fighting against the requirement for Supreme Court judges to be bilingual. He votes with his party, then comes here looking for applause from his western friends and is pleased with himself. He will say he did it in case a unilingual French speaker is appointed to the Supreme Court. Funny thing, that never happened in the 150 years since the Supreme Court was established. How shameful to vote against oneself. He is rehashing old speeches on the so-called centralizing party. Let me make speeches about a centralizing party.

The Conservative members of Parliament from Quebec are voting for the redistribution of seats in the House of Commons, with the only big loser being Quebec. Quebec is the only province whose number of allocated seats will drop below the percentage of the population that it represents. He will be voting for that, and he thinks that he can come and tell others what to do. How shameful. He votes against his own language and against the representation of his province in this House, he votes with the Conservatives to demolish the securities system in Quebec, he gets applauded by his western friends, and he is proud of it. How shameful.

[Bradley Trost, Conservative, Saskatoon—Humboldt, SK]

Mr. Speaker, one of the things I do not understand in this debate is the personal nature of some of the comments being made.

In Saskatchewan we are very passionate about politics. I disagree very strongly with the CCF and NDP tradition of our province. It is the same with the views in western Canada about Mr. Pierre Trudeau's governing of the country. But I have never heard anyone refer to someone in Saskatchewan as not being a true Saskatchewanian, as someone who is not true to his or her ethnicity or whatever. From my perspective, it is not exactly polite and proper discourse.

I had anticipated hearing this from the Bloc Québécois but not from a federalist politician. My question for the member is, why does he insist on personalizing the issue when referring to people who disagree with his position, Quebec Conservative MPs, as not true Quebecers? Why is he attacking them on their personal motivation? Why does he not just accept that they have a different vision for the country? It seems to me to be somewhat impolite.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, had he understood the speech from his colleague from Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup, he would have known that it was directed toward me personally. I do not have a problem with that. If he tells me that I am wrong to vote the way I do on those issues in the House, I will remind him that in the few weeks he has been here, that member from Quebec, whose party is supposed to have recognized Quebec as a nation, voted against his own language and was applauded by his western gang for voting against bilingualism at the Supreme Court of Canada. He voted against recognition of Quebec by the House. Quebec is the only province that stands to lose democratic weight in the House and whose representation will be less than its population. The member made a mess in the securities industry which is a purely provincial jurisdiction. It is shameful for Quebeckers to vote in favour of that.

Moreover, the two answers of another token Quebecker, the Minister of Natural Resources, were doublespeak. He said that that was voluntary because the provinces make the decision. The issue was referred to the Supreme Court. On the first point, that does not make sense. It is not voluntary; once the organization has been created, it will be the only one. Second, if they were remotely sincere, they would not spend taxpayers' money because the issue has not been ruled on yet by the Supreme Court. This is utter hypocrisy.

This is not personal, but it has everything to do with the way some people represent their riding in the House. I repeat that the member should be ashamed of himself.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, to begin, I want to say that I will be sharing my time with our party’s whip, the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord. I have worked with extraordinary whips, in another Parliament, but never with one like him. I am proud to congratulate him and pay tribute to him.

A moment ago, the member for Outremont said that his leader was the first and only leader of the NDP to be born in Quebec. I am a little concerned when I think that if the present leader of the NDP was born in Quebec, that might mean that the member for Outremont could not succeed him. I did some checking, and I now know that the member for Outremont was born in Ontario, and so the NDP will be able to alternate between the present leader and the next leader of the NDP.

A moment ago, I thought that Yvon Deschamps had become a member of this House. Advocating an independent Quebec in a united Canada, that is what the member for Montmagny—L'Islet—Kamouraska—Rivière-du-Loup said. I cannot get over hearing such a thing. Yesterday, I said that the people in the Conservative Party were a pathetic bunch. With this kind of speech, we have exactly the same thing.

Why do we have a motion like this today? I do not agree with the member for Outremont when he said that things were being done backwards. In fact, he needs to look at the verb that is the fourth word in this motion, that this House “acknowledge”. So our motion is to remind the House of Commons that we need to acknowledge. Acknowledgment implies knowing what needs to be acknowledged.

