SoVote

Feb/9/23 3:23:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am not going to raise up the many times New Democratic administrations in provincial governments brought in back-to-work legislation. I am not going to fall into that trap. I believe what we are really talking about is governments, provincial governments in particular, using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion. I am emphasizing that, because whenever we institute the notwithstanding clause, we are talking about taking away rights and freedoms, and the example I am using is one that is very recent. What I would like to see is members reflect on what took place in the province of Ontario and cite their opinion. I have no idea. The Conservative Party's position, for example, seems to be “We don't care about what the Province of Ontario was doing. It's not our business, because it wasn't in our jurisdiction.” I would argue that they should care. When we are talking about the notwithstanding clause and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we all have a vested interest. How many times have we talked collectively about human rights abroad? Countries around the world look to Canada and our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. They see the notwithstanding clause, and if in fact it is abused by pre-emptive measures, that does not reflect well on us as a nation.

229 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Salaberry—Suroît, BQ)

Feb/9/23 3:25:14 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I wish to inform you that I will be sharing my time with the fabulous member for Manicouagan. We are here today to reiterate a fact to everyone and to all federal parliamentarians, specifically, “That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause”. That is what today's Bloc Québécois motion is all about. It is an opportunity for parliamentarians to clearly indicate their support for a well-known provision of the Canadian Constitution that has been used on many occasions, particularly by the Government of Quebec. The reason it is important to protect this provision, to send a loud and clear message, is because the Liberal government has recently been calling this provision into question, through the voice of the Prime Minister himself. This is not trivial. It is extremely important, and surprising at the same time. The Prime Minister is talking about a major paradigm shift in relations between Ottawa, Quebec, the provinces and the territories. The Prime Minister is questioning the ability of Quebec and the provinces to decide for themselves. The Prime Minister is suggesting that using the notwithstanding clause is fine, but only when he thinks it is appropriate. That is why our motion is important. Before the Supreme Court of Canada is called upon by the government across the way to rule on the use of the notwithstanding clause, let us send a very clear message. The notwithstanding clause is an essential clause in the federative pact. Without the notwithstanding clause, there would be no federative pact as we know it. It is the provinces, not Quebec, that managed to grab this right to difference. I will humbly submit that the notwithstanding clause is the bare minimum for respecting the democratic agenda of the National Assembly of Quebec. Calling into question the right of Quebec and the provinces to use the notwithstanding clause is the symptom of a much deeper problem. The federal government is calling into question this constitutional provision in a very specific context. The context, in my view, is the very recent passing of two laws in Quebec, one on language and the other on state secularism, that use the notwithstanding clause. These two laws share the fact that they deal with fundamental aspects of Quebec's identity, namely language and our own idea of secularism. These two laws enjoy a broad consensus among the Quebec population. These two laws also share the fact that they have been debated, improved, commented on, studied, obviously criticized, but ultimately passed by elected members of the National Assembly of Quebec, with their eyes wide open, weighing everything in the balance. It would seem, then, that the calling into question of the notwithstanding clause comes at a time when the Quebec National Assembly is asserting itself through these two laws. I point out this simultaneity because it is important. Citizens may not be aware of it, but Quebec has used the notwithstanding clause several times in its history. While Quebec was repeatedly using the notwithstanding clause, no outcry questioning its choices could be heard. Here are some examples to make that clear. Let us take the Act respecting La Financière agricole du Québec. Quebec wants to do everything it can to support the next generation of farmers, as the agricultural sector is essential to its economy and regions. We must therefore assist in some way the young farmers. This can be done only through invoking the notwithstanding clause. Has this created an outcry? The answer is no, not at all. Now let us take the employment equity act. Quebec is taking the lead in promoting the inclusion of all its citizens of different genders, backgrounds and abilities in its workplaces. This requires invoking the notwithstanding clause. Was there an outcry? The answer is no, not at all. The federal government is quick to challenge the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Supreme Court of Canada. Let us talk about small claims court, which is another concrete example. It is a Quebec innovation that allows citizens to resolve civil disputes in a more accessible, open and fair manner. The existence of such a court requires the notwithstanding clause. Closer to home, there is the youth court. Quebec's elected officials are betting that protecting the identity of children during trials is more important than the right to a public trial. This requires the use of the notwithstanding clause. Is the judgment of Quebec's elected officials being called into question? Not at all. What I am trying to say is that in each of these cases Quebec proceeded in its own way. Our collective and democratic choices led to innovation and important legislation that all required the use of the notwithstanding clause. In these examples, the use of the notwithstanding clause was never called into question. Why is Quebec's right to make its own choices challenged as soon as we talk about language and secularism? Perhaps citing these two recent Quebec laws, Bill 96 and Bill 21, which have elicited a rather public outcry on the Liberal benches, makes my argument a somewhat emotional one. They may be poor examples, so I will cite another. Quebeckers remember how Liberal premier Robert Bourassa caused quite a stir, a very public stir, when he used the notwithstanding clause to protect the use of French alone on commercial signs. Times have certainly changed, but I think the debate is the same. The notwithstanding clause is all well and good except when Quebec wants to use it to assert itself. Then it is up for debate. This typical reaction to Quebec asserting itself is quite something. I wanted to briefly illustrate that in the context of today's debate. In their speeches today, my Liberal and NDP colleagues have tried to distract our attention. Some members have raised the argument of pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. They say that Quebec would short-circuit the judicial process by stating from the get-go that its law is legitimate, necessary and balanced even though it needs the notwithstanding clause. I see that as a convenient red herring for some MPs because today's motion does not even ask members to address that issue. Today’s motion merely affirms one fact: It confirms that federal MPs support section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I would ask my federal colleagues, even if they do not always support the decisions of their legislature, to make it clear that they recognize that their province’s legislature is legitimate, and that it makes decisions democratically. In fact, what I am asking is that those members recognize the autonomy and sovereignty of their legislature. I can tell the citizens of Salaberry—Suroît that my Bloc Québécois colleagues and I undeniably recognize the legitimacy and autonomy of the elected members of the Quebec National Assembly. The members are elected, and debates take place. Several parties and schools of thought are represented, civil society plays an active role, and the media is doing its job. We live under the rule of law. Basically, it is not always perfect, but what we can say is that the checks and balances work well in Quebec. Quebec’s use of the notwithstanding clause has not upset this democratic balance of power. In fact, the notwithstanding clause is part of the balance of power of Quebec, its national assembly, its elected members and, ultimately, Quebeckers dealing with a federal government that is increasingly activist and less tolerant of the legitimate and measured decisions of Quebec society. Let us decide for ourselves: Let us support the motion put forward by the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly.

