Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that the Liberal government has managed to create a crisis to deflect from the real crises we are facing when it comes to inflation, debt and crime. None of these are being talked about.

Has my colleague from the Bloc fallen into the Liberals' trap by playing their game instead of talking about the reality Canadians are facing? We are going to spend all week talking about what we are talking about today.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, has my esteemed colleague fallen into the multiculturalist trap that will kill Quebeckers' freedoms?

[Arielle Kayabaga, Liberal, London West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague is talking about today is secularism.

Since he wants the federal government to stay out of a situation that is directly related to the federal government, what would he think if other provinces were to use this clause, especially if it attacked the French language in Canada or Quebec? What would he say if that were the case?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the federal government is wearing a black and white striped jersey. It is sort of playing the referee. It figures that it is the one that upholds the Constitution, funds opponents, participates in the exercise of having prosecutors present arguments and engages in political propaganda. In fact, I can provide an example of that. The factum does not talk about pre-emptive use, but a heck of a lot of people on the other side of the House always act as though such use is one of the seven deadly sins.

The government is centralizing and giving itself a bunch of powers in the hopes of reaching the point of no return with Quebec before Quebec collectively comes up with the good idea to become independent.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague and leader for his speech, which I really enjoyed.

Section 33 is a tool that makes it possible for certain laws to override provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Let us suppose that the Government of Quebec or another province passes a law that allows slavery. Does my colleague think that that government's legislation will be around for a long time because of section 33? What would be the consequences of passing such a law?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we must read up on the specific application of the notwithstanding clause, but I feel I should tell my esteemed friend and colleague that there are many free and democratic societies around the world that, even without being monitored and crushed by Canada's moral supremacy, do not have the death penalty, do not interfere with freedom of the press and do not use forced labour.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to rise in the House to take part in this debate. Let me begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague from Mount Royal.

In this debate, it is very important to remember how we got here. We are here to discuss a motion presented by my hon. colleagues from the Bloc Québécois. There are three parts to this motion, the first of which “calls on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec’s Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court”. After reading the document submitted to the Supreme Court by the Attorney General of Canada, I can say that the government is not challenging the validity of Bill 21.

Second, the Bloc Québécois “calls on the government to withdraw its factum filed on September 17, 2025, with the Supreme Court contesting Quebec’s right to invoke the notwithstanding clause”. Once again, we see in the factum that was filed that the government is not even challenging the right of a province to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

Third, the Bloc Québécois asks the House to “denounce the government’s willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces”. On this third point, the answer is no. However, some nuances are worth noting.

The federal government is actually taking the opposite approach: It is not seeking to prevent the provinces from using the notwithstanding clause. This clause is still useful, particularly when a bill passed by the Quebec National Assembly, another provincial legislature or even this Parliament conflicts with certain fundamental rights.

The genius of this is that it leaves open the possibility of using the notwithstanding clause in certain circumstances where it is necessary. Some people dispute this idea, while others believe that the notwithstanding clause should not even exist. I personally consider it a useful safety mechanism. When a Supreme Court ruling finds that a law violates fundamental rights, this provision allows legislators to find a solution. They can either amend their law to comply with the decision or seek a temporary compromise that allows them to pursue their objective without it becoming a permanent solution.

Now we are getting to the heart of the factum filed with the Supreme Court. This is a situation that affects several provinces. It does not only affect my beautiful province of Quebec, which I care deeply about. Quebec is my home, my homeland, the place where I chose to raise my family, my children and my grandchildren. As members may guess from my accent, my first language is English. However, I chose to integrate into Quebec society, particularly by learning to speak French fluently. I am a proud francophile, and I would like to emphasize that because Quebec is a place I care deeply about.

When basic rights conflict with a bill, we the people have the right to challenge it in court. That applies whether we are Quebeckers or Canadians, should it happen in another province, as it did in Saskatchewan or Ontario, where bills that included the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause were introduced.