It is obvious that after 20 years, essentially nothing has been done in terms of the renewal process and offers to Quebec. Ultimately, either you stay the way you are, which is not what we want, or you take what you need to take and accept all the challenges we have to meet and you create your own country. You are not doing it against the other people’s country. That is absolutely not the case. Canada is a great democratic country, and in fact it allows us to be here to argue our views, properly and honourably, and to say to ourselves quite simply that we want to build our own country. I want my own country because I see that trying to put two nations, two such different realities, in one box is an enormous waste.

I made a list. There are two finance departments, two revenue departments, that handle our business; two departments of industry, trade, science and technology. I was the Minister for Industry, Trade, Science and Technology in Quebec and I constantly had to argue with another finance minister about industrial and trade policy. I did not understand what he was doing there. I did not understand why that very remarkable individual had another vision. Why should his vision apply to us?

There are two environment departments. Our colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie saw how limited we were at Copenhagen. The person speaking for us would say the complete opposite of what we had to propose. We have two ministers of culture. Here, that is called “Canadian Heritage”. We have two health departments, two justice departments, two labour departments. Some people are under provincial jurisdiction, others are under federal jurisdiction. We have two public safety departments, two transport departments, two communications departments, two agriculture departments, two immigration departments, a governor general and a lieutenant-governor. What a waste!

Before being here, I worked specifically in financial management, and we did not have two head offices.

We had only one and we managed things right.

I also want to take advantage of this opportunity to talk about securities and the federal government’s most recent assault on the jurisdictions of the provinces, especially Quebec’s.

The Canadian system works very well within North America and internationally. I am not saying that if our provincial securities commissions were a disaster, we should not try to do something about it, but the system works. If it ain’t broke, why fix it?

The last two examples were lauded by the Minister of Finance. There is the Investment Industry Regulatory Organization of Canada—IIROC—which covers all the provincial regulatory organizations. It even signed agreements with China, no less, to help with the regulation of securities trading.

As a result of the difficulties in Greece that we discussed last week and the computer errors last Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange, financial markets were in turmoil. But Canada did quite well. The Minister of Finance himself said the system had worked very well.

What is this system? Once again, IIROC regulated it very well along with the Canadian Securities Administrators, the CSA. It worked. And who chairs the CSA? It is the president of the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec, who has the confidence of all his colleagues in the provinces and territories. The system works.

Why do they want to add another? Why do they want to waste millions of dollars and encroach on other jurisdictions? This is what does not work in Canada. It is the incredible desire of one people to say to the other that even if a system works, they are going to show them how to screw things up.

The reason for a securities commission or the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec is to provide regulation and be in close contact with the people who are issuing shares and purchasing them. The system will not work if the provincial commissions are all closed down and they try to have a Canada-wide agency managing the securities sector in a vacuum.

I also want to mention what they are trying to steal from Quebec. Yesterday, the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec and the Quebec finance minister tabled a study and said they were strongly opposed to this plan, as are financial circles in Quebec. It is not just about regulation but human capital as well. The greatest asset of a securities commission is not financial capital but human capital. What is this human capital? It is the people who work in the financial sector and were trained at McGill, or UQAM, or HEC Montréal or Laval. Where do they find interesting, well-paying jobs? In Montreal, thanks to the Autorité des marchés financiers du Québec.

A securities commission means people who work in taxation, in commercial law, in securities law, in accounting and in information technology. It also means all the offices they rent.

In conclusion, I want to emphasize that there is a broad coalition of business people in Quebec. These are not fringe groups but solid business people who are telling the federal government to mind its own business until the day that Quebec is sovereign.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague from the Bloc who just huffed and puffed in front of us.

Last weekend, the Bloc held some sort of assembly or conference with separatist academics to think about their future. However, they forgot to invite—unless they did not want him there—one of the great premiers of Quebec, the leader of the yes camp in 1995, Lucien Bouchard.

Did they not invite him because he said sovereignty would not happen in his lifetime? Maybe it was because he said Quebec had deeper problems than sovereignty. Quebec has problems with its economy, education system and health system. They did not invite Mr. Bouchard to hear what he had to say. In my opinion, he was a great Quebecker. I would like to know what my colleague thinks about that.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I agree with a small part of what he just said.

