SoVote

Feb/9/23 1:36:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. However, there is some confusion. First, am I afraid? Not too many things scare me. We are here to debate. What we are trying to stop, and not because we are scared, is the federal government's centralizing tendency. I did not give a history lesson earlier, but I am going to give a short one now. I remind members that since 1867, the famous John A. Macdonald, who is loved by some and hated by many more—I will not join that debate—wanted a hypercentralized federation. The people representing Quebec at the time decided to join because they needed a common market. They received guarantees that certain matters would be the sole jurisdiction of their government. These guarantees have not been upheld, and this is yet another attempt to interfere. The other example mentioned by my colleague is just one of the many arguments, but this is not strictly about money. It is also about respecting the contract that they made behind our backs. Is that so hard?

181 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate), Lib.)

Feb/9/23 1:37:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North. I would like to start my debate contribution today by addressing one of the more recent points from the Bloc member who spoke before me. He said that this Constitution has been forced upon Quebeckers. I would remind the member that Quebec has decided, not once but twice, not to leave Canada. As recently as 1995, which would have been after the 1982 Constitution came along, Quebeckers chose not to leave. Despite the fact that the Bloc will come into the House and assert a degree of sovereignty over Quebec, I would remind him that the majority of Quebeckers have decided to stay within the country of Canada. Quite frankly, as a member from Ontario, I am very grateful for that. I think our country is so rich and diverse because of the incredible contribution we have from Quebec, the culture and the diversity. It is a relationship that no doubt has been difficult from time to time over the years, but a relationship that has made this country a better place. It has not just added to the cultural vibrancy and diversity, but it has encouraged us to tackle the challenging issues around this relationship and it has made Canada a better country. My issue with this particular motion today is not that I see the notwithstanding clause as being a problem when it was originally put into our Constitution years ago. I see it as a problem now because of the pre-emptive nature of the way in which it is being used. I will focus my comments primarily on the use of it in Ontario recently; however, it definitely links back to some of the comments that the member for Drummond made earlier, and I will address those in a moment. Let us talk about Doug Ford's pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. Right after Doug Ford was elected premier, one of the first orders of business, oddly enough, was to determine the makeup of the Toronto city council. Do not ask me why he did that, as a new premier of Ontario, one of the largest provinces in the country. I do not understand why that had to be a job for day one, but it was. He put into his legislation the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. The problem is that, when people use the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion like this, they are basically saying, “I don't care if the law I am making is constitutional. I don't care if the court will uphold it. I am not even interested in arguing my case with the court to try to prove that what I am doing is right.” What they are basically saying is that they do not care about any of that because they do not care about the law or the Constitution. That is effectively what is happening when the premiers are trying to use it in a pre-emptive fashion. On day one, Doug Ford did that. He then did it again, in 2021, with the Protecting Elections and Defending Democracy Act, which ultimately received royal assent, on June 14. The most recent time Doug Ford utilized that clause, which I brought up in one of my questions, he used it as a pre-emptive tool to prevent teachers from having the ability to negotiate in good faith. Imagine that. Teachers, like all organized labour, have the right afforded to them in our country to negotiate their union's position in a collective manner. That is a fundamental right with organized labour in our country, and I would argue in most developed countries, especially ones that operate under a democratic system like ours. Here we have a premier saying he does not really care about their ability to negotiate. He does not care about whether they want to do that. He is just going to supersede it before even bringing in a law and determine that they do not have the right to do that. I found it most interesting when I brought this up a little while ago and asked the member for Drummond what I thought to be a very legitimate question. I have concerns about that. I believe in the collective bargaining process. I believe in union rights. I believe that unions should have the ability to negotiate in good faith. I always thought that Bloc Québécois members felt the same way. They have always come in here and talked about unions, the strong labour movements and the need to have a strong labour movement, so I asked the member for Drummond a very simple question: Does he believe that Quebec should have the right to trample on those union rights the same way Doug Ford did? The member for Drummond just attacked my question and basically said that the provinces should have the right to use it in their own way, which is a de facto way of saying he supports it. I am left to believe that the Bloc Québécois is okay with a province, including Quebec, using the notwithstanding clause to strip away the rights of a union to negotiate. That leaves me with the conclusion that the most important thing to the Bloc Québécois, above any rights out there, is power and ensuring that the province has the power to trample over top of any legislation. That is effectively what they are saying by not answering that question and not coming clean by at least saying Doug Ford went above and beyond. They could have said that. The member for Drummond could have stood up and said that maybe Doug Ford went a little too far, but the member did not do that, because the Bloc is afraid of giving an inch on this. Bloc members do not ever want to suggest that there might even be a time when it is not appropriate to use it. I think anybody out there who is watching this debate, or considering the disregard the Bloc has for those rights in an attempt to ensure that power is retained, should be concerned because, as my NDP colleague from B.C. said earlier, we live in a country based on the rule of law. We live in a country based on a Constitution that affords certain rights and responsibilities. We are required to ensure that those are upheld, and one of them is the right of organized labour to negotiate, and, in particular, unions. I will end where I started this, which is by saying that I am extremely concerned when provinces start to pre-emptively use this tool, because what they are saying is that they do not care if what they are doing is unconstitutional; they are doing it anyway, and that is problematic. That should concern every citizen, because Doug Ford has maybe done it only three times, but it pretty much had never been done in Ontario before that. Doug Ford and the Conservative government in Ontario are just testing the waters. They are banking on the fact that eventually people will not really care about it, because it will have happened a bunch of times and life still goes on. We have to be careful about this. We have to protect this, and we have to ensure that people's rights that are afforded to them under the Constitution are not infringed upon as a result of the abusive use of the notwithstanding clause.

