SoVote

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

Mr. Mario Simard

Feb/9/23 4:43:51 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, the member for Charlesbourg—Haute-Saint-Charles said this morning that he thought this debate was futile. This is what I would say to my colleague. If he wants to do something useful, he could tell us clearly whether the Conservative Party is for or against Bill 21 and Bill 96. I would like the Conservatives to tell us if they would challenge these laws in court if they were in power. By answering this question, the member would be doing something useful in connection with today's debate.

94 words

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes)

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

Order. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 38, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Spadina—Fort York, Infrastructure; and the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, Foreign Affairs.

47 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon (Mirabel, BQ)

Feb/9/23 4:44:43 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I am very pleased that you did not confuse me with the member for Jonquière, which would nonetheless have been a huge compliment. Furthermore, Madam Speaker, please accept my regards because today is an important day for me, a very special day that I never thought I would see. For years, the federal government, particularly the current Prime Minister, has told us that no one is interested in the Constitution, be they Quebeckers or Canadians, that constitutional debates are futile, that they are unimportant to our collective lives and, above all, that such things should not be discussed. Today we got his parliamentary secretary, but it got to the point where the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who is also, I presume, the minister for strife, came to tell us that we were looking for trouble by wanting to talk about the Constitution, a document we never signed and which is essentially the framework for this cohabitation within a federation to which I would obviously rather not belong. By trying to make this a matter for the courts and possibly requiring a Supreme Court ruling, what the Prime Minister is doing is unilaterally changing the Constitution. The Constitution is clear. As most legal experts have said, or at least most legal experts who are not Liberals in the House, the notwithstanding clause is, by definition, pre-emptive. That is why the Prime Minister keeps repeating the word “pre-emptive”, to try to make us believe that it was once otherwise. However, the case law is clear: The notwithstanding clause is pre-emptive. It exists precisely because of the current Prime Minister's behaviour. It is because of his paternalistic attitude and his tendency to tell Quebec what to do when he does not approve of the governments elected by Quebeckers. That is exactly why the notwithstanding clause exists, as a safety valve for the Quebec government and provincial governments. Obviously, the Prime Minister is not a courageous man. He is a fraud. He has no courage. It took him 28 months to meet with the health ministers. The Prime Minister will never have the courage to say that he wants to reopen the Constitution. He will let the Supreme Court do his dirty work because it is win-win for him. The Supreme Court will likely say that he is wrong, but there is a small chance that the Supreme Court will create a loophole like it has done in the past because of the judges that the Prime Minister himself appointed. Today's debate is not on the notwithstanding clause. It is a debate about the Prime Minister's ego and his desire to dictate conditions to Quebec. It is a debate on this individual's ego. We are seeing it again in his desire to unilaterally rewrite the Constitution. He thinks he is above the law. He was born with a silver spoon in his mouth, and he sees no difference between himself, the Constitution, the law and institutions. This is the Prime Minister who caused the WE Charity scandal because he did not know the difference between the government, business, family and friends or between his bank account, the government's bank account and the public purse. This is the Prime Minister who does not know, when he visits the Aga Khan, whether he is on vacation or on official business, and who does not know which bank account the expenses come out of. This is the Prime Minister who pays thousands and thousands of dollars for hotel rooms with gold faucets when he goes to see the monarchy. This is the Prime Minister who fired the minister over the SNC-Lavalin affair because he does not even like to see his own ministers obeying the law. It is surprising that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner's office does not have a chair with the Prime Minister's name on it. It is one scandal after another with him. That is why today's debate is about the Prime Minister's ego. It is also a debate on the collective rights of Quebeckers that we want to initiate. Let us not forget that Quebeckers never signed a single Constitution. They never signed on the dotted line of any Constitution and they were subjugated. In 1763, the first Constitution of this monarchy, which we celebrate and commemorate with the mace that lies before us, was imposed on us by force to assimilate us. Later, during the American Revolution, there was the Constitution of 1744, which granted us some rights because our love for the British was so great that they were afraid we would fight alongside the Americans. They used us, essentially, and turned our rights against us. They gave us some, but only so they could come back more forcefully with the Constitutional Act, 1791, in which they never gave us responsible government, and in which they banned English from the public service because they took us for granted. That is not even close to what happened with the Constitution of 1840. After the Patriotes rebellion, the monarchy and English Canada committed crimes against humanity in my own riding. They committed murder and rape and caused destruction with no apology or tears of any kind from the Prime Minister, even though we know he rarely misses an opportunity to turn on the waterworks. The Constitution of 1840 was based on the Durham report, which said that French Canadians were a people with no history, no culture and no literature. That is what they thought of us and that is what they still think of us. I do not know if Lord Durham is looking down on us today, but I wonder what he would think about Canadian culture if he could see Don Cherry on Hockey Night in Canada on Saturday nights making francophobic comments that cause a backlash, but only in Quebec. What a rich culture Canada has. That being said, the Constitution of 1867 is even worse. We did not sign the Constitution of 1867. Canada was the reject of the western world because England did not want it and neither did the United States. Some people got together, held two short conferences and created a confederation. There was never any democratic process. They went to England to impose this on us. The group was led by John A. Macdonald, a francophobic racist and Orangeman. He was an anti-French racist who spent his career working against francophones. That is how Canada was born. That is what the country is built on. In 1982, the Constitution was patriated. The notion of parliamentary sovereignty came up again at that time. It was then that it became important to protect the sovereignty of Parliament in the jurisdictions of the provinces and Quebec. Do members know who asked for this clause? It was British Columbia, Alberta and Saskatchewan. We would have likely asked for it too, but we were not there on the night of the long knives, the night the Constitution was forced on us. The Constitution was signed without us. I understand that members find it strange to see us defending the Constitution. To hear the Liberals talk, they made one mistake, and that was giving Quebec rights, because this preserved the sovereignty of the Quebec Parliament. When they do something good for Quebec, they consider it a mistake. I can guarantee that I am not going to develop Stockholm syndrome anytime soon. The great Canadian constitutional scholar Henri Brun said: “In English Canada, the refrain is 'Charter, Charter, Charter.' It has become the symbol of the Canadian nation. The Charter attempts to put individual rights ahead of collective rights and transfers decision-making power from politicians to judges. This concept is stronger in English Canada than in Quebec.” That is what we are seeing today. Peter Russell, a professor emeritus at the University of Toronto, says the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is still interpreted by judges, who are fallible and can make mistakes. Professor Russell says it is right that elected representatives have the final say on major decisions, but that does not mean the clause should be used willy-nilly. This demonstrates the fact that Parliament must be sovereign. What does all of today's debate remind us of? What can we conclude? It is that the constitutional history of Canada, from its beginnings to the present day, is the history of English Canada asking itself the following fundamental question: How do we manage this francophone people whom we colonized, crushed and attempted to assimilate by taking away its cultural symbols, including its very name, les Canadiens, so as to prevent it ever becoming fully independent? What the Liberals are doing with the notwithstanding clause is the same as usual. It is despicable. They are trying to rewrite the rules in a cowardly, roundabout way. We Quebeckers have fought to be able to emancipate ourselves. We have been fixated on freedom for hundreds of years. We will never give up the fight.