1329 words

All Topics

Hon. David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 3:35:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. I would point out that René Lévesque was against the notwithstanding clause. He did not want it in his charter. He and Camille Laurin were great supporters of human rights. With the changes brought to the Quebec charter through Bills 21 and 96, we can no longer say that it is René Lévesque's and Camille Laurin's charter. I would like my colleague to comment on the following. The trial judge on the Bill 21 case stated that the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause suppressed not only the court's analysis, but also political debate. That is the opposite of what Robert Bourassa did legitimately when he used the notwithstanding clause after a Supreme Court decision was rendered.

138 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Feb/9/23 3:36:07 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, one side of the House giving the other side history lessons will not change the fact that Premier René Lévesque never signed the Constitution. He rejected it outright. The other provinces joined together to wrest the notwithstanding clause. Madam Speaker, I hear my colleagues talking. I showed respect in listening to my colleague's question, and I would like him to show the same respect for me. I think it is a legitimate request. My colleague has some legal background and I think he holds Professor Benoît Pelletier, who is a professor at the University of Ottawa and a former Liberal minister of intergovernmental affairs, in high regard. I would like to quote him: One of the main dangers facing Quebec, like all other national minorities around the world, is the levelling effect of the courts. The notwithstanding clause has been used in the past to counter this tendency and to assert collective rights that are necessary to preserve minority cultures, but are nevertheless not explicitly recognized in the Canadian Charter. This is a—

182 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 3:37:32 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but her time is up. Some members of the House have further questions or comments. The hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona.

29 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/9/23 3:37:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am an Albertan and the use of the notwithstanding clause has been threatened and used in Alberta in the past under Ralph Klein. As somebody who I expect recognizes that climate change is real and how important it is, does the member really want Danielle Smith to have the power to undermine our environmental protections, to do coal mining in the Rocky Mountains, to release water from tailings ponds that goes into the Northwest Territories? Is that really what she would like to see happen in our country?

91 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Feb/9/23 3:38:26 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I often tell my hon. colleague that I believe she is a member of the wrong legislature. I believe that if Albertans elect Danielle Smith as their premier, it is because they trust her. Democracy exists in her province as well. It is not up to Parliament, to the House of Commons to dictate what the provinces should do. My colleague should campaign to beat Danielle Smith and elect a premier who will use these legislative and constitutional tools to serve the interests of the people of Alberta.