1277 words

All Topics

Mr. Yves Perron (Berthier—Maskinongé, BQ)

Feb/9/23 1:46:57 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, since I was referred to directly, I will ask my colleague a question. There are a number of points to address. Some big things are being said, and I would like to refocus the debate. Nobody here agreed with the Premier of Ontario's decisions. We did not. All we said was that these issues should be dealt with within the province. The public outcry has done its job, I think. Just because something less acceptable has been done elsewhere, that does not mean that we should accept diminished autonomy for Quebec, which did not do anything like that. That is the first correction that I wanted to make. I will now make a second correction. My colleague says that Quebeckers said “no” to independence twice and that they are happy to be in Canada. Quebeckers and the Quebec government never signed this Constitution. Quebeckers were duped twice by the kind of promises and sweet talk that can be heard here all week long when things are not too serious. In 1982, they said that they were putting their seats on the line to change the Constitution, and then this Constitution was shoved down our throats. We are full of good will, and in 1995, there was a great big love-in in Montreal. We said to ourselves that these were different people and that we would give them another chance. However, these people have done nothing since then. My question for the member is this: When is he going to launch an initiative within his party to finally give Quebec what it wants?

268 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/9/23 1:48:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what I said was that the Constitution was adopted in 1982. Quebec had an opportunity to leave after that and chose not to, and I am very grateful. I was much younger then, but I remember watching the news and I could not imagine, as a teenager, not having Quebec as part of our country. It means nothing to this member, who is throwing his arms up in the air. I get that, but I value Quebec's existence in this country. I would never want to see this country without Quebec in it, despite the Bloc Québécois.

104 words

Mr. Randall Garrison (Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, NDP)

Feb/9/23 1:49:09 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to share one of my concerns. In the debate today, we do not spend much time talking about human rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is about human rights, and the notwithstanding clause is about avoiding respecting human rights and avoiding doing the hard work that would be necessary. I wonder if he would reflect a bit more on the importance of human rights in this debate today.

76 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/9/23 1:49:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that was my point toward the end and I appreciate the question, because today Doug Ford trampled on union rights. Tomorrow, who knows what he or another premier will try to trample on. Today, the collective movement and public pressure prevented Doug Ford from moving forward, but we do not know if that will be the case tomorrow. The whole point of protecting those rights is to protect the rights of minorities. If we put people in a position where it becomes normalized to use this tool in order to strip people of their rights, the problem is going to be much greater than what we are seeing has happened to organized labour in Ontario.

117 words

Ms. Marilyn Gladu (Sarnia—Lambton, CPC)

Feb/9/23 1:50:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my question for the member opposite is this. He seems to be very offended by the violation of charter rights and freedoms by all kinds of other levels of government. What would he say about his own government and the continual attacks on freedom of expression, freedom of religion, mobility rights and the like?

56 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/9/23 1:50:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am so glad to hear the Conservatives get into this debate today, because they have been absent until this point. Even when they do decide to get in, they do not bring up the topic at hand. We are talking about the use of the notwithstanding clause and the motion brought forward by the Bloc, so I find it incredibly rich that the Conservatives suddenly want to participate in the debate when they have been completely silent the entire morning.

83 words

Ms. Elizabeth May (Saanich—Gulf Islands, GP)

Feb/9/23 1:51:21 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands for talking about rights. I have been deeply offended, worried and frightened for this country because the premier of Ontario flings around like corn flakes the idea that he is going to grab the notwithstanding clause to stomp on the rights of teachers and workers. I really want to encourage all of us in this place, without regard to partisanship, to stand up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country.

85 words

Mr. Mark Gerretsen

Feb/9/23 1:52:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, every Canadian should be invested in this conversation, because the more the clause is used, the more normalized it becomes throughout the country, the more people are willing to accept it. If we do not denounce the use of it now and stand up against it, the problems will only be much greater later on.

