44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 9, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/9/23 10:27:25 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, after reading the motion, I think I found an omission. The Bloc Québécois seems to have forgotten that the Parliament of Canada can also invoke the notwithstanding clause. It has never done so. I find it difficult to imagine a situation in which we would invoke that clause.
My question for the leader of the Bloc Québécois is this: Should his motion be corrected?
74 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:30:45 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, before asking my colleague a question, I would like to remind him of two things.
First, he does not have a monopoly on speaking for the Quebec nation. Fortunately, that honour is shared by many of my colleagues in the House. Second, I hope that he also shares the vision of the French philosopher Camus, who reminded us that democracy is not the law of the majority, but the protection of the minority. I am sure that his colleague from Jonquière reminds him of that from time to time.
With respect to invoking the notwithstanding clause, there have been several cases of misuse in recent years. We saw that in Saskatchewan and Ontario recently. The government attacked the unions and workers' rights by pre-emptively and inappropriately invoking the notwithstanding clause.
Does my colleague agree with me that, as progressives, our first duty is to set guidelines for the use of the notwithstanding clause in order to prevent attacks on workers' right to freedom of association and to collective bargaining?
174 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:35:12 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the notwithstanding clause has been used many times, in particular with respect to the agricultural succession act, the Employment Equity Act, small claims court and the youth court, without anyone having thought to ask the Supreme Court to rule on the notwithstanding clause. Turning to the Supreme Court becomes an option when Quebec wants to defend its culture, its differences, its nation and its values.
Is that not highly discriminatory? I would like my colleague to speak to that.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:37:28 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, can I have another 20 minutes?
Even I was still young in 1982, which is when the Constitution was imposed, shoved down the throats of Quebeckers and the René Lévesque government, after the common front shown by the provinces broke down on several issues, as it would do later on.
No, there is no legitimacy whatsoever. The notwithstanding clause is the only part of the Constitution that does anything to help preserve who we are and who we have a right to be.
88 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:48:09 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, does my colleague not think that using the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively will save many years of unnecessary litigation to reach the same conclusion further down the road? Would she not agree that our position is actually quite reasonable?
What we are asking Parliament to do is simple. We are asking it to at least respect what is set out in the contract that it shoved down our throats in 1982.
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 10:48:41 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as I have said many times, of course the notwithstanding clause can be used, but when it is used pre-emptively, that does not allow the courts and legislators to have the dialogue that is necessary in a free and democratic society.
My colleague appears to be defending clauses in