90 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/9/23 3:39:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member referred to the fact that the Prime Minister used wedge politics to pit Canadians against Canadians and Quebeckers against Quebeckers. It should come as no surprise that he is creating a constitutional crisis to deflect attention from his failures. Does she agree with me that the current Prime Minister has made the most use of wedge politics in the history of Canada?

66 words

Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille

Feb/9/23 3:39:41 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I do not know if he is the worst in that regard, but I think the facts speak for themselves. I think that for some time now, the government, certain members and the Prime Minister have been working together on the difficult matters that divide Canadians and Quebeckers. I also think that people expect us to do our absolute best and to represent our fellow citizens in the best way possible. In that sense, the Prime Minister is not setting a good example.

85 words

Mr. Mike Morrice

Feb/9/23 3:40:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Throughout the last series of questions and answers, it seems the feedback is still present. If you are hearing it also, I wonder if there might be a resolution of some kind.

41 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 3:40:34 p.m.
Watch

I have raised again that we can still hear the feedback. I am not sure if it is from the earpieces that we use. We will have some of the pages go around to ensure the earpieces are shut off at the desks where members are not present. If there is still a problem, members can let me know. The hon. member for Manicouagan.

64 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill (Manicouagan, BQ)

Feb/9/23 3:41:13 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as my colleague said earlier, the Bloc Québécois is asking the House today to recognize a fact by asking “[t]hat the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.” Acknowledging a fact seems like a no-brainer. That said, history, even very recent history, reminds us that we should take nothing for granted. Nothing is ever a given. This is serious. Think, for example, of Morgentaler reading the bills from the member for Yorkton—Melville, of Pythagoras learning of the Flat Earth Society, of John Locke hearing the Prime Minister of Canada exclaim on January 23, 2023, that he is going to intervene in the Supreme Court case involving Bill 21, right down to tagging the use of the notwithstanding clause. No, nothing is ever a given and no right is a given. The Bloc Québécois knows this and is watching out for Quebeckers, and even for the provinces and territories in this case. We want to reiterate that it is imperative that the House unanimously reaffirm that Quebec alone must decide when it should use the notwithstanding clause. Does the Prime Minister really know Quebec? Does he even know the history of Quebec? I have my doubts, most of the time. To know Quebec is to love it, not fear it or coerce it. Does the Prime Minister remember the people of Quebec who have slowly but surely distanced themselves from the church and its robes? Does he remember the long journey Quebeckers have taken to achieve the full separation of church and state? Does he remember the night of the long knives? Does he recall that Quebec never signed the Constitution of 1982? Does he realize that perhaps, for Quebec, the notwithstanding clause is like a tiny bit of sugar in a glass of poison hemlock? I truly and sincerely do not think so. To know Quebec is to recognize how enamoured it is with equality and freedom. It is to recognize that Quebec's biggest source of faith is intelligence and reason. It is to know that Quebec believes in the sovereignty of the state and that if it is subordinate to anyone, it can only be to itself, to the Quebec people. The gods, whoever they may be, do not belong in the affairs of the state. They may be in the bedroom, in the kitchen, in the car, in the street, or in the church, mosque or synagogue, in a book or in our thoughts. They are certainly not here in the House or in the robe of any Supreme Court justices, who do not make the laws. Imagine for a moment what it means to a Quebecker like me, who knows and remembers her history, to theoretically be the subject of a monarch—a monarch who is the head of the Anglican Church, no less—and to sit in a Parliament where MPs ask the Christian god to legitimize their duties and their votes on a daily basis. As an elected representative, I answer to the people, not to gods. Imagine, too, what it means to a Quebecker like me to hear the fear, arrogance, disdain and intolerance in the Prime Minister's articulation of the fundamentally dishonest and misleading stereotype of a xenophobic or even racist Quebec where freedom and equality are but mirages. As an elected representative, I answer to the people, not to myself. The Prime Minister's outsized attack on Bill 21 is a violent attack on the people of Quebec, for what is violence if not one party imposing its will on another by force? Violence and democracy are two sides of the same coin. Speaking of outsized, what is the elephant in the room here? What is this terrifying Bill 21 that gives the Prime Minister the green light to go ballistic on Quebec sovereignty, its national assembly and the will of the Quebec nation? The law simply prohibits the wearing of religious symbols by state employees in a position of coercive authority, as well as teachers in the public school system, while grandfathering in those already in their positions on March 27, 2019, the day before the bill was introduced. Bill 21 marks the separation of state and religious powers. It guarantees freedom and equality for all. Freedom of conscience remains. We must always keep in mind that we, as elected officials, are accountable to the people and I, as a Bloc Québécois MP, to my National Assembly. I was listening this morning to the member for Outremont. In a nutshell, she said that using section 133, the notwithstanding clause, was not consistent with section 33. That was her concern. She is worried that the notwithstanding clause is a notwithstanding clause. I do not think the government intends to open up the Constitution, but what I am hearing is that there is a concern that Quebec is Quebec. In closing I would say that the notwithstanding clause is a place for the Quebec nation in the Constitution of Canada, a document that René Lévesque never signed. It is a place to wrest a little freedom for Quebec. I think that is hyperbole. It is a little freedom for its identity, for its essence. Quebec is granted permission to exist using an exception. By asking these judges to stifle the notwithstanding clause, the Prime Minister intends to stifle Quebec. Why is it that the only way the Prime Minister can be Canadian is to viciously attack Quebec? No nation has the right to dictate to another nation what it should be. Quebec has its values. Quebec is secular. The notwithstanding clause does not by any means allow Quebec enough room for its existence. No one can dictate to me the kind of person I should be. I am for state secularism. I am a Quebecker. I am a separatist, and my bags have been packed for a long time now.

