44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 9, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/9/23 12:16:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, is the member then suggesting that if a provincial jurisdiction decides to use the notwithstanding clause for whatever it deems it wants to do, then Ottawa has absolutely no role to play, even if the citizens of the nation feel compelled that there should be some national leadership on an issue?
53 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:17:13 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question is this. If the federal government wants to bring the notwithstanding clause before the Supreme Court of Canada in order to amend it or limit its scope, is it not opening the door to renegotiating the Constitution?
41 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:28:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member,
When it comes to using the notwithstanding clause, where would he draw the line? What rights are fair game for violating and what rights would be off-limits?
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:29:07 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the only thing to do at this point is to throw my colleague from Trois-Rivières a softball.
He gave an excellent speech, I have to say. Perhaps my colleagues are not too eager to rise and speak because his speech was so eloquent and powerful.
I would like to ask him whether he thinks Quebec's specificity, distinct identity and way of living together in harmony could be preserved without the existence of the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Constitution.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:29:42 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Drummond for his question.
We feel very strongly about the notwithstanding clause in the 1982 Constitution, even though Quebec has still not ratified it. This provision has ensured our survival, our identity, our culture and our distinctiveness all this time. Without this provision, we would drown.
55 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:48:23 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is my turn to congratulate my Liberal colleague on his speech.
I asked my colleague from Trois-Rivières a question earlier, and I was expecting his answer. I will say that quite candidly.
I would like to ask my colleague opposite the same question. Quebec is recognized as a nation in its own right with its own language, culture, values and model for living in harmony, which is different. This model often needs to be defended because it is misunderstood and not always respected.
If this notwithstanding clause were not in the Constitution, which we did not sign, by the way, what would Quebec have left to protect its values and its vision for living in harmony?
I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about that.
135 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:02:31 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I want to pick up on my colleague's very last point where she talked about the pre-emptive nature. The example I have been providing is that of the province of Ontario with regard to labour issues that impacted literally thousands of labour people, people working in our teaching profession. Using a pre-emptive attitude toward the notwithstanding clause, I and many members of our caucus felt, was just wrong.
I wonder if she could expand upon her thoughts in regard to whether they are using the notwithstanding clause in that pre-emptive fashion.
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:03:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, as my colleague knows, I feel very strongly that, in that particular case, it was not an appropriate use of the notwithstanding clause. Those are basic fundamental rights of Canadians. A premier should, in my mind, need to respect those fundamental rights. When one brings in a piece of legislation, especially one that prevents teachers and workers in our education system from collectively bargaining, I feel that is a perfect example of why this is of such concern to us.
I hope the members of the Bloc Québécois share that concern, that need to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of our workers and their right to collective bargaining.
115 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:04:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague's speech. Time and time again, she talked about the importance and beauty of freedom and equality.
Indeed, I agree with that. Just because we use the notwithstanding clause does not mean that we undermine freedom. I will give an example. The law that created the Court of Quebec's youth division states that it is not open to the public. It discriminates between youth and adults, but that is precisely how we protect the youth.
Does the use of the notwithstanding clause in that case undermine the freedom, equity and beauty which can be observed in Quebec and the rest of Canada? Where does my colleague draw the line? For what subjects should a line be drawn?
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:05:16 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I do not pretend to know where to draw the line. I trust our court system for this. We have established case law. I believe, in cases like that, the wisdom of the court would see the beneficial effect of that.
Why use the notwithstanding clause? Why not put this forward and see if there is a challenge? If there is, let our courts decide.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:15:50 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the problem with the notwithstanding clause in recent years has been the pre-emptive use of it. I specifically think of the most recent example in Ontario where Doug Ford, the Premier of Ontario, used the notwithstanding clause to pre-emptively limit the ability for teachers to strike.
Bloc members will come into the House and quite often talk about how they encourage and are great supporters of the labour movement and of unions specifically. Would the member from the Bloc support the use of the notwithstanding clause by the Quebec government if it were doing what Doug Ford had done, which was to limit the rights of teachers to collectively bargain? I hope the member can answer that rather than—
124 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:25:55 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was reminding my hon. colleagues, who are having a discussion, that Quebec’s weight within this federation is shrinking steadily and that it is essential to preserve this democratic tool. That is what this is about. It is a democratic tool that is used regularly by the Quebec government.
I heard all sorts of things today. Members said that it was used in an exceptional way and that we needed to add some guidelines. The notwithstanding clause has been invoked for 41 acts in Quebec. That does not seem that exceptional to me.
Earlier, my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord listed some of those acts. I will repeat them quickly. Regarding the agricultural succession act, it was applied—
126 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:35:25 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, first I would like to ask the member what he is afraid of. Why does he seem to be afraid of having an open, democratic debate on the use of the notwithstanding clause down the road in a legislature in public, in front of the media?
I thought I heard him or someone else say earlier that this would not amount to anything, that too much money would be spent going to court only to arrive at the same conclusion.
My second question is, does the member want Quebeckers' rights to be determined by money?
97 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:52:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, every Canadian should be invested in this conversation, because the more the clause is used, the more normalized it becomes throughout the country, the more people are willing to accept it. If we do not denounce the use of it now and stand up against it, the problems will only be much greater later on.
57 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:06:12 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, René Lévesque did not want a notwithstanding clause in his Quebec charter. He was in favour of individual rights in principle, but as Premier of Quebec—and to provoke then prime minister Trudeau—he put the notwithstanding clause in several Quebec bills over the course of at least a year. It was primarily a political strategy. He was against the notwithstanding clause. He did not want one in his own charter.
78 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
