Madam Speaker, first, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the mischievous member for Mirabel.
Now let us talk about the notwithstanding clause. I began by wondering why the Prime Minister wanted to restrict the use of the notwithstanding clause. When he came out and said that, the Prime Minister seemed to use his desire to protect individual rights as an excuse. He was talking about what Doug Ford had done to fight the unions. I would point out, by the way, that the outcry from the people of Ontario quickly caused Mr. Ford to back down.
Individual rights are being used as an excuse. It is kind of funny, though, because I think the only people in Canadian history who have had their individual rights really trampled on are the Quebeckers in 1970. The War Measures Act came along and trampled on the rights of Quebeckers. People were arrested in the middle of the night for the simple fact, the simple offence, of being sovereignists. They arrested Gaston Miron, a Quebec poet, in the middle of the night. When the federal government talks about respect for individual rights, we have some reason to have misgivings.
We are also talking about minority rights. The use of the notwithstanding clause troubles the federal government because it could contravene minority rights. This is where I want to stop, because the crux of the problem is really about minority rights. It is important to understand this, and to understand which minority we are talking about. The crux of the problem is, in my opinion, quite simple; it is one of identity.
What really troubles the federal government is that the notwithstanding clause allows Quebeckers to maintain their collective identity, which is different from that of Canadians, and some find that difficult to hear. To illustrate this, I will go back to something quite simple. How did this dispute come about?
To better understand this, we have to go back to 1963, when the federal government realized that something like a national identity was beginning to develop in Quebec. What did the federal government do in response? It created the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, a commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. The commission's objective was to formally recognize the Quebec nation. Canada was to become a bilingual and bicultural country.
However, there were people who started to think. They figured that if Quebeckers were offered recognition, then they would not stop there. They would continue their journey toward self-government. As a result, Trudeau senior had the ingenious idea of saying that Canada, which could become a bilingual country, should instead become a multicultural country.
By recognizing all the cultures, we actually do not recognize any. All of the cultures are drowning in the Canadian mosaic. No culture takes precedence over any another. That was the first snub against Quebec. That is the first time that the federal government turned its back on Quebec during an exercise that it initiated when Quebec was participating in good faith and prepared to listen to the federal government's proposals.
The commission report ended up leading to multiculturalism, more specifically, institutional multiculturalism. I want to emphasize that term because I am going to talk about multiculturalism as a theory.
What does institutional multiculturalism mean? It means that, as a country, Canada recognizes the plurality of cultures, a mosaic of cultures and that no culture takes priority over any other. That means that Quebeckers' unique culture is not recognized.
It began in 1963. The federal government abandoned Quebeckers, who have a distinct culture and who, by virtue of the fact that they are a national minority, need certain measures to reinforce their place in federal institutions and ensure their survival as a people. The federal government abandoned them because it did not want to implement such measures.
Finally, the notwithstanding clause is used, in Quebec, as protection. Likewise, in Canada, the Canadian Constitution, which has evolved, allows people from ethnocultural minorities to ask for reasonable accommodation. This has been recognized. An ethnocultural minority can be exempt from the law by asking for a reasonable accommodation. This was the case in the Multani decision, which dealt with a young man who wanted to wear his kirpan to school.
The same holds true for a national minority. The notwithstanding clause can be invoked to protect important elements of their identity, for example, Bill 21 on secularism and Bill 96 on language. That is what is bothering this Liberal government. That is what it wants to regulate. It wants to ensure that Quebec does not have the tools to preserve its identity forever. That is because the only worthwhile identity according to the federal government is the pan-Canadian identity. Quebeckers should be Canadians like everyone else, a nation no more.
My colleagues have surely heard that the Prime Minister has often used the idea that Canada is the first post-national country. I am not sure he understands what that is, but let us not be mean-spirited. In the same breath, he chirps about recognizing all first nations. I recognize the first nations, they exist. I want to see more of them, their expression, I want their languages to be protected. I understand the need for sensitivity about this. If we are a post-national country, how can we recognize the first nations but not recognize the Quebec nation? I keep asking myself that.
The explanation is really quite simple. The fear is that the Quebec nation will overshadow the Canadian nation and that it will ask for more autonomy. I will prove it by discussing a very interesting theory developed by Canadian philosopher Will Kymlicka.
Will Kymlicka has worked on multiculturalism for a long time—not institutional multiculturalism, which developed in the 1960s in Canada, but multiculturalism as a liberal theory. He says that there are two types of minorities that require protection. There are the ethnocultural minorities—the Jews, the Greeks, the Turks, might as well list them all, the Muslims—who, in multicultural countries, need to have some form of protection. This protection comes through the recognition they are given. This is essential and I agree. We must offer recognition to ethnic minorities. That recognition can sometimes take the form of reasonable accommodation and acknowledgement that their particular identity is valid.
Will Kymlicka also says, however, that there are not just ethnic minorities, there are also national minorities. That is where the problem lies. When Will Kymlicka talks about multiculturalism and says that there are national minorities, he says that those national minorities, in order to survive, need political autonomy, autonomos in Greek, or the power to create one's own laws. Impressive, no?
How can we define a collective identity if we cannot make our own laws? That makes it really difficult. Will Kymlicka says that ethnocultural minorities need recognition and national minorities need political autonomy. However, the federal government does not want political autonomy for Quebec. That is why it sees the notwithstanding clause as an abomination. The government is even distorting the rationale behind the notwithstanding clause by saying that it is becoming a threat to individual rights and a threat to minorities, when it actually allows the Quebec national minority to preserve its identity.
Bill 21 is an essential part of Quebec's collective identity. Our relationship to religion is different. The secularization of Quebec society during the Quiet Revolution is one of the founding myths of Quebec's identity.
My father's mother had 18 children. Does anybody know anyone who has 18 children these days? My grandmother passed away a long time ago, but if we could ask her how she feels about religion, I am not sure she would have a positive view. Quebec was built on this collective psyche. It is a reality that must be accepted, just as it must be accepted that the purpose of Bill 96 is to protect a minority language in North America as a whole.
Now this government and all the Liberal MPs from English-speaking Quebec are saying that Bill 96 will bully minorities. The English-speaking population of Quebec represents 8% of the total population but receives 30% of the funding for post-secondary institutions. If this is bullying minorities, I would love to be bullied in Canada.