When he says that Lucien Bouchard is a great man and that he did a lot for Quebec, I totally agree with him. However I think the member opposite should have come to the seminar. The doors were open. I would have lent him the $60 it would have cost him. Attending this Intellectuels pour la souveraineté seminar and hearing everything that was said there about the situation would have been helpful to him.

Mr. Bouchard no longer takes part in these types of meeting. He still has an excellent relationship with members of the Bloc, as the leader of the Bloc and member for Laurier—St-Marie indicated. Mr. Bouchard said very clearly that the Bloc's work is fundamental. Is the former member for Manicouagan, Mr. Mulroney, always invited to seminars organized by the Conservative Party? I am not sure. To Lucien Bouchard, the doors of the Bloc will always be open.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking our wonderful new member for Hochelaga for the kind things he had to say about me in my role as whip. It is rare for someone to crack a whip and then be thanked for it. He was only recently elected, so he has yet to feel the brunt. I do want to thank him, however. His election as the member for Hochelaga, with all the baggage he has, is great for our party. It is unfortunate that I am not allowed to mention him by name, but when he was Minister of Industry in Quebec, his legacy was the Paillé Plan. I am not using his name; I am using the name of the plan. I thank him again for his comments.

I am pleased to speak to this motion, because May 2010 marks the anniversary of an important event that took place 20 years ago. I will start by putting things in context. The people listening to us may have forgotten or they may be young people who were not born or did not follow politics at that time. I would like to reiterate two statements.

On June 22, 1990, a few hours before Meech failed, someone said in the National Assembly, “English Canada must clearly understand that, no matter what, Quebec is today and for all times a distinct society, free and capable of assuming its destiny and its development.” That someone was then premier Robert Bourassa, a federalist.

On June 24, 1990, Jean Duceppe, a prominent actor in Quebec, summed up the feeling among Quebeckers. In the aftermath of Meech, in his patriotic speech at the start of Fête nationale celebrations, Jean Duceppe, father of our current leader, said, “My dear friends, as the days and weeks pass, one thing becomes crystal clear in our minds: Quebec is our one and only country.”

I like to compare a people’s march toward fulfilment and sovereignty to a personal experience of mine. It is similar to a young couple in their early twenties who are dating and come to an agreement to live together.

I remember that my girlfriend and I came to a cross-roads after dating for a year and a half. We reached a turning point, a cross-roads, decision time. I remember going to see my mother and telling her that I was going to move in with my girlfriend. I remember how she threw a major fit. She is probably listening to me right now because my parents are retired and they follow the debates of the House regularly. She told me that I could not do that to her, that I belonged in her house. She said that she would cook for me, that I would not have to pay anything, that she would wash my clothes and clean my room even though it was extremely messy. She said that there was so much stuff lying around my room that she had trouble opening the door because of the clothes that had piled up. Why would I do that to her?

It is the exact same thing when a people moves towards sovereignty. It is the decision of a mature people. It is not against anyone else. It is not because we no longer love them, but because we decided to cut the apron strings. I told my mother that we would eat baloney sandwiches and Kraft Dinner. It was true that it would be difficult financially since I was not paying anything at home, but I had decided to spread my wings.

I decided to break free not because I did not love them, but because I had decided to build something with my girlfriend, who became my wife and the mother of my two children.

That is what the rest of Canada should understand. We are telling the rest of Canada to get ready because it will happen. It will not be able to say that we have taken it by surprise. We sometimes hear Conservative members, especially from the western provinces, talk about how much Canada pays us and how much Quebec costs Canada. I tell them to let us go. We want to go. But we are democrats and I think the sovereignist movement has shown that clearly for a number of years. The lock to the safe will be opened when the people of Quebec say yes to themselves.

As parliamentarians, we travel abroad or we greet delegations of foreign parliamentarians. One of their concerns, especially for American parliamentarians, with whom we have good and very close relations, is that it should not be done by force. We tell them it will happen through a democratic process. There will be no violence.