1024 words

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

Feb/9/23 3:49:23 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, my colleague took liberties in quoting me completely incorrectly. I would be happy to share my speech with her. She should not quote other members of the House if she does not have the correct information. She keeps repeating that this Constitution was not signed by Quebec. That is a fact. That is true. Why are the Bloc Québécois and the member defending tooth and nail section 33 of a Constitution that, in her opinion, does not apply to Quebec?

87 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Feb/9/23 3:50:15 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would have preferred for my colleague from Outremont to tell me what she said this morning. In fact, I did not hear her. It would be difficult for me to— Ms. Rachel Bendayan: Because you were not there. Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille:You need to listen. Ms. Rachel Bendayan: I am listening. Mrs. Marilène Gill: Madam Speaker, may I have the opportunity to reply?

73 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 3:50:34 p.m.
Watch

I would like to remind the hon. parliamentary secretary that she had the chance to ask a question and that she should wait for an answer. This is not a conversation where she can continue to talk. The hon. member for Manicouagan.

42 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Feb/9/23 3:50:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I was saying that, if the member for Outremont was not saying the same thing again and again using different words or stating the obvious this morning, then I would be completely open to hearing what she had to say and even reading the Hansard to find out. I understand that she was voicing a concern since she also brought it up in her last question. To answer the second part of her question, as long as Quebec is not independent, then I will, of course, fight tooth and nail and more for Quebec, for any freedom it has and for anything that will give it more freedom, including this notwithstanding clause.

114 words

Mr. Joël Godin (Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier, CPC)

Feb/9/23 3:51:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, before I ask my question, I would like to remind the House of something I heard earlier. I heard the member for Salaberry—Suroît tell my NDP colleague from Edmonton Strathcona that perhaps she is serving in the wrong legislature. That is rather odd coming from a member of the Bloc Québécois, which is a separatist party serving in a federal Parliament. We know that my colleague from Manicouagan is passionate about the separatist movement. That is her right and I respect that. I would like her to share her opinion on the fact that the Prime Minister is once again trying to sow division in Canada. I think that some separatists find that to be a stimulating topic. Is it normal to have a Prime Minister who is once again trying to create a constitutional crisis with the notwithstanding clause? Is it acceptable? In closing, I would like to say that the only party that can fix all this is the Conservative Party of Canada.

175 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Feb/9/23 3:52:48 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague. I have to say that as a separatist, I do not need any extrinsic motivation. My intrinsic motivation is quite strong. I would add that in any event, any nation with an appetite for freedom will use any means in its power. I represent people who voted for me as a representative of a fiercely separatist party. I represent my people and we have the right to sit here. Secondly, I would say to my colleague, who wondered whether this was acceptable or if Canada was broken, that I do not need that kind of reason either. Canada can fix itself, but Quebec can live alone quite well, without Canada, whether broken or put back together.

122 words

Mr. Gord Johns (Courtenay—Alberni, NDP)

Feb/9/23 3:53:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and good friend from the fisheries committee. Does she agree that the use of the notwithstanding clause to suspend rights should not be taken lightly and should only be used in exceptional circumstances?

39 words

Mrs. Marilène Gill

Feb/9/23 3:54:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I imagine that the use of the notwithstanding clause would be entrusted to legislatures and my national assembly. I have to say that I have full confidence in the National Assembly of Quebec when it comes to the use of the notwithstanding clause. That decision belongs to elected officials, who are also my representatives in my legislature, and I trust them to know how they use it or will use it.

73 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 157