SoVote

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/9/23 4:08:52 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, like the minister, I am very worried about the increasing use of the notwithstanding clause, and my focus will be on human rights. In 2000, in Alberta, Ralph Klein tried to use the notwithstanding clause to take away the rights of the SOGI community to same-sex marriage. He was not successful because the Supreme Court was able to speak to that. I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about some of the risks posed to individual human rights if people like Danielle Smith were given this tool to use more frequently.

96 words

Hon. David Lametti

Feb/9/23 4:09:33 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, if one uses the notwithstanding clause at the beginning, one acts as if there is no charter. That was not the intention of the framers in 1981. It was there as a safety valve, as the last word, when Allan Blakeney and other western premiers advocated in its favour. It has a terrible impact. The judge in the first instance decision in the Bill 21 case, the Hak case, in Quebec noted that the pre-emptive use of the charter cut off both judicial scrutiny and political debate. That is a tragedy for our democracy because it puts minorities at risk.

103 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 4:10:25 p.m.
Watch

Before continuing, I want to mention that I am doing my best to ensure that members have the opportunity to ask questions and receive answers within the allotted time. As we only have five minutes for questions and comments, I am trying to allow for at least three questions in this amount of time: two questions and two answers of one minute each, and one question and one answer of 30 seconds each. I know that this is not ideal for everyone, but that is the time that has been allocated. I hope this will give members some insight into how the Chair must proceed. It is not the Chair's intention to cut off members but rather to allot time to each member to ensure there is a good debate. It is up to the Chair to ensure that the House operates smoothly, including during debates. Is the hon. member for Montcalm rising on a point of order?

159 words

Mr. Luc Thériault

Feb/9/23 4:11:31 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, yes, I have a point of order. Since you mentioned it, I would urge you to ensure fairness and respect the rotation. Earlier, you twice recognized, twice in a row, an NDP member when it was our turn to speak. You also recognized the NDP when it was the Conservatives' turn to speak. I urge you to respect the rotation as soon as people stand up to indicate that they want to speak.

76 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 4:12:06 p.m.
Watch

This is becoming a debate, but what the member forgets is that they were not the same speakers. When one party speaks, the questions go to the other parties, unless there is plenty of time, in which case another question can be allowed. As I said, certainly the choice of person remains at the discretion of the Chair, but the Chair tries to be as fair as possible in the questions and comments. I may have invited two people from the NDP to speak, just as I invited two people from the Conservative Party and two people from the Liberal Party, because the member giving the speech was from the Bloc Québécois. The honourable member for Portneuf—Jacques-Cartier on a point of order.

129 words

Mr. Joël Godin

Feb/9/23 4:13:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to endorse what you just said and add that I let my Bloc Québécois colleague go ahead because it was the Conservatives' turn to speak. You handled the sitting masterfully, so thank you.

42 words

All Topics

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 4:13:15 p.m.
Watch

I would like to add one last detail before we resume debate. This is an opposition day for the Bloc, which means the Bloc gets the first question in response to a government speech. Resuming debate. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage.

46 words

Mr. Chris Bittle (Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, Lib.)

