Mr. Speaker, I will start by sharing my thoughts on what I have been hearing all day.
The government members, in all their speeches, tried to make us believe that they were not seeking to oppose Bill 21, but rather the notwithstanding clause. Even though we heard the former prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, strongly disavow Bill 21 repeatedly in the past, even though we heard many people on the government side strongly disavow Bill 21, as if by magic today, it would seem that the Liberals oppose the notwithstanding clause.
On the other side, the speeches we heard from the Conservatives focused mainly on the increased cost of living. We raised a few points of order to find out whether the Conservatives were going to speak on the motion and whether the Conservatives, particularly those from Quebec, are prepared to support Bill 21. However, it seems that that is not what they were interested in today. This leads me to say that, even though our Liberal friends have pointed out repeatedly that they hold a majority of seats in Quebec, Quebec is being served very poorly today. I would have liked to see a little more respect from the members from Quebec since this motion is so essential to us.
What we have before us today is clearly a challenge against Bill 21, which is part of the Canadian government's long history of attempting to make Quebec a province like any other. The common thread running through Canadian political action for many years has been a refusal to recognize Quebec's uniqueness. It has also often involved demonizing, by any means possible, the Quebec nation's desire to express its political autonomy.
What we are seeing with Bill 21 is a bit like Groundhog Day. Every time Quebec legitimately uses the tools at its disposal to take responsibility for its destiny, express its difference and defend its identity, the federal government is there to throw up roadblocks. What we witnessed today looked a lot like that.
We need only look back over events from the political history of Quebec and Canada, such as the multitude of challenges to Bill 101. Back when Quebec's Bill 101 was debated in this parliamentary chamber, it was portrayed as Nazi legislation. All the federalist parties have consistently rejected the idea of Quebec as a distinct society. The same thing happens when we asked for more power over immigration, or tried to hold rounds of constitutional negotiations. Like me, the Speaker knows about them. There were the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Both failed and both times, Quebec was plainly told “no”.
The same goes for limiting federal spending powers or the fiscal imbalance. We are used to that. In Quebec, we are used to being told “no”. That is what led to the sovereignist movement. However, I get a sense that we are adding a new wrinkle this time. The federal government is no longer content to lock down Quebec's political autonomy, it wants to send us a negative image of who we are.
Before I turn my attention to the substance of the factum, I would like to discuss a situation that strikes me as a corollary of what we are seeing today. As members may recall, it has long and often been said that Quebec is an insular community that does not welcome immigration or difference. Even in the good old days under Mr. Trudeau, Quebec's political agenda was described as belligerent nationalism. The Speaker must have seen that.
I do not know if anyone here has ever taken history classes, but there was a rather interesting dispute between Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Hubert Aquin. The crux of that dispute is clear to anyone who has ever read The Treason of the Intellectuals. Mr. Trudeau sees Quebeckers as an inward-looking and homogenous nation, while Mr. Aquin makes a rather convincing argument that Quebec has always been a multi-ethnic nation. What made Quebec so different was its culture.
Quebec may have a homogenous culture, but that homogenous culture is made up of people from different ethnicities. These criticisms that denigrated Quebec in the past have reappeared in the factum at hand. Today, some members are going even further than the Attorney General of Canada's factum by suggesting that Quebec wants to limit freedom of the press, limit freedom of religion, limit the rights of unions and open the door to forced labour and maybe even arbitrary executions.
This pile of nonsense that we read is part of a consistent pattern that has caused considerable harm to Quebec's reputation. It must be said for once and for all. There were debates on reasonable accommodations, on Quebec's place within the federation and even on the place of religion in the public sphere. Quebec is not closed to difference. Quebec is not closed to ethnocultural minorities. Quebec is not closed to immigration, but we are constantly seeing this harm to our reputation.
Quebec is an open society where there are fewer hate crimes. Quebec is a society that treats its linguistic minorities in an enviable way. I would like members to find another linguistic minority that represents 8% of the population but is still squeezing out 30% of education budgets. It does not exist anywhere else but in Quebec, and it would make any francophone community outside Quebec jealous. However, we have to constantly play with this reputational damage that is done to us.
This brings me back to the observation I made in my introduction: For Canada, Quebec must become a province like any other. What we are talking about today is undoubtedly the federal government's challenge of Bill 21. Let us say it once and for all, even though the Liberals are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by suggesting that the notwithstanding clause is what they are really challenging. To make this perfectly clear, I want to go back to the birth of multiculturalism in Canada.
In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission was set up. What exactly was going on in 1963? We were coming out of the Quiet Revolution. Quebeckers are no longer called French Canadians, but they are Quebeckers. At the same time, in Canada, some people are wondering what kind of collective identity can be developed to integrate Quebeckers. That questioning led to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Canada's response to Quebec.
What was the original intention? Canada was supposed to become a bicultural and bilingual country. Well, biculturalism was completely ignored. Canada became a bilingual country in name only, and biculturalism was completely abandoned in favour of multiculturalism, so that was the first time Quebec was really told no. Canada chose to become a multicultural country where all cultures were recognized. By recognizing all cultures, we might as well say that we recognize none. That is what most commentators have to say about that period.
The first time Quebec was told no was during the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. In the process, Quebec decided to develop its own integration model, known as interculturalism, and the debate surrounding Bill 21 on secularism and the place of religion is directly linked to this interculturalism. There are three main principles of interculturalism on which there is a broad consensus in Quebec. It is clearly a rejection of multiculturalism, a rejection of assimilation, but also the importance of integration based on Quebec's fundamental values. What are those fundamental values? Quebec is a French-speaking state. Quebec is a state where gender equality is non-negotiable, and Quebec is a secular state.
Some silly things were said today, justified by quotes from Simone de Beauvoir, about how the notwithstanding clause could somehow infringe on women's freedom to make their own choices. I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. The women of Quebec who had to break free from the Catholic church in the 1950s and 1960s know very well the price women can pay when religion controls everything in a society.
I will be pleased to answer questions. In sum, the Liberals just need to stop telling us that they are against the notwithstanding clause. What they are trying to do—