House Hansard - 38

44th Parl. 1st Sess.

March 1, 2022 10:00AM

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

Mar/1/22 11:36:46 a.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech, and I would like to ask him a question. Quebec's political weight is already part of the criteria that must be met in order for Quebec to be brought back into the Constitution, in particular as part of the Charlottetown accord, which guaranteed that Quebec would never have less than 25% of the total number of seats in the House of Commons. This agreement was negotiated by a Conservative government. As the deputy leader of the Conservative Party, would it not make sense for the member to defend this position, which was put forward by his own government?

108 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Brad Vis (Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon, CPC)

Mar/1/22 3:25:13 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot talked about the Quebec nation and making sure that Quebec has enough representation in the House. First, if Quebec wants to have another referendum, the National Assembly should go for another referendum. Based on the language he has been providing today, it seems that is what they want to do. I would encourage him to talk to his premier to do that. Second, we do not talk enough about this in the House of Commons. British Columbia has six or seven seats. British Columbia has no guaranteed seats on the Supreme Court of Canada. The west still wants in, and I am sick and tired of hearing all the time about the needs of Quebec when British Columbia needs its fair share of the federation as well. We pay taxes and the Constitution is representation by population. Quebec needs to recognize that B.C. pays its fair share and B.C. deserves just as much representation.

165 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Ms. Rachel Bendayan (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance, Lib.)

Mar/1/22 4:57:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I really enjoyed it. I want to point out that the Bloc talked about the Constitution a number of times and about how Quebec did not sign it. However, it is interesting to note that members also pointed out in this debate just how important the Canadian Constitution is. My question is about the philosophical point my colleague made about “the right time”. We could have debated this issue as part of Private Members' Business. Would that not have been a more appropriate time? Why did the Bloc Québécois choose to move this motion on an opposition day when a private member's bill on the same subject is going to be introduced in just a few weeks?

133 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Mar/1/22 5:00:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his excellent speech. I would like him to comment on the statements we heard from members opposite. Some are accusing us of quoting sections of the Constitution and, at the same time, saying that we did not sign it. That is an ethical issue. I would like my colleague to explain the work we are doing today.

64 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

Context: House Hansard - 38 - Mar/1/22

Mr. René Villemure

Mar/1/22 5:01:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague raises a very important point. It is a fact that we did not sign the Constitution Act of 1982. Unfortunately, we are stuck with it in negotiating this type of arrangement. We must refer to something, so we are forced to refer to the Constitution. Our first choice would definitely be to have our own constitution and to look after our own affairs.

67 words

Hear!
Rabble!
add
star_border
share

SoVote

House Hansard - 38