SoVote

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

Mr. Mario Simard (Jonquière, BQ)

Feb/9/23 4:28:54 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, first, I would like to mention that I will be splitting my time with the mischievous member for Mirabel. Now let us talk about the notwithstanding clause. I began by wondering why the Prime Minister wanted to restrict the use of the notwithstanding clause. When he came out and said that, the Prime Minister seemed to use his desire to protect individual rights as an excuse. He was talking about what Doug Ford had done to fight the unions. I would point out, by the way, that the outcry from the people of Ontario quickly caused Mr. Ford to back down. Individual rights are being used as an excuse. It is kind of funny, though, because I think the only people in Canadian history who have had their individual rights really trampled on are the Quebeckers in 1970. The War Measures Act came along and trampled on the rights of Quebeckers. People were arrested in the middle of the night for the simple fact, the simple offence, of being sovereignists. They arrested Gaston Miron, a Quebec poet, in the middle of the night. When the federal government talks about respect for individual rights, we have some reason to have misgivings. We are also talking about minority rights. The use of the notwithstanding clause troubles the federal government because it could contravene minority rights. This is where I want to stop, because the crux of the problem is really about minority rights. It is important to understand this, and to understand which minority we are talking about. The crux of the problem is, in my opinion, quite simple; it is one of identity. What really troubles the federal government is that the notwithstanding clause allows Quebeckers to maintain their collective identity, which is different from that of Canadians, and some find that difficult to hear. To illustrate this, I will go back to something quite simple. How did this dispute come about? To better understand this, we have to go back to 1963, when the federal government realized that something like a national identity was beginning to develop in Quebec. What did the federal government do in response? It created the Laurendeau-Dunton commission, a commission on bilingualism and biculturalism. The commission's objective was to formally recognize the Quebec nation. Canada was to become a bilingual and bicultural country. However, there were people who started to think. They figured that if Quebeckers were offered recognition, then they would not stop there. They would continue their journey toward self-government. As a result, Trudeau senior had the ingenious idea of saying that Canada, which could become a bilingual country, should instead become a multicultural country. By recognizing all the cultures, we actually do not recognize any. All of the cultures are drowning in the Canadian mosaic. No culture takes precedence over any another. That was the first snub against Quebec. That is the first time that the federal government turned its back on Quebec during an exercise that it initiated when Quebec was participating in good faith and prepared to listen to the federal government's proposals. The commission report ended up leading to multiculturalism, more specifically, institutional multiculturalism. I want to emphasize that term because I am going to talk about multiculturalism as a theory. What does institutional multiculturalism mean? It means that, as a country, Canada recognizes the plurality of cultures, a mosaic of cultures and that no culture takes priority over any other. That means that Quebeckers' unique culture is not recognized. It began in 1963. The federal government abandoned Quebeckers, who have a distinct culture and who, by virtue of the fact that they are a national minority, need certain measures to reinforce their place in federal institutions and ensure their survival as a people. The federal government abandoned them because it did not want to implement such measures. Finally, the notwithstanding clause is used, in Quebec, as protection. Likewise, in Canada, the Canadian Constitution, which has evolved, allows people from ethnocultural minorities to ask for reasonable accommodation. This has been recognized. An ethnocultural minority can be exempt from the law by asking for a reasonable accommodation. This was the case in the Multani decision, which dealt with a young man who wanted to wear his kirpan to school. The same holds true for a national minority. The notwithstanding clause can be invoked to protect important elements of their identity, for example, Bill 21 on secularism and Bill 96 on language. That is what is bothering this Liberal government. That is what it wants to regulate. It wants to ensure that Quebec does not have the tools to preserve its identity forever. That is because the only worthwhile identity according to the federal government is the pan-Canadian identity. Quebeckers should be Canadians like everyone else, a nation no more. My colleagues have surely heard that the Prime Minister has often used the idea that Canada is the first post-national country. I am not sure he understands what that is, but let us not be mean-spirited. In the same breath, he chirps about recognizing all first nations. I recognize the first nations, they exist. I want to see more of them, their expression, I want their languages to be protected. I understand the need for sensitivity about this. If we are a post-national country, how can we recognize the first nations but not recognize the Quebec nation? I keep asking myself that. The explanation is really quite simple. The fear is that the Quebec nation will overshadow the Canadian nation and that it will ask for more autonomy. I will prove it by discussing a very interesting theory developed by Canadian philosopher Will Kymlicka. Will Kymlicka has worked on multiculturalism for a long time—not institutional multiculturalism, which developed in the 1960s in Canada, but multiculturalism as a liberal theory. He says that there are two types of minorities that require protection. There are the ethnocultural minorities—the Jews, the Greeks, the Turks, might as well list them all, the Muslims—who, in multicultural countries, need to have some form of protection. This protection comes through the recognition they are given. This is essential and I agree. We must offer recognition to ethnic minorities. That recognition can sometimes take the form of reasonable accommodation and acknowledgement that their particular identity is valid. Will Kymlicka also says, however, that there are not just ethnic minorities, there are also national minorities. That is where the problem lies. When Will Kymlicka talks about multiculturalism and says that there are national minorities, he says that those national minorities, in order to survive, need political autonomy, autonomos in Greek, or the power to create one's own laws. Impressive, no? How can we define a collective identity if we cannot make our own laws? That makes it really difficult. Will Kymlicka says that ethnocultural minorities need recognition and national minorities need political autonomy. However, the federal government does not want political autonomy for Quebec. That is why it sees the notwithstanding clause as an abomination. The government is even distorting the rationale behind the notwithstanding clause by saying that it is becoming a threat to individual rights and a threat to minorities, when it actually allows the Quebec national minority to preserve its identity. Bill 21 is an essential part of Quebec's collective identity. Our relationship to religion is different. The secularization of Quebec society during the Quiet Revolution is one of the founding myths of Quebec's identity. My father's mother had 18 children. Does anybody know anyone who has 18 children these days? My grandmother passed away a long time ago, but if we could ask her how she feels about religion, I am not sure she would have a positive view. Quebec was built on this collective psyche. It is a reality that must be accepted, just as it must be accepted that the purpose of Bill 96 is to protect a minority language in North America as a whole. Now this government and all the Liberal MPs from English-speaking Quebec are saying that Bill 96 will bully minorities. The English-speaking population of Quebec represents 8% of the total population but receives 30% of the funding for post-secondary institutions. If this is bullying minorities, I would love to be bullied in Canada.

