44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 9, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/9/23 1:15:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem with the notwithstanding clause in recent years has been the pre-emptive use of it. I specifically think of the most recent example in Ontario where Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, used the notwithstanding clause to pre-emptively limit the ability for teachers to strike.
Bloc members will come into the House and quite often talk about how they encourage and are great supporters of the labour movement and of unions specifically. Would the member from the Bloc support the use of the notwithstanding clause by the Quebec government if it were doing what Doug Ford had done, which was to limit the rights of teachers to collectively bargain? I hope the member can answer that rather than—
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:16:58 p.m.
- Watch
The hon. member for Drummond.
5 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:17:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I will not comment on that specific matter.
The fundamental issue is that it is up to the legislatures and to the Quebec National Assembly to determine the use of the notwithstanding clause. Later, if it needs to be contested, it can and will be. The right to invoke the notwithstanding clause also implies that we sometimes make mistakes, which is why the courts can get involved.
As for the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, the 1988 Ford decision by the Supreme Court said that it could not be opposed. Honestly, the pre-emptive use is quite a bit cheaper for society than the obligation to defend or to challenge it using lawyers and thousands or millions of dollars to arrive at the same result.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague and I agree with him on the vast majority of his speech. As Quebeckers, we all want what is best for Quebec, for our culture and for our way of being. On that note, I support him 100%.
On the other hand, one thing is certain: If my colleagues want sovereignty, they should get elected to the Quebec National Assembly, because that is where it is going to happen, not here in Ottawa.
My question is about Bill C‑11. The bill contains provisions to protect French, as well as francophone and Quebec culture, of course. What worries me is the effect of the bill on the control of information on platforms and the possibility that the federal government and the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission will decide, as some countries do, to change the algorithms to prevent foreign content on our platforms.
As a Quebecker, does my colleague not see this as a significant danger?
166 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:19:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
The member's question is completely unrelated to the debate at hand.
21 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:19:12 p.m.
- Watch
I have to give the member some leeway, especially since reference was made earlier to Bill C‑11.
The hon. member for Drummond.
24 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, that is excellent. I was just about to say the same thing. I think that the question is a valid one, because I referred to Bill C-11 in my speech when talking about the differences in views between the rest of Canada and Quebec.
In answer to the question from my colleague from Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles, I would say that there have indeed been concerns about the possible manipulation of algorithms or their control over the web giants for rather nefarious purposes. However, that is not what Bill C-11 seeks to do.
One way or another, the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission needs to be able to see that the objectives are being met. The CRTC is not being given the power to control social media algorithms, which is something that I do not agree with. However, I do agree that the CRTC should take all possible and necessary steps to ensure that the objectives of the Broadcasting Act are being met. That is the distinction, and perhaps we have different views on the way it is written. However, my colleague’s question is a legitimate one.
195 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:20:29 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, further to my Conservative colleague’s question and given that this is the second question that the Liberal government can ask, I wonder if the Bloc knows why the Conservatives do not want to get involved in this debate. I note that the Conservatives have not yet taken a position on the Bloc motion before us today.
Perhaps my colleague can enlighten us.
66 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:21:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the short answer is no.
The long answer is that I assume that the Conservatives have read the Bloc Québécois’s motion, that they think that it is simply common sense, and that they are waiting until the end of the day to come out in support of it.
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:21:28 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this topic today.
I just want to take a few seconds at the beginning of my speech to send my best wishes to the families affected by the tragedy in Laval yesterday, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so in the House. My heart goes out to them.
The motion today is much simpler than many parliamentarians seem to think. It is a reminder of how this provision is written and what function it has served for the last 40 years or so. It works.
The intent of today's motion is not to change anything, it is to remind the government that there is only one part of the Constitution—which we are forced to live with—that we can rely on when we need to protect our uniqueness. I ask members not to fall into the ridiculous trap of asking me to recognize this Constitution today. Everyone already knows the answer. We are simply asking that this part, at least, be respected. That is what we are doing today.