Feb/9/23 4:13:44 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is an important topic that we are discussing today. What I have seen over the last few years has really worried me as an Ontario member of Parliament and as a lawyer, watching the Ford government in Ontario and its pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. The interesting thing, though, is that at the same time we hear members of the Conservative Party say they are concerned about our government's actions on certain legislation. They say these actions impact freedom of expression, and if we are talking about measures that had to be taken during the pandemic, other rights within the charter. As the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Canadian Heritage, I listened to this alternate debate that did not exist in any type of reality saying that the government was engaged in censorship, which is patently false. However, the Conservatives worry about free speech and freedom of expression under section 2 of the charter. I stand with them. This is a fundamental right and freedom that Canadians have under the charter. However, the silence was deafening when, in 2018, just a couple of months after the Ford government got elected, it pre-emptively invoked the notwithstanding clause. That was the first time it did so. The Ontario government did not wait or go through to the Supreme Court. The court did not hear it. What legislation did it do this on? It did it on an elections bill. The Ford government did it to prevent the court from finding that there was a violation of freedom of expression. It was interesting to me at the time that from the so-called champions of freedom of speech and freedom of expression on the other side, the silence was deafening. We did not hear anything. The Conservatives were not willing to criticize a fellow Conservative government. I can understand that they are political allies and friends with Queen's Park. However, on preventing a court from finding a violation of free speech in an elections act a few months before the election, there was silence. Where were those champions of the charter? It eventually went to the courts, and the Ford government did pull back from that the first time. The second time, it did the same thing. The provincial government picked on vulnerable education workers. It picked on the rights of workers as guaranteed by the charter. Again, from the Conservatives, there was absolute silence. Where were the champions of freedom of expression at that point? We had a member rise today to ask a question comparing the rights of the LGBT community to the rights of individuals under COVID. It was shocking to me that this would even come into the Conservative lexicon to compare those two rights together. Again I ask, where are the champions for actual rights that are being violated? During the occupation of this city, we heard Conservatives time and time again. Especially after the invocation of the Emergencies Act, they said this was a violation of the charter, even though the Emergencies Act does not violate the charter. It did not remove any rights, but member after member claimed it did. Once again, a few months after the fact, the Ontario government moved against workers and against custodians and educational support workers, who are the lowest-paid workers in our education system. Where was the Conservative Party, which claims to stand up for working people? There was deafening silence as the notwithstanding clause was again invoked pre-emptively by the Province of Ontario. I do not know if, when they get up to talk about freedom expression, the Conservatives appreciate the irony that they sit on the sidelines when the notwithstanding clause is used in Ontario. It is disappointing. It is good that Ontarians stood up and the Ford government was forced to back down from that, because again, these were the most vulnerable workers in the education sector. I would hope that all members in this place would stand up for our rights. These things are fundamentally important. We all stand here and condemn violations of other countries. I would hope to think that every member here supports that the rights of Canadians are guaranteed. I think we should express concern when those rights come under threat. Yes, the notwithstanding clause exists in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, but to use it pre-emptively is to take away any debate, any discussion, any opportunity for the courts to step in and protect people's rights. There is an acknowledgement within the charter that our rights are not absolute. The classic example that we are taught in law school on freedom of expression or freedom of speech is that we cannot yell “fire” in a crowded theatre. We would say that is understandable because it could lead to danger or harm; people could get killed. It is a criminal offence. The charter speaks to that in section 1 in terms of reasonable limits. It “guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.” The courts evaluate that through the Oakes test, and many a forest has been plowed down to make paper for all of the decisions on the Oakes test. As a society, as a court, we have moved back and forth on what those reasonable limits are; we are still debating what these limits are in a free and democratic society. Any government that steps up to invoke the notwithstanding clause is looking at section 1 and saying that our legislation is not reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society and that we need to put aside section 1 of the charter and the rest of it. This is surprising to me, as a lawyer and someone who likes to study history, as we look back and see these rights that have been hard fought and won. As I mentioned, the member was trying to compare the rights of the LGBT community to those people, I assume, who had to wear a mask during a plane ride or those of us who could not leave the country because there was a global pandemic. This is disgusting, but that is what happened. Those rights were hard fought over decades. We saw the Prime Minister stand and give an apology, and we could see the victims of government abuse targeted the LGBT community in this place. It took 40-plus years to acknowledge the trauma that a government inflicted upon them. It was moving and touching, but those rights were hard fought over decades to come back and ensure that those rights are now enshrined in the charter. Even though it does not say “members of the LGBT community”, we know, and the court has found those rights in section 15. This is an important debate, and I hope all members of this house stand for the rights of this country and for the rights that can be reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

1200 words

All Topics

Mr. Tako Van Popta (Langley—Aldergrove, CPC)

Feb/9/23 4:23:42 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as I was listening to the speech from the parliamentary secretary, I do not know if I am amused or confused. At a time when Canadians are hurting so much because of inflation, the cost-of-living crisis and interest rates going up, when people in my community are worried about how they are going to put food on the table and how they are going to make their mortgage payments now that they are doubling, why are we having this phony constitutional crisis between the Liberals and the Bloc Québécois? I do not believe that this is foremost. What does the parliamentary secretary have to say about focusing on the things that really matter to Canadians?