I think it is perfectly normal for people to do that. Some Quebeckers will disagree with certain bills. That is their right. The government decided to shield itself from that challenge and to use the notwithstanding clause. I applaud that; I get it. However, if governments do this a lot, that raises a very legitimate question: What is the point of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms? What is the point if rights guaranteed in the charter can be nullified? What is happening here is that continual use of section 33 every five years will eventually result in no rights at all. That is why I think Quebeckers and Canadians feel it is perfectly legitimate and reasonable to re-examine this issue, and that is the essence of the factum that was submitted.

I hope that the Supreme Court justices will take note and give Canadians and the government a road map on how to limit the use of this clause. I think that the rights that have been conferred on all Canadians by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are very important, fundamental rights. These rights ensure that we can live in a constitutional democracy, where decisions can be made and the majority can bring in legislation and, to a certain extent, protect minorities from laws that are harmful to their interests. I think that is the most important thing and that is why I completely understand why the Attorney General of Canada proposed this path.

In sum, I think that the response to two of the three parts of the motion moved by the Bloc québécois is that they clearly do not apply. For the third, we want to prevent back-door constitutional changes through the continual use of the notwithstanding clause. I think that is very important in a democracy. It is often said that we use this word somewhat reluctantly, but we have to look for compromises. That is important. That is what we do every day here in the House of Commons. We try to find compromises in order to bring in legislation that makes sense and that protects everyone.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the reason why we are having this debate today, and my colleague did not mention this in his speech, is that Quebec decided to use the notwithstanding clause to implement the state secularism act to ensure secularism in Quebec. Quebec also used the notwithstanding clause to protect the French language in Quebec. It is funny, right? The Liberals on the other side of the House and all the governments before them never said that using the notwithstanding clause was wrong, until Quebec decided to use it to protect secularism and the French language in Quebec. That is the reality: We are dealing with complete hypocrisy, although no one will call it that.

In short, what is happening is that the Liberals are realizing that the notwithstanding clause bothers them and that it does not suit their purposes. The reality is that it was imposed by the other provinces—not even by Quebec, but by the other provinces—in order to ratify the Constitution that was imposed on us. Since the Constitution does not suit the government, is the government admitting that its Constitution is not so great after all? What it all boils down to is that, since the Liberals cannot unilaterally amend the Constitution, they are giving the Supreme Court a political role.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc colleague for his question. I do not want to raise the temperature on this any further, so I will just answer his question.

I do not think that the premise of his question is valid. The Canadian government firmly believes that the Government of Quebec has the right and the responsibility, as does the federal government, to protect the French language. However, when we see some provinces, such as Quebec, Ontario and Saskatchewan, using this notwithstanding clause to undo and adjust constitutional rights guaranteed by the charter, that is a problem, because it once again raises the question of whether rights exist if the notwithstanding clause is invoked.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question.

Like him, I live in Quebec. We are proud Quebeckers. Many of my constituents are concerned about the erosion of women's rights around the world. If we allowed the provinces, or any Parliament, to make invoking the notwithstanding clause the rule rather than the exception, would this put our rights in jeopardy?

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question, but I cannot provide a specific answer.

I can say that, in theory, the pre-emptive use and constant re-invocation of the notwithstanding clause raises a problem: It basically denies the fundamental rights of people who need them. We cannot do that, because that would permanently infringe on rights, which amounts to a constitutional amendment through the back door.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, the factum that we are discussing today from the federal government is notable in that it explicitly says that it is not about Bill 21 but rather about section 33. The government chose to intervene solely on the issue of its arguments with respect to section 33.

I wonder if the member could explain why the federal government made that choice.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the official opposition has, for once, asked a question relevant to the debate that we are having today and not backing it on other issues. I thank the hon. member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan for asking this question.

It goes right back to my speech, which said that the use of the notwithstanding clause is legitimate. The adoption of various laws in different provinces is also very legitimate. We are not contesting that. What we are contesting is whether one should use it in a preventative fashion and keep renewing the use of section 33. The question we are then left with is this: Do those rights exist anymore that were supposed to be guaranteed by the charter?

My reflection would be that, no, effectively it is a backdoor constitutional change that is eliminating rights that people should enjoy. There are opportunities for provincial legislatures and the federal Parliament to take a look at these laws, take a look at the decisions from the courts and try to come up with a compromise that can work this thing out.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues who moved this opposition day motion.