We have already had two referendums. It is true that Quebeckers decided to say no on both occasions. There is a principle according to which pulling on a flower will not make it grow faster. On those occasions, in 1980 and in 1995, the people said no.

But I know and I sense that, on the ground, in our meetings, in our contacts and dealings with ordinary citizens, they realize that Canada today is not working. It will never work as Quebec would like it to.

We will have the opportunity to answer the question that Quebeckers have been asked for many years: what does Quebec want? Quebec wants to become an independent country. Quebec wants to speak with its own voice in the community of nations. Quebec wants to have more than just its flag at the United Nations.

My colleague from Hochelaga rightly mentioned the various international conferences on the environment where our colleague, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, had the opportunity to represent the Bloc. The Quebec environment ministers said they would work hard and make Quebec's voice heard, but from the sidelines. They met people from other countries who were going to get a coffee in the cafeteria or going to the washroom. They were working hard. They were working on the sidelines.

For that reason it is sometimes discouraging to see the members and the ministers of the Quebec Liberal Party settling for so little.

We are a proud people, with a French language and culture. We want to stand tall before people. We want to talk to our counterparts as equals.

On the international scene, Quebec can command the same respect as Finland, Sweden and Slovakia, smaller countries, and countries that have fewer natural resources and riches than Quebec.

We are asking for respect because we have come to the conclusion that the Canada of today, in which we operate, cannot be reformed. It would not work and we believe that no matter what happens in the future, we will have seen it all before.

Yesterday, I met with a group and we went to visit the Senate, which costs $54 million per year in political patronage appointments for Conservatives and Liberals. My visitors, some elderly people, asked me what it would take to get rid of the Senate. We have to achieve sovereignty. In a sovereign Quebec, there would no longer be a Senate or a Governor General or a Lieutenant Governor representing the British Crown.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, I listened to the hon. member and I think that the cat got out of the bag. He described his vision of a sovereign Quebec. He said that that would be economically difficult and that people would have to eat baloney and Kraft Dinner. That is his vision of Quebec. On this side of the House, we see things differently.

Does the member want everyone in Quebec to eat Kraft Dinner or does he have a real vision for that province?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière is so contemptuous about Kraft Dinner, which is produced in Montreal, just beside the Côte-de-Liesse interchange. It is as good as any other food. One wonders whether the member is listening to the right interpretation channel. He seems to need interpretation from French to French.

I just wanted to give the example of my mother, who would put a warm meal on the table for me even before I had time to take my coat off. When I was living with my parents, we ate Kraft Dinner. To gain independence, I cooked it myself. The member should not start saying that in a sovereign Quebec everybody would have to eat baloney. Once again, he misunderstood.

[Daniel Paillé, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will make an allegorical reference to mothers that is more serious than what the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière said.

I will ask the member for Mr. Michel Guimond (Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, BQ) whether his mother, when she became a mother-in-law, got along well with his wife. Are his parents, whom I say hello to because I know they are listening, not better off now that they are on the same footing as my whip and his spouse than they would be if the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord had stayed with them, like one of those “kippers”, kids in parents' pockets eroding retirement savings?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the relationship that followed was indeed based on mutual respect. Some say that the rest of Canada will have no choice but to take note of Quebeckers’ democratic decision and continue with discussions and negotiations.

This reminds me of something Mr. Parizeau said during the 1995 referendum. He noted that English Canada may be unhappy when Quebeckers decide to become a sovereign nation, that relations may be strained for a few weeks and that they may not want to talk to us. However, when the time comes to discuss the division of assets and liabilities--I am not an economist and I do not have a financial background like my colleague from Hochelaga--we will be the ones signing the cheques. So they will have no choice but to come to the table.

If they do not want to talk to us, they are not going to roll up the sod on the Plains of Abraham, which will stay in Quebec. The plains will be in federal territory while we discuss how to divide assets and debts. So they will have no choice.

The same is true of western beef. Some say that Alberta will be mad and will stop selling its beef to Quebec. Quebeckers consume 50% of Alberta’s beef production. If we become a sovereign nation, we will not start eating rice. We will still go to McDonald's and eat steak. If Alberta's producers stop selling us beef because they are mad at us, we will import it from Argentina, Chile or Brazil, which produce excellent beef. So Alberta will lose the customer that buys 50% of its production.