I am going to go back to a couple of comments that were made today. The member for Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles wonders why the Bloc is still here. It is because we are hard-working people and we do not give up on our cause. Of course, we would have liked it to take less time, but it has not happened yet. Until it is done, we need to be here to salvage what we can. We are doing an excellent job and we will keep doing it wther they like it or not. What I think is a little more outdated is Conservative populism. I would encourage them to come up with constructive solutions rather than sloganeering all day long.
As for our colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Louis, who was referring to what a beautiful, great country Canada is, I could not agree more. It is a great country. However, I regret to inform him that it is not mine, and I will explain why.
Today we are talking about the Constitution, which we have to live with even though the people of Quebec never agreed to it. Governments of Quebec never agreed to it. This is not a new thing. It has been going on for some time. I think this is yet another attempt to weaken Quebec and its ability to protect its social integrity, its unique society and its pursuit of true community, which is stronger than individualism. These are conflicting visions. If that is not the intention, I would like to hear it from government members.
I would sure like to give a little history lesson so people here can see that every constitutional law ever passed was not approved by Quebec. Anytime such a law benefited Quebec a bit, it was only because people wanted to use us. In this Confederation, one government is dominating another, and that does not always work for us. Actually, it never works for us. It should not even be called a confederation. If it really were a confederation, we might have far fewer problems.
The Constitution contains the notwithstanding clause, which allows us to pass reasonable laws collectively. Later on, I will share some examples of reasonable laws so my colleagues can see that this is of vital importance to Quebec, contrary to all the other anti-francophone laws that have been passed in Canada's history and to the federal government's determination to always block Quebec's emancipation.
I would also like to remind the House that Quebec's relative weight within Canada is constantly—
623 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:25:41 p.m.
- Watch
Order. I have to interrupt the member for a few seconds.
Could we please make sure that there is no noise coming from the lobbies?
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
33 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:25:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was reminding my hon. colleagues, who are having a discussion, that Quebec’s weight within this federation is shrinking steadily and that it is essential to preserve this democratic tool. That is what this is about. It is a democratic tool that is used regularly by the Quebec government.
I heard all sorts of things today. Members said that it was used in an exceptional way and that we needed to add some guidelines. The notwithstanding clause has been invoked for 41 acts in Quebec. That does not seem that exceptional to me.
Earlier, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord listed some of those acts. I will repeat them quickly. Regarding the agricultural succession act, it was applied—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:26:45 p.m.
- Watch
I apologize, but I must again interrupt the hon. member.
I ask the colleagues who are speaking in the chamber to please go to the lobby to pursue conversations.
The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.
37 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:27:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, regarding the bill on farm succession, as a society, Quebec has decided to give young people a leg up as they are starting out in agriculture. This is certainly discriminatory, because it provides them with financial support that we are not offering to older people. The notwithstanding clause is being used. It may come as a surprise, but we are talking about ordinary laws.
The notwithstanding clause in the Employment Equity Act has been used to encourage the hiring of women and visible minorities. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned earlier, lawyers are not allowed in small claims court, so that people can avoid having to mortgage their homes to defend cases involving smaller amounts of money. Otherwise, someone could say they have a right to a lawyer and scrap the whole system. It is used in intelligent ways like that.
Is it really unreasonable to protect children's privacy in cases involving the rights of youth? I think the Quebec government has demonstrated that it is reasonable.
As I was saying earlier, today we are seeing a clash of cultures. The 1982 Constitution was imposed on us. We live with it because we do not have a choice and because a court decided that it was all right. Now we are being asked to give up the opportunity to use the notwithstanding clause and to give this power to those same judges. Seriously?
We are talking about the power of elected members to get elected, to make collective choices and to present their vision of society to their voters. Today individualism is being pitted against collective values. In Quebec, we decided that we live together with shared values, and we want that to continue to work.