I am pleased to speak in the House of Commons as a Quebecker because it is very important to show that Quebeckers have a wide range of opinions on Bill 21 and the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. The Bloc Québécois does not have a monopoly on speaking in the House of Commons on behalf of all Quebeckers. The vast majority of Quebec members in this place are federalist members and sit on this side of the House. I wanted to mention that at the outset.

Also, the issue we are debating concerns the federal government's factum before the Supreme Court. This is not a debate on Bill 21. What we are talking about is a provision of Bill 21. This is the first time in 35 years that the notwithstanding clause and the means to use it are being challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General of Canada must therefore be present in Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, to protect the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

We adopted a charter of rights and freedoms because, as a country, we believed it was important to protect the rights of minorities, even if the majority in the country or in a province does not agree with protecting the rights of minorities. It is important to point out that the notwithstanding clause can be used by the Parliament of Canada or by the provinces, so this is an important debate for us as federal legislators. We chose to have a charter because we felt that certain rights were so important that they needed to be protected, even if the majority did not agree with protecting these minority rights. I also want to highlight section 1 of the Charter. It is not like the Bill of Rights in the United States. We have a limit. It says that legislators can pass laws that infringe on a right if they do so in a reasonable manner in a free and democratic society.

When section 33 is invoked, one inherently acknowledges that it is unreasonable in a free and democratic society to limit rights in this manner. The federal document presents three very important arguments.

The first is necessary because the Quebec Court of Appeal took a position contrary to that taken by the Saskatchewan courts and the Superior Court of Quebec on the issue of a declaration. The main role of the Attorney General of Canada is to ensure that there is no conflict of laws across Canada, that decisions by Canadian courts are not in conflict. That is why this provision is before the Supreme Court of Canada.

The Supreme Court of Canada has to tell us what the law is. Does it correspond to what the courts in Saskatchewan and the Superior Court of Quebec have said, that even if section 33 is invoked, there can be a declaratory judgment, or does it correspond with what was handed down by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which said that a court cannot examine the question of whether a right is being violated in a manner that is unreasonable under section 1 because the notwithstanding clause has been invoked?

The Attorney General of Canada comes into it because, in his role, he has to make arguments about whether we take the position of the Saskatchewan courts or the position of the Quebec Court of Appeal. That is as it should be.

I find it astonishing that the Bloc Québécois is telling us that the Government of Canada should not appear before the Supreme Court of Canada, but that it is not saying anything about the other provinces that have intervened in the case. Is the Bloc of the opinion that it is okay for all of the provinces to intervene on this issue, but not the Government of Canada?

The Government of Canada's role is to protect the rights of everyone, including Quebeckers and all minorities in the country. We cannot say that the Government of Canada should be there when we like its position and that it should not be there when we do not like its position.

I would like to talk about the three arguments that the Government of Canada submitted before the Supreme Court.

The first argument the government is making is that even if we use the notwithstanding clause, a court has the ability to declare that the law violates the charter, section 2 or sections 7 to 15, in a way that is unreasonable in a free and democratic society. Those are the only charter sections that we can use the notwithstanding clause on. It is important for the residents of that province to know what their government has done.

When a government uses the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively claiming that no rights are really being violated, it is not giving the public all of the information. If officials run for re-election, it is important that the public have the opportunity to say whether a government has unreasonably violated the charter. That is one argument before the court.

Another argument that the federal government is making is that we do not have the right to use the notwithstanding clause to violate a right other than those in section 2 or sections 7 to 15. For example, if we violate freedom of expression under section 2, but we also violate democratic rights under section 3 of the charter democratic rights, we do not have the right to use the notwithstanding clause to violate a right that is other than section 2 or section 7 to 15.

From time to time, a law is challenged under several sections of the charter rather than just one. Obviously, if one wants to invoke the notwithstanding clause, one cannot refer to a section that is not subject to the notwithstanding clause. This is an important argument to ensure that other rights are not affected because someone made a declaration that an act would operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the charter.