Alberta’s premier will then ask Albertans to eat two steaks instead of one if they want to keep the jobs in their slaughterhouses.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and to the Minister of National Revenue]

Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to join the debate on the motion before the House moved by the hon. member for Joliette. It is a duty because I am a true Quebecker. My roots and those of my children are in Quebec, and those of an entire future generation will be as well.

This motion makes me very worried about our future as full-fledged Quebeckers within a strong, prosperous and united Canada, where life is good.

Today, I would like to direct hon. members' attention to a specific point in the motion where the hon. member for Joliette seems to suggest that we Quebeckers are not being considered within Canada. He might as well be saying we are ghosts and we do not count. That disappoints me greatly because I do feel as though I exist within Canada, as many of us do. We Quebeckers are vibrant, dynamic and focused on the future.

In speaking of Quebec, the hon. member for Joliette states that “its status as a nation still has not been recognized in the Canadian Constitution”. The hon. member seems to be insinuating that the absence of such recognition proves that federalism cannot be renewed and that the interests of Quebec are not well served within Canada. I think this observation is totally false, and I would like to take the few minutes allotted to me to prove it.

No one will be surprised to hear me say that the Bloc's motion was predictable. It is as predictable as the tulips blooming in our nation's capital in spring. I am surprised, however, to see a sovereignist party use the Meech Lake accord as a reference in discussing constitutional reform when the sovereignist movement was against the accord in 1990.

In fact, it was in the wake of Meech that the Bloc was born. That is another 20th anniversary that will not go unnoticed. This interim party, which was to pave the way for Quebec's sovereignty, has since become permanent. But that is neither here nor there.

The member for Joliette's party does not agree with our approach to federalism. The other opposition parties may oppose it too, but their ultimate goal is different from the Bloc's. We feel very strongly that our country works well, that we are steering it in the right direction and that Quebec both contributes to it and benefits from it. For very clear reasons, the Bloc has a different view.

I would still like to thank the member for his initiative, because it allows me to underscore the many benefits Quebec enjoys within the Canadian federation. Reality is very different from the grim picture painted by the member for Joliette. The facts show that Quebec as a society is developing, thriving and moving forward within Canada, and that is no coincidence.

Within Canada, Quebec has its own education system, its own Civil Code and its own Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms. Quebec collects its own personal and corporate income taxes. It chooses its immigrants and is active on the world scene. In certain areas, it can sign agreements with foreign governments. It has created unique institutions, like Hydro-Québec, Télé-Québec, the Régie des rentes, the Caisse de dépôt et placement, the Société générale de financement and many others. It has established its own student financial assistance program. It has passed laws that allow it to protect and promote the French language and its cultural identity. In all these areas, Quebec has all the necessary latitude to make choices that reflect its values and interests.

Quebec covers a huge territory and promotes a unique culture, partly because of its French character. Its economy is diversified and is based on many natural resources. As a member of the Canadian federation, it has become a world leader in the areas of business, science and technology. It is also a leader in the aerospace, agri-food, multimedia, computer services, software and telecommunications sectors.

Thanks to Quebeckers' dynamic approach and sense of entrepreneurship, Quebec played a key role in developing the North American Free Trade Agreement, in opening the American market to Canadian products, and now in negotiating a free trade agreement between Canada and the European Union, which would be the largest free trade agreement signed in Canadian history.

Quebec controls most of the economic and social levers to ensure its development. The Quebec government has many powers in the health, education, culture and social services sectors. It also has more influence than some other provinces in areas such as immigration, taxation and international relations. Quebeckers are attached to the same universal values of tolerance, compassion, solidarity and respect for differences than other Canadians.

The Quebec and Canadian identities are not mutually exclusive. Rather, they complement each other. Canada is envied by many other countries because of its standard of living and quality of life. Like Canadians from the other provinces and territories, Quebeckers benefit from these assets and enjoy enviable prosperity. The picture I just painted is not that of a poor, isolated society incapable of ensuring its prosperity, development and influence.