1398 words

All Topics

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

Feb/9/23 4:39:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, in listening to the member, one would think the primary motivation for the motion we have today from the Bloc is to talk about division and try to plant and continue to grow a seed of division inside the province of Quebec. The example I have been talking about is the Province of Ontario. I did not even make reference to Quebec. Ontario took a pre-emptive measure by using the notwithstanding clause to take advantage of labour unions, which affected thousands of teachers. I am arguing that the federal government has a responsibility, and all the Bloc wants to talk about is the notwithstanding clause only applying or being utilized in the province of Quebec. Every member of the Liberal caucus has a love and passion for the province of Quebec that is just as great as that of the member opposite. The member sees Quebec in a different light. I see the province of Quebec as a very unique province that adds so much to our Canadian heritage, but what we are talking about—

179 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

Feb/9/23 4:40:33 p.m.
Watch

I am sorry to the hon. member. I have to cut him off here because I have to allow for other questions. The hon. member for Jonquière.

29 words

Jonqui
Sorry

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/9/23 4:40:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary is proving me right, because he is using the exact pretext I was talking about earlier. Let us talk about what the notwithstanding clause is really for. In 1977, when Bill 101 came into force, everyone in Canada was complaining that it was disgusting and terrible and that the act needed to be repealed. Today, no one would go against what Bill 101 stands for. We know full well that it helped protect the French language. In 20 or 30 years, maybe other governments will follow Quebec's example and pass secularism laws, just like they did 20 years later with child care. That being said, the notwithstanding clause helped the French fact survive. I would like people to stop deflecting the debate by saying that Doug Ford used the notwithstanding clause to hassle the unions. What we want in the future is to have this tool available so that a nation, the only francophone nation in North America, can ensure its survival.

168 words

Ms. Heather McPherson (Edmonton Strathcona, NDP)

Feb/9/23 4:41:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I think all of us in this place recognize that Canadians are struggling on a number of fronts right now. There is a health care crisis in this country. There is an affordability crisis in this country. There is a climate crisis in this country. I am wondering if the member thought this was the most important thing the Bloc could bring forward to represent the wishes of his constituents.

72 words

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/9/23 4:42:18 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, that question is a classic. It is a classic Conservative move to say now is not the time to be debating this. When we talk about Quebec, it is never the right time. The speech given by her colleague this morning mentioned that. It is never the right time to talk about Quebec, it is never the time to use an opposition day to express Quebec's views. I would like to say to the member that we have had some futile debates. The most futile debate we have ever had in the House took place during the pandemic. We spent a day deciding if we should designate a day to celebrate oil in Canada. We have had some debates that were far more futile than a debate on ensuring the survival of a nation.

137 words

Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC)

Feb/9/23 4:43:02 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, certainly nobody on our side is questioning the importance of this particular debate, but it is important to understand the number of crises happening in this country. I think the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona hit the nail on the head. There are economic crises and constitutional crises that the Prime Minister is creating in order to distract from his many failures. These crises are happening right across the country as a result of the Prime Minister, and I am wondering if the hon. member would like to comment on the distraction tactics and the division created by the Prime Minister every time he gets in trouble.

109 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 157