Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague, the member for Jonquière.
I am really glad to speak today on this Bloc Québécois opposition day. People get involved in politics because they have values they want to defend. We want to defend our constituents, and I, as a proud member of the Bloc Québécois, want to defend Quebec. That is really what we are talking about today.
I will repeat the motion. The Bloc Québécois is asking for the following:
That the House: (a) call on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court; (b) call 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; and (c) denounce the government's willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces.
I wanted to read the motion again because I have been listening to the speeches ever since this morning and I get the sense that people are saying that this is not important, that it is merely a detail, that there are other matters that should be discussed. However, we are talking here about the Quebec nation itself. We are talking about an attack against the Quebec nation. With all due respect to my colleague who said earlier that it is not Bill 21 that is being attacked but rather the notwithstanding clause, it is Quebec itself that is being attacked.
I would remind my colleague that this is not the first time Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause. It has been used many times—41 times, to be exact—since it was introduced. In all those years, the use of the notwithstanding clause was not challenged; however, as soon as we started talking about state secularism, about the very identity of the Quebec nation and its values, a decision was made to question the legitimacy, validity, and intent of using the notwithstanding clause to defend a bill that was duly passed by Quebec's National Assembly. Clearly, this is really a direct attack. It is really an ideological attack. We are seeing the same agenda as there was under former prime minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau, under the most recent prime minister, and even the current Prime Minister. Since last March, they have been trying to tell us it is no longer the same government and it is a different government, but the agenda has remained the same. Today, they are pursuing the same agenda as Trudeau Sr., one that transformed into a postnational agenda under our former prime minister Trudeau Jr. and now under the current government. Absolutely nothing has changed.
I talked about identity. Obviously, the Government of Quebec has invoked the notwithstanding clause a number of times, including on matters of language, as well as social issues. Those are topics that distinguish Quebec from Canada and that make us who we are. We want to pass our own laws because they define us as a society and define the projects we have as a nation.
Besides the issue of identity, our democracy is at stake. We once again have a self-righteous government that thinks it can look down at us and judge what is good for Quebec and what is not. However, Quebec is sovereign when it comes to passing its own laws, such as Bill 96 on language and Bill 21 on secularism. I do not think Quebec is the only one worried. Yes, I am defending Quebec, but I was talking about democracy. That is what we want to defend here today as well.
Several Canadian provinces have supported Quebec because they see that the sovereignty of their own assemblies is also threatened by the federal government's paternalistic desire to decide what is good for the provinces and Quebec. This is really a question that goes beyond the issue of secularism, because there is the substance and there is the form. The substance remains a pretext for attacking Quebec, but the form also remains a reason for attacking democracy and the rights that all provinces and Quebec have under the Constitution.
This fear on the part of the federal government, as expressed by the Attorney General of Canada in his factum, is an attack on the form. We are talking about the notwithstanding clause, but also about the approach taken by the federal government, which has been criticized on several occasions for being unable to tackle the issue head-on, instead resorting to roundabout ways to attack Quebec. I find it disgusting—yes, that is the first word that comes to mind—that it has decided to use Quebec taxpayers' money against them. Our laws are legitimate; they were passed by our national assemblies.
Some Quebec members in the House, like my colleague who spoke earlier, are afraid to say whether they are in favour of Bill 21, a law duly passed by Quebec. I would like to add that what he was saying, whether he was for or against it, is that, in his view, his National Assembly is not legitimate and cannot even vote on its own laws. I have a big problem with that. Another government member said that there are currently more Liberal members than Bloc members. I would like the Liberal members—because beyond that, we are members from Quebec—to also be able to defend Quebec. It is all well and good to have Liberal members in the House, but I think we have a problem if they decide that their National Assembly is not legitimate in their eyes. We can see where the government members from Quebec stand.
At this point in the debate, I would like to remind members that just because a member is from Quebec does not mean they are defending Quebec and our National Assembly. In my opinion, based on what I have heard in the debate so far, only the Bloc Québécois members are defending Quebec's National Assembly, and therefore Quebec, tooth and nail. I would like to hear my colleagues on the other side of the House say that is not true if they wish, because that is not what I have been hearing since the debate began.
I would also like to see the government broaden its perspectives. It calls itself multiculturalist, open-minded and postnational, as I said earlier, but it should also look at what is being done elsewhere, both in terms of form, such as override clauses or the democratic tools that parliaments can use, and in terms of content. When we look at what is being done in the European Union, for example, we see that a number of countries are using those tools and trusting each other. The federal government is challenging a tool in its own Constitution in court, which is unbelievable. The government can use this tool, as other countries do. The same goes for the content. When it comes Bill 21 and religious symbols, other states, such as Germany, the Netherlands and Belgium, have substantial provisions in that area. However, I have not heard the federal government say that they are anti-democratic, that they may be using or bringing back firing squads, or that they are reintroducing slavery.
I think that the Liberal government should be able to say that to the world. I also believe that Quebec will be as free as those nations that have adopted mechanisms such as the notwithstanding clause and that are, of course, free to address legitimate issues that are within the purview of their own national assemblies.