123 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/9/23 4:24:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is sad that the hon. member does not think that the rights of Canadians should be front and centre, but it is not up to the government what supply motions get debated. I would not think it would be front and centre to make pollution free in this country, but the hon. member stood up and voted to make pollution free and try to pass that up. It is the seventh time the Conservatives have done it in this Parliament. They think it is a joke that people are dying in floods and fires. They were telling jokes the other day about making hydroelectricity from atmospheric rivers—

111 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 4:24:49 p.m.
Watch

There is a point of order by the hon. member for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake.

16 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge

Feb/9/23 4:24:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, as the member of Parliament for Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, a community that has had devastating fires, I do not think it is funny to be politicizing tragedy no matter where it is and—

38 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 4:25:11 p.m.
Watch

That is not a point of order; it is debate. The hon. parliamentary secretary can finish his answer.

18 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/9/23 4:25:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that is the member who yelled out when I spoke about making pollution free, so I think she should look her own constituents in the face and talk about jokes in this place.

35 words

Mr. Luc Thériault (Montcalm, BQ)

Feb/9/23 4:25:34 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about one of the greatest minds in multiculturalism, Will Kymlicka. Regarding the Quebec nation and its desire to have access to certain tools, such as the notwithstanding clause, Kymlicka wrote: “Had Quebec not been guaranteed these substantial powers—and hence protected from the possibility of being outvoted on key issues by the larger anglophone population—it is certain that Quebec either would not have joined Canada in 1867 or would have seceded sometime thereafter.”

89 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/9/23 4:26:16 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the protection of the French language is fundamentally important, both for Quebec as a language minority within the country of Canada and for language minorities, especially francophone minorities, in other parts of the country. However, I would again point to the notwithstanding clause acknowledgement of a law that is not reasonably and demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. They are the words of the legislation; they are the words of the Constitution. That is something we really should take note of and be aware of when we are standing up to support that.

97 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/9/23 4:26:49 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, a lot of my colleague's discussion today focused on human rights, which, of course, is very important to me. I do wonder why the government has not taken the opportunity to push for human rights for people around the world. The people of Afghanistan have been waiting for a very long time for the government to do a humanitarian carve-out. It has been promising this for 18 months. If Liberals really do believe in human rights, why are they not pushing for that?

87 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/9/23 4:27:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am a little confused by the question. The member is thoughtful on issues of human rights, but on the issue of Afghanistan, this government is bringing in tens of thousands of refugees, acknowledging the suffering that is going on there. There are no Canadian soldiers on the ground. There are no Canadian Forces on the ground. It is difficult and challenging, but we will get there, not only in terms of Afghanistan but also for Uighurs, in the powerful motion moved by my hon. friend from the Liberal Party, and for Ukrainians. Canada is there. Canada is known around the world as a fighter for human rights, and we will keep doing that as a government.

119 words

Mrs. Laila Goodridge (Fort McMurray—Cold Lake, CPC)

Feb/9/23 4:28:04 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to start by saying on this side of the House, Conservatives believe in supporting provincial jurisdiction and provincial competences, and I am very proud to be an Albertan. In Alberta, Peter Lougheed was initially one of the big fighters for this clause to protect provincial rights. Albertans have been exceptionally clear that they do not support a carbon tax, and yet the government has decided to overrule that time and time again and continue to push forward its ideas. The Liberals are the only ones provoking and stoking a constitutional crisis in this country.

98 words

Mr. Chris Bittle

Feb/9/23 4:28:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, it is very clear the hon. member has not read it, or she would know that the carbon tax has nothing to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

32 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 157