The third argument is the most important argument the federal government is making in this case. It is that a right cannot be turned off in a way that we cannot turn it back on just as brightly. Just as how, if we turn off a light bulb, it comes back on and shines just as brightly, we cannot take a right under the charter and utterly obliterate it so that when we say we are no longer using the notwithstanding clause, the people affected no longer have the ability to do what they were doing before. That could happen either because of constant successive uses of the notwithstanding clause or because the right is obliterated in a way that is so unreasonable, it will ultimately deprive people of the permanent ability to exercise that right.

When arguments are used before the court to illustrate what those might be, nobody is talking about the Quebec government doing them. They are talking about any government, including the federal government, that could do those things. We are simply saying that there are grounds more than procedural ones for nullifying an exercise of section 33.

Lastly, with respect to the argument that we should not talk about this and that the Government of Canada should not file a factum with the Supreme Court because there are other issues in the country, I would simply like to say that there are obviously other issues in the country.

The people from the Department of Justice who worked on this factum were not doing things that they should not have been doing with this factum. Nobody is talking about the people in housing or economics doing this factum, so the arguments the Conservatives are using today are beyond belief.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by wishing Shana Tova to my colleague from Mount Royal and to the entire Jewish community in Quebec and Canada who are celebrating the new year today.

I acknowledge the fact that my colleague and I will likely never agree on this type of issue. However, having worked with my colleague many times, I admire his openness to intelligent and lively debate. Even so, I have to say that outrageous and offensive statements were made in the factum filed with the Supreme Court and in the arguments made by some of his colleagues. Some of the examples they provided include summary executions, the suppression of freedom of the press, the rollback of women's rights and the rollback of access to abortion, even if those members later added that these were merely examples and that they were rather unlikely to occur.

When examples like these are given, does that not encourage fearmongering and exaggerated statements that could turn a certain segment of the population against the Bloc Québécois's approach?

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his kind words. I also want to wish the entire Jewish community in Canada a Shana Tova.

When a factum is put before a court, it is a message to the judges. It is not meant for the public, and it is not about politics. The matter before the court is whether limitations on section 33 that are not procedural in nature are permissible. Examples are given to illustrate that there are things that can be done in legislation. These things are enormously problematic if invoked permanently, so section 33 should never be allowed to be used on a permanent basis. No one should have the right to use section 33 because it infringes on rights in a way that changes the Constitution, so it should not be used if that is not the intention. We are not saying that the government plans to do that. We are saying that there are things the government cannot do, even with section 33. I am talking about any government.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to put something to my hon. friend and get his feedback on it.

I think all of us agree in the House that human rights are important. We also agree that ideas about human rights are contestable. They are a matter of public debate, so things the member sees as being the implications of a belief in human rights might be different from what I or other members see as the implications of human rights. The reason our Constitution has section 33 is to affirm that the ultimate arbiter of questions that are contestable in the domain of human rights should be the elected legislature. This is what preserves the essential nature of a parliamentary democracy. Parliament, not courts, has the ultimate say on where we should go in defending human rights. The problem with—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to give the member time for a response.

The hon. member for Mount Royal.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not hear a question in there, but let me just say, again, that I think it is really important. I appreciate the substantive question I am sure my colleague was coming to.

The government's factum does not contest the ability of a province or the federal Parliament to use the notwithstanding clause, although personally, my position has always been that we should not do so. The factum sets up three specific arguments, which I illustrated. I think they are very important, and we have made them.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague.

There has been a lot of talk about the rights enshrined in the Charter and the importance of protecting them. In order to protect them, is it necessary to determine that, when a legislature invokes the notwithstanding clause, it must do so only under exceptional circumstances and in compliance with certain guidelines? Is it necessary to have a judicial review on this important matter?

Otherwise, do we not run the risk of having the exception become the rule? In other words, the legislatures may no longer be required to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Mount Royal, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I fully agree with my colleague. Even if the notwithstanding clause is used legitimately, it is very important, if a right is violated in a way that is not reasonable in a free and democratic society, that a court is able to advise the people in this respect.

As we explained in the factum, it is very important for the court to study the manner in which this was done in order to rule on whether a right has been not only violated for a period of five years, but violated in a permanent and unacceptable manner.

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by saying that I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj.

