Mr. Speaker, I find the hon. member for Winnipeg North’s approach very interesting.
Actually, I am not the only one to mention the Constitution. Earlier this week, we spoke about Bill 21 on state secularism.
His colleague from Mont-Royal said that the notwithstanding clause should never be applied. However, it is part of the Constitution. Does this colleague not respect his voters, since he talks about the Constitution and says the notwithstanding clause should never be applied?
I spoke earlier of predatory federalism. When it suits them to put Quebec in its place, saying that the notwithstanding clause should be removed, saying that it is not up to Quebec to decide how to manage secularism, the Liberals talk to us about the Constitution. When it comes to Bill 96 to protect the French language, the Liberals are ready to talk about the Constitution and to say that they do not want to hear about the notwithstanding clause.
However, when it comes to recognizing the Quebec nation as we ask, talking about the Constitution is like talking about a shameful disease.
They need to make up their minds. My colleague from Winnipeg North’s remarks are not in line with what his colleagues and the people in his own party are saying.