What the member for Joliette and his colleagues refuse to see is that Quebec is capable of being itself within Canada and of controlling its future without resorting to separation. Quebeckers have been able to protect and promote their identity within Canada by creating policies and institutions, both at the federal and provincial levels, that ensure the preservation and thriving of their culture and language.

Over the years, Canada has been able to accommodate Quebec's difference, thus allowing the province to thrive within the federation. The Quebec government plays a major role in the development of the Canadian Francophonie and participates actively, along with the Government of Canada, to the Francophonie's initiatives, while also voicing its views within the Canadian delegation at international forums, such as UNESCO.

A motion stating that Quebeckers form a nation within a united Canada was adopted in the House of Commons in November 2006, with the support of the Bloc Québécois. What the Bloc is implying with this motion is that without constitutional recognition as a nation, Quebec cannot develop, thrive and achieve its legitimate goals. Nothing could be further from the truth.

It seems to me doubly simplistic to cast Quebec as a community that cannot develop in all areas of human activity and whose future prospects depend on the labels the Bloc is trying to pin on it through a motion debated in the House of Commons. The truth is that Quebec is already taking charge of its own development within Canada and reaping the benefits of Canadian federalism, while making an outstanding contribution to the country's development and heritage. I would like to talk about this last point for a moment.

Quebec's contribution to Canada's identity derives mainly from three elements: the predominance of French, Quebec's unique culture and its civil law tradition. These unique and original features of Quebec are part and parcel of the heritage of all Canadians. Our open federalism not only recognizes this fact, it uses the strengths that each province and territory brings to our federation.

While most Quebeckers are rightly proud of their identity as Quebeckers, they are no less proud of their Canadian identity. What they want and what most Canadians want is for their governments to work for the common good and, through their actions, create a Canada-wide partnership based on solidarity and respect for our diversity.

We have worked very hard to see to it that Canada works well by emphasizing consultation and collaboration among all levels of government, which is what our fellow citizens want.

We are making progress, and our relations with our partners are proving successful in many areas. We are taking real steps to meet the ever-changing needs of Canadians in all parts of the country.

In the specific case of Quebec, we have already acted on our desire to highlight Quebec's unique position with Canada by reaching an agreement on its role in UNESCO and supporting the festivities to mark Quebec City's 400th anniversary.

This contribution was made possible by the leadership of my colleague, the Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and minister responsible for the Quebec City region, and the co-operation among the three levels of government throughout the festivities.

We know that Quebec’s international activities did not begin yesterday. In La Francophonie, Quebec has always worked to maintain special ties with its international partners who share the use of French: 105 million francophones spread over five continents.

The Government of Quebec has played a decisive role not only in creating and developing francophone institutions, but also in defining their role and carrying out their multilateral activities.

The agreement it signed with the Government of Canada on May 5, 2006 means that the government of Quebec is represented fully and in accordance with its wishes as part of the Canadian delegation for the proceedings, meetings and conferences of UNESCO.

That agreement not only shows that the present government is meeting its commitments to Quebec, it also highlights the fact that open federalism produces tangible results.

Examples of those tangible results are the recognition of the Quebec nation, Quebec’s role in UNESCO and the restoration of fiscal balance.

On that last point, the Bloc had no option but to vote for the 2007 budget, which restored fiscal balance in the federation, since it was a demand that had been made by Quebeckers.

Our government, like a majority of Quebeckers, holds the deep conviction that the development, vitality, progress and prosperity of Quebec society are more secure within the Canadian federation than in the political separation advocated by the Bloc, the hypothetical benefits of which have never been proven, more than 40 years after the founding of the Quebec sovereignist movement.

Quebeckers have to understand that whatever form the recognition of their uniqueness might take within the framework of the Canadian federation, the Bloc will always oppose it, firmly, resolutely and inevitably, because that is the reason for its existence.

But Quebeckers understand, above all, that their interests do not lie in isolation, semantics and symbolism. Contrary to what the Bloc says, it is not in spite of Canada that Quebec has become a strong society, rich in its diversity and looking to the future. Our federation makes it possible for Quebeckers to be themselves in our country, which is also their country, just as it does Newfoundlanders, Ontarians or Albertans.