I would like to take us in a different direction with today's debate. I thought that it might be beneficial for a number of colleagues here, who regularly hear Quebec's grievances but are not familiar with our history, to learn a little more about our journey, which is so culturally different from Canada's. Together, then, let us go over the history of Quebec values, from their emergence to their affirmation, as well as the resistance they sparked.

From the Parent commission to Bill 21, including Bill 101 and its iterations over time, the most recent being Bill 96, Quebec embarked on a massive emancipation process in the early 1960s, a major undertaking that hit many an obstacle, as one might expect with such transformative societal reforms. Along the way, Quebec has constantly come up against opposition from Canada, whose multiculturalism model is simply incompatible with Quebec's legitimate aspirations.

This was the early 1960s. The Quebec of that era was a more traditional, mostly rural society, still dominated by the Catholic Church. Education was faith-based and inequitable, since it too was still dominated by the church, and it was not very accessible to ordinary people. It was in this context that Jean Lesage's government set up the Parent commission, which was tasked with reforming the education system. I would note in passing that seated at the table was sociologist Guy Rocher, who recently passed away and whose thoughts led to an almost unexpected consensus at the time regarding the importance of removing religion from education and health care.

The Parent commission marks the beginning of what is referred to as the Quiet Revolution, with bold reforms such as the creation of a ministry of education, CEGEPs, high schools and, especially and primarily, access to higher education for all. What we want is to bring Quebec out of obscurantism and allow our younger generations to aspire to the same heights as English speakers and the wealthiest members of society, who historically were favoured by the system at the time. In short, we want to give everyone an equal chance, whereas at that time in Quebec, as we know, everyone said that we were born to be nobodies.

Beyond the reforms, a true revolution in values took place. For the first time, Quebec was affirming fairly new principles, such as secularism, equal opportunity and the primacy of knowledge. To support these principles, the government took over all public spheres from the church. The future of Quebec society would be built on our cherished values that define us. The Quiet Revolution never really ended, but some might say that it culminated in the 1970s, when a fervent nationalist movement swept Quebec. Quebeckers became more confident. They stood up for themselves and went as far as electing a pro-independence government for the first time in their history.

On November 15, 1976, René Lévesque became Premier of Quebec along with 71 MNAs. In 1977, the Lévesque government passed Bill 101, the Charter of the French Language. Once again, Guy Rocher shared his wisdom and helped Camille Laurin draft legislation making French the official language of Quebec, at a time when anglicization was already threatening the cultural survival of francophones across the continent. Bill 101 became the cornerstone of Quebec identity. It affirms that French is not just a language, but also a vehicle to promote culture, solidarity and social cohesion.

One might have expected our neighbours to support and applaud such a wonderful emancipation of Quebec society, but no. On the contrary, this affirmation of identity was met with resistance from Canada. It did not take long for the Supreme Court to strike down provisions of the act, particularly those concerning unilingual French signage in Quebec. The federal government, which cares only about its “bilingual” and multicultural model, sees Bill 101 as infringing on the rights of anglophones.

This is evidence of the profound divide between our two visions of co-habitation. Quebec defends a common language to promote integration. Canada, on the other hand, promotes the coexistence of languages and cultures, in a disjointed melting pot. Let us just say that it is a brutal shock.

My colleagues have covered the subject at length and in depth, so I will gloss over a few episodes of our history, including the sad part in which the Constitution was repatriated; Jean Chrétien's great betrayal of René Lévesque; the arrogance of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who never quite managed to crush Quebeckers beneath his haughty heel; the ensuing constitutional crises that led to the stolen referendum of 1995; and, lastly, the Quebec National Assembly's passage of the storied Bill 21, the Act respecting the laicity of the State, in 2019.

Bill 21 is part of this tradition of secularization that began during the Quiet Revolution. Bill 21 simply aims to guarantee the neutrality of the state and ensure a public space, free of visible religious symbols, in accordance with the model of society chosen by Quebeckers.

However, yet again, Canada is opposed to this. The federal government criticizes the law and calls it discriminatory. Rights groups are challenging the law in court. Quebec expected that. The notwithstanding clause was not invoked without good reason.