The federal government constantly obstructs the work we have to do as administrators. We saw it again this week. We cannot get our own damned money back so we can manage our hospitals. Federal laws constantly interfere with Quebec's laws. There is constant duplication of legislation, especially in immigration, which was mentioned by someone earlier, and horrible delays are created by the federal government. That is a constant.
When we do get a reasonable measure we can use to create our own laws and protect them, we are told that we cannot use it unless we spend 10 years in court first. Let us be reasonable.
The motion is not revolutionary. We are calling on the government to acknowledge the contract it made behind our backs and have a modicum of decency and respect it.
Quebec needs it to protect our language. Who could blame anyone who arrives in Quebec from anywhere else from opting for English, when they realize that using English is no problem and there is a pool of 400 million anglophones around? That is why we need legislation.
As far as religion is concerned, it was mentioned earlier, people are pitting Canada's model of religious neutrality against the model of secularism that we have chosen in Quebec. Quebec has a history with this. One day we finally had enough and said everyone can have their own religion, but not in the government. Individual rights get mixed up when we have these debates. My individual right ends where the rights of others begin. If I represent a government, then I should not be imposing my personal symbols on people I welcome or serve. It is as simple as that. It is not discrimination, but because of the Constitution, which we did not sign, we have to use this notwithstanding clause. We need it. It is a democratic tool.
I want members of the House to stop with the rhetoric about the big beautiful country where everyone is different. I would like them to try for just 30 seconds to stop trampling over and muzzling Quebec. Any time the least little thing happens, the government lets a bit of time go by and then finds another way to try to once again bury Quebec and deprive it of its tools.
Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois is still in Ottawa after all these years. It is a good thing we are here to hold down the fort. Today, Quebec is faced with a choice. It can assimilate into the Canadian model or retain its differences and become independent. I think the choice is becoming more and more obvious. Long live independence.
741 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:32:32 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my colleague said that this was not his Constitution.
However, the Bloc Québécois is currently defending section 33 of that same Constitution, the same Constitution that guarantees the Bloc's right to participate in this Parliament and the same Constitution that enables my colleagues to hold this debate today.
What other sections of this Constitution that is not his would he like to keep besides section 33?
75 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:33:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my answer is quite simply “none” because I did not sign that contract.
When I said that this was not my Constitution—and by the way, I also said that I am not arguing with the fact that this is a big beautiful country—I was repeating what someone else had said. I was explaining that it is too bad but that this country is not ours because we were not shown any respect in the way the administrative system was implemented.
If one day my colleagues want to stop wondering why there are still separatists, then they need to start by showing Quebec some respect and recognizing what Quebec actually is in everyday life.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:33:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to something that my colleague briefly touched on at the end of his speech because members do not seem to understand these three overlapping concepts: secularism, religious neutrality of the state, and state secularism.
In the spirit of good communication and a better understanding between cultures that live side by side but that do not always understand each other because they are different, can my colleague quickly explain the difference between these three concepts?
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:34:34 p.m.
- Watch
I would ask the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to keep his answer brief.
15 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:34:37 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that is going to be a challenge.
Here is what is at issue here.
Canada has chosen a neutral model, in other words, everyone can display whatever symbols they want. That is fine. It does not bother the Bloc Québécois that Canada is multicultural. What we want is the power to keep our own model. That is what neutrality is.
In Quebec, we made a different choice. We chose to ensure neutrality to preserve the right to neutrality of every citizen coming into contact with the government. We decided the government should have no religion.
That is the difference, and the notwithstanding clause allows us to do that.
114 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:35:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first I would like to ask the member what he is afraid of. Why does he seem to be afraid of having an open, democratic debate on the use of the notwithstanding clause down the road in a legislature in public, in front of the media?
I thought I heard him or someone else say earlier that this would not amount to anything, that too much money would be spent going to court only to arrive at the same conclusion.
My second question is, does the member want Quebeckers' rights to be determined by money?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