Quebeckers know who they are. They know they participated in the founding of Canada and they have helped to shape this country, in all its greatness.

They know they have protected their language and their culture, while promoting their values and their interests within Canada. And they know they can be both Canadians and Quebeckers, and they do not need to choose between the two, as the Bloc would like to persuade them to do.

I would now like to return to one of the points I addressed earlier, which is, to my mind, the greatest advantage our formula for government offers to our partners in the federation, namely that federalism can adapt to modern challenges. Federalism is in fact one of the political structures best adapted to meet the modern challenges facing societies today.

The Canadian political and economic union, Canada’s significant influence on the international scene, its reputation as a solid creditor on the international markets, its quality of life—

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Andrew Scheer]

I am sorry to have to interrupt the hon. member but the interpretation system is not working.

It is working now.

The hon. member still has four minutes.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to emphasize that the devotees of separation have never succeeded in demonstrating to Quebeckers that they would be more prosperous and fulfilled if only they split from Canada. In actual fact, Quebeckers are well aware of what Canadian federalism offers them. That is why most continue to oppose separation and want to remain both Canadians and Quebeckers.

There is no contradiction in this dual identity. Quite to the contrary, they enrich and enhance one another. Yes, the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada, whether with or without constitutional recognition. The Canadian federation already acknowledges this reality.

The debate we are having today is actually good for something though. First of all, it reveals the true face of the Bloc, in whose eyes the word nation really means separation—a step that Ms. Marois herself says would result in a period of instability. One of our Bloc colleagues evoked it just a little while ago in wishing Kraft Dinner on all Quebeckers.

In addition, this debate highlights the need for a united Canada, a country in which Quebeckers have flourished while making a tremendous contribution. Our debate also heightens their awareness of all the advantages Quebec has as part of Canada in dealing with and adapting to the many challenges of the modern world. I can well imagine, though, that this is not exactly what the hon. member for Joliette had in mind in introducing his motion.

Quebeckers, like all Canadians, are well aware and very proud of their country’s enviable reputation all over the world. This reputation is no accident and is the result of the values that Canadians share from sea to sea. It is rooted in their deep conviction, strengthened and reinforced throughout their history, that Canada stands in the eyes of other peoples around the world for something that is truly grand and noble.

Quebeckers, with their very unique characteristics, are no less animated by this ideal than Canadians in other parts of the country. It is the values Canadians cultivate from sea to sea that bind this country together.

Although the word values has often been trivialized, it assumes its full meaning here. We are proud of what Canada has become and of what Quebec is in the year 2010.

Since Confederation, Quebec’s identity has developed into one of the key historical and political characteristics of Canada. The Québécois form a nation that has developed and flourished within the folds of a united country called Canada.

[Raynald Blais, Bloc, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I must say that this interminable speech was rather flat and spurious, from the first to the very last word.

The purpose of my question is to find out what is true and what is false. If everything the member said was true, I would not be here. We would not be here. We would not even be talking about the motion today. In six consecutive elections, Quebeckers sent a majority of Bloc Québécois members to this House. He talked about the beauty of Canada, and I agree that it is truly beautiful, but if Quebec had its rightful place in Canada, we would not be here.

I would like the member to explain how the Bloc Québécois members managed to get six back-to-back majorities.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, 1,700,000 voting Quebeckers do not represent the majority of the 7,500,000 Quebeckers. Quebeckers do form a nation and that nation developed and flourished as it continues to do in a united country called Canada. That evolution has served Quebec well. For its part, the rest of the country benefits from the invaluable contribution that Quebeckers make to our common heritage.

[Nicole Demers, Bloc, Laval, QC]

Mr. Speaker, since we are into semantics and symbolism, I would like the member to explain a paradox. While proclaiming to defend Quebec's interests, every time the National Assembly adopts a unanimous motion, the member for Lotbinière—Chutes-de-la-Chaudière votes against it.

How can he pretend to defend Quebec's interests when he always votes against what Quebec decides for itself at the National Assembly? I remind him that the National Assembly is made up of members from different political parties, including parties that are close to the Conservative Party of Canada. The member should vote in favour of the decisions made by the Quebec National Assembly.