57 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 1:52:29 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and address this particular motion brought forward by the Bloc. I am not surprised by Bloc members bringing forward this motion, because, after all, from the Bloc Party's perspective, they want to cause division, even though when we look at their attempt this time around, the member for Kingston and the Islands is correct in his assumption. If we think through the logic, what the Bloc is actually proposing is to say that the federal government plays no role and that it should be silent when a province wants to invoke, in a pre-emptive way, the notwithstanding clause. The best example I can use offhand is the Province of Ontario, which is the largest province by population in the country. When the Province of Ontario makes the statement that it wants to take away labour rights, all of us should be concerned as it affects thousands of people. The Bloc tries to give the false impression that it is sympathetic to the labour movement or the working person, but this motion contradicts that. However, I am not surprised by the Bloc. I expect that. I can tell members that Canadians would be very disappointed in the official opposition, which is what I would like to pick up on. I would suggest that one of the greatest values we have as Canadians that we treasure, besides health care, which is a debate for another day, is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We understand how important that is. In terms of values, we like to share our values around the world, and there are countries around the world that have adopted Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Canada has demonstrated leadership for 40 years on the issue of human rights and the protecting of freedoms and rights for the individual. One would think that the Conservative Party of Canada would care about that when it applies here in Canada, but that is not the case. In reference to the teachers' and union issue in Ontario and the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to walk all over the rights of thousands of people in Ontario, here is what the Prime Minister had to say: Canadians themselves should be extremely worried about the increased commonality of provincial governments using the notwithstanding clause preemptively to suspend their fundamental rights and freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot become a suggestion. Since 2017, we have had Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and, to a certain point, the Province of Saskatchewan, entertain or use pre-emptive notwithstanding, which I would suggest is a form of threats, to take away rights. The Prime Minister, demonstrating leadership, makes statements in regard to it. However, the current leader of the official opposition is nowhere to be found. If members watch the debate today and take a look at the debates that have been occurring on this very important issue, they will find a vacuum of leadership coming from the Conservative Party. Liberals will stand and defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognize how— Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

526 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/9/23 1:57:09 p.m.
Watch

Order. Can we allow the hon. member the courtesy of making his speech in peace? Thank you. The hon. parliamentary secretary.

21 words

Mr. Kevin Lamoureux

Feb/9/23 1:57:19 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague says, truth is hard to hear at times. At the end of the day, we have not heard any significant word. Yes, they were obligated to address it a couple of times, but they were virtually forced to do that. If we read the content of the speech, the Conservatives are more concerned about talking about the Conservative spin lines that they get from the Conservative MP lobby. These are the types of things the Conservatives want to talk about. When it comes to issues of great substance that impact the rights and freedoms of Canadians and I pose questions for the Conservatives on this, they just scramble and do not know what to say. In fact, one of the members said they do not have anything to do with it and that it is completely up to the province. They asked, in one of the questions I got on the record today, why they would participate in that sort of discussion. However, the Conservatives do not like to stand up because they do not want to be held accountable on this particular issue. I made reference to the number of provinces that had been using it since 2017. I suspect that since 2017 we have probably seen more usage of pre-emptive-type measures than we had seen in the previous 35 years. I do not know that for a fact, but I suspect that could be the case. At the end of the day, when the people of Canada are looking for their politicians here in Ottawa to stand up for those rights and freedoms, the Conservatives are being silent. I hope that maybe they will reflect during question period and decide to participate genuinely in this debate. Does the Conservative Party support, for example, what Doug Ford was doing when he pre-emptively took the notwithstanding clause to walk over the rights of union people in Ontario, affecting thousands of workers? Is there a Conservative member of Parliament who will stand up in this place and say that was wrong? Of course the Conservatives will not do that, but it is nothing new because they will not do that for any provincial jurisdiction, based—

373 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès)

Feb/9/23 2:00:03 p.m.
Watch

The hon. member will have two and a half minutes to conclude his speech after question period.

17 words

Mr. Majid Jowhari (Richmond Hill, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 2:01:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this year marks the 150th birthday of my beautiful riding of Richmond Hill, a cause for celebration to reflect on our past, to cheer on today and to recommit ourselves to the future. Today, Richmond Hill continues to be a diverse, compassionate, youthful and ambitious society with a strong sense of collective and community-building, where ordinary people do extraordinary things. The year-long celebrations kicked off with a flag-raising ceremony at the city’s municipal offices on January 25. Last Saturday, we celebrated the 54th anniversary of Richmond Hill Winter Carnival when I announced $60,000 in funding from the federal government. This milestone anniversary celebration continues through Richmond Hill Public Library programs, including seedy Saturday and starfish project; the planting of 150 native trees at Lake Wilcox Park; three community art projects; and a heritage summit at the Richmond Hill Centre for the Performing Arts, hosted by Richmond Hill Historical Society. In Richmond Hill, we are proud of our accomplishments and we are proud of our community, for this is Richmond Hill and this is our home.