1520 words

All Topics

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

Feb/9/23 4:54:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this should not be a debate about the province of Quebec. This should be a debate about the notwithstanding clause, the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, and the arguments for or against it. The example I use continually is that of the Province of Ontario and the teachers' union. I would be interested in the member's thoughts regarding the Bloc's position concerning the notwithstanding clause being used in a pre-emptive manner against the teachers' union. Could the member also explain why René Lévesque himself did not incorporate a notwithstanding clause in the Quebec charter when he was the premier?

109 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/9/23 4:55:27 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, what Ontario does is its own business and the same goes for Alberta. We do not like the government's habit of wanting to stick its nose where it does not belong, so I am not going to start doing the same thing. As I said before, today's debate was actually initiated by the Prime Minister. It is the Prime Minister himself who wants to go before the courts when we are dealing with inflation and people are struggling. It is the Prime Minister himself who started all this. Today's debate is about the lack of courage of the Prime Minister, who is unable to look Canadians and Quebeckers in the eye, unable to talk openly about the Constitution and unable to do things properly. The Prime Minister's father had his faults, but at least he had courage. Clearly, the Prime Minister did not inherit all of his father's qualities.

156 words

Mr. Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona, NDP)

Feb/9/23 4:56:22 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, while I disagree with it, the member can be of the opinion that he does not have a comment on what just happened in Ontario, and he can say that it should not be for others to have an opinion on what happens in Quebec. However, the notwithstanding clause is something that could be used not only by any provincial government, and this is not mentioned in the motion, but also by the federal government. How governments choose to use it in one jurisdiction will affect what is permissible politically, legally or otherwise in other jurisdictions. It is not quite right to say that it does not matter how various governments are using the notwithstanding clause because it will matter, with social licence and political licence and ultimately in legal precedent of how various jurisdictions have used it. It would perhaps create the opportunity for certain uses of the notwithstanding clause that the member cannot currently imagine. There are those of us who think it matters, and not just in how a particular province uses it. I imagine Bloc members could have some serious concerns with the possible uses of the notwithstanding clause by the federal government, so we need to appreciate that it does matter how it is used in various jurisdictions and that there are real impacts in other jurisdictions.

224 words

Mr. Jean-Denis Garon

Feb/9/23 4:57:46 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, this is an attempt to hijack the debate. I, for one, have problems with all kinds of laws, from a moral standpoint. There are laws that are passed in other Canadian provinces, in Quebec, in other countries and just about everywhere that I disagree with, whether they use the notwithstanding clause or not. The precedents my colleague refers to come from trying to revoke the unconditional nature of the notwithstanding clause and add additional layers of interpretation, even though the Supreme Court has already been very clear. The sovereignty of parliaments comes with the possibility that those parliaments will make mistakes. It also comes with the possibility that voters will sack governments that make mistakes.

118 words

Mr. Mario Beaulieu (La Pointe-de-l'Île, BQ)

Feb/9/23 4:58:39 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I congratulate my colleague on his speech. I believe, and I think he said something similar, that the notwithstanding clause is a kind of defence against the tyranny of the Canadian majority. As long as Quebec is not independent, we are a minority. We had a Constitution imposed on us against our will, and we often have an Official Languages Act imposed on us against our will. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.

80 words

SoVote

House Hansard - 157