SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 157

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 9, 2023 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23
Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)
  • Feb/9/23 11:01:33 a.m.
  • Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank our colleague for his speech. It is interesting to hear our Liberal colleagues talk about how they see the notwithstanding clause and what they think of it, but it is kind of pointless because the Supreme Court has already ruled on the matter a number of times, including in Ford in 1988, when it said the National Assembly has complete freedom to put the notwithstanding clause in any law it passes if it wants to. It can do so pre-emptively without waiting for a court to overturn the law first. Supreme Court decisions always run a bit long, so I will leave it at those two statements in the 1988 Supreme Court ruling in Ford. Does my colleague think his opinion and his government's opinion take precedence over a Supreme Court decision? Could we not just go with what the highest court in the land has already decided?
154 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23
Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)
  • 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!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 157 - Feb/9/23
Mr. Martin Champoux (Drummond, BQ)
  • 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!
  • star_border