183 words

Mr. Randy Hoback (Prince Albert, CPC)

Feb/9/23 2:02:35 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's carbon tax has had a devastating effect in my province of Saskatchewan. On April 1, the carbon tax will increase the cost of fuel an additional 14¢ a litre. My constituents tell me their heat and hydro costs are already unaffordable. A typical Canadian farmer will now face $150,000 in carbon tax alone, something their competitors will not have to pay. Our farmers are the most efficient in the world. As the world needs more Canadian food exports, the Prime Minister is making it impossible for our farmers to survive. He needs to stop punishing their ability to feed the world. As carbon emissions continue to grow, money continues to flow from families, businesses and farmers. If our goal is to fight climate change by reducing emissions, it is obvious that the carbon tax is not the answer. The Conservatives have a better way. A Conservative government will get rid of the carbon tax.

162 words

Ms. Joanne Thompson (St. John's East, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 2:03:32 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, my Conservative colleagues across the aisle have begun paid advertisements in my riding that are misleading. Therefore, let me clarify for those across the aisle. The facts are: first, climate change is real; second, we must move ahead with decisive climate action; and third, eight out of 10 families in St. John’s East will receive more money back than they pay. That means a family of four will get $328 back every three months. Let me be clear that the federal system only replaces the provincial system on July 1. Our approach will put more money back in the pockets of Canadians. Why do the Conservatives want to take these cheques away from Canadians? We need to look no further than the southwest coast of my province and the devastating effects of hurricane Fiona. Canadians want solutions, not more empty slogans and scare tactics from the Conservatives.

151 words

Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)

Feb/9/23 2:04:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the Maison d'Haïti will celebrate its 50th anniversary on Saturday. What began as a summer project has grown into five decades of community building, literacy work, integration activities, newcomer services and revitalization of the Saint‑Michel neighbourhood. Crucial services are generously offered to our large Haitian community and to Quebeckers from around the world. Over the years, the Maison d'Haïti has also waged major battles as part of the feminist movement, the fight against racism and discrimination, and equal access to the workforce. Several people have made a mark on this organization's history, including Ernst Gresseau, Max Chancy and Adeline Magloire Chancy, whom the organization itself considers to be the building blocks of its DNA. I also want to mention Célitard Toussaint, who served as its director for more than 30 years, and Marjorie Villefranche, the current director, who has also been involved in programming for more than 30 years. On Saturday, let us take the opportunity to celebrate with the Haitian community. Let us celebrate these 50 years of building bridges between Quebeckers of all origins. I invite everyone to join the celebration on Saturday, starting at 10:30 a.m. at TOHU. Happy 50th to the Maison d'Haïti.

223 words

Mr. Mike Morrice (Kitchener Centre, GP)

Feb/9/23 2:05:48 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, across the Waterloo region we have a thriving community of Black entrepreneurs, and it has not happened by accident. We are lucky to have programs like liftoff, hosted by the Canadian Caribbean Association of Waterloo Region and led by Dr. Trevor Charles. In the past year, Trevor and his team have supported 50 founders in five different cohorts. Established Black entrepreneurs like Lenore Johnson from LenJo Bakes and Ajoa Mintah from Four All Ice Cream have inspired others to follow their lead and they now also give back as coaches of liftoff participants. We are also fortunate to have a Kitchener chapter of Sokoni's Black entrepreneurship program. They have a pop-up market happening this Saturday, February 11 at the Kitchener market. While Black entrepreneurs face systemic barriers to their success, across Waterloo region this thriving community of founders is another example of Black excellence.

148 words

Mr. Marc Serré (Nickel Belt, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 2:06:52 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-13

Mr. Speaker, in Nickel Belt and Greater Sudbury, we are fortunate to have many community organizations with a social, cultural and educational focus, such as Collège Boréal, the University of Sudbury, ACFO du grand Sudbury, Place des Arts du Grand Sudbury, Le Voyageur, La Nuit sur l'étang, the West Nipissing Arts Council, Théâtre du Nouvel-Ontario, and several school boards that contribute to the development of the francophone community. In 1971, the first public high school, Franco-Cité, was established in Sturgeon Falls, where student activists took control of the school for several days. In January, at Franco-Cité, we announced that, in 2022, we reached the target of 4.4% francophone immigration outside Quebec for the first time. That is why we must all work together to get Bill C-13 passed as quickly as possible, so we can promote and advocate for linguistic minorities across Canada. This bill will promote French and protect all official language minority communities across the country.

175 words

All Topics

SoVote

House Hansard - 157