What this shows is nothing less than an ideological divide. Quebec advocates active secularism, where the state imposes rules in the public space. Canada, on the other hand, favours permissive secularism, where religious freedom takes precedence over neutrality.

Over the decades, Canada and Quebec have developed increasingly divergent models of society. The Quebec model is based on the French language as the social glue. It is defined by the secularism of its state institutions. It promotes interculturalism, or integration around the common values of Quebec society, French, gender equality, secularism, and so on, and aspires to political and cultural autonomy.

The Canadian model claims to be bilingual, despite the fact that it is egregiously dominated by English. It is based on multiculturalism and centralization, and prioritizes individual rights over collective values.

These differences are not just theoretical; they also have a material impact on immigration, education, justice and citizenship policies. They fuel constant tensions between Quebec and the rest of Canada. These differences reflect a fundamental lack of understanding. Canada sees Quebec as one province among many, but Quebec is a distinct society, a distinct nation with its own values, its own history and its own trajectory.

Outsiders, at least those in the rest of Canada, often perceive Quebec values as backward or exclusionary, but Quebec is simply being true to its identity and its principles. We seek not to exclude anyone, but to unite everyone in a joint undertaking. We do not reject diversity; we place it within a coherent framework.

From the Parent commission to Bill 21, Quebec undertook a quiet but profound revolution. It redefined its values, affirmed its identity and tried to build a society in its own image. All along, it encountered constant opposition from Canada, whose multiculturalism model is simply not compatible with Quebec's aspirations.

This opposition did not hinder Quebec in the least. On the contrary, it strengthened Quebec's determination to define itself. That is because, basically, the backdrop to Quebec values is the idea of being a nation that aspires to be in full control of its own destiny. To those who say that the National Assembly's laws protecting Quebec values go too far, I would refer them to the recent report by the Pelchat-Rousseau commission, which states in its 50 recommendations that, in reality, not enough is being done. The progressive values of Quebec society need more protection. It is up to Quebec to provide it. Section 33 is an essential tool for protecting Quebec legislators from federal manoeuvres aimed at stifling Quebec's momentum towards freely defining its identity.

The Quiet Revolution never really ended, but some might say that it will reach its peak sometime after the fall of 2026. At that point, Quebeckers will finally close the loop opened by giants such as Lévesque, Laurin, Parent, Parizeau, Marois and so many others, including Guy Rocher, whom I had the privilege of meeting over a meal last April. Guy Rocher shared with me that despite the obstacles, the passing years and the ebbs and flows of enthusiasm, our deep and fundamental values are never lost and never lose their purpose. They deserve our commitment and our fight as long as there are those who challenge them.

[Salma Zahid, Liberal, Scarborough Centre—Don Valley East, ON]

Mr. Speaker, if Bill 21 were the law of the land here in Canada, I would not be sitting in this place because I wear a hijab. I would not be able to be a teacher because I wear a hijab.

There are a lot of young girls aspiring to be lawmakers, bus drivers or school teachers. What would the hon. member like to say about the rights of those young girls aspiring to be sitting here?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent example of misinformation, disinformation, or simply misunderstanding what An Act respecting the laicity of the State is about. It prevents no one from running for office, winning an election, or sitting in Parliament.

The other thing that we need to stop is thinking that the act is holding back young women who wear the hijab and religious symbols in general, because the act is not intended for Muslim women only. It includes men and women in general. If my religion prevented me from practising a trade, maybe the principles imposed on me by my religion are what need to be called into question.

The act is a fundamental piece of legislation for protecting Quebec's values. It allows equality, fairness, and neutrality in all areas of government. We think it is completely logical and legitimate for Quebeckers to have this kind of protection.

[Gabriel Hardy, Conservative, Montmorency—Charlevoix, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened closely to my colleague's speech.

Montmorency—Charlevoix is the founding riding of Quebec and Canada. It all started in our riding. Our history is deeply connected to the reality of what it means to be a francophone. It is also connected to the entire English side, including through Murray Bay. How does my Bloc Québécois colleague think that Quebeckers' strong identity can influence Canada? Given the current wave of uncontrolled immigration, how can Quebec's history help define what it means to be Canadian, protect our values and move forward? I think Quebec has a great deal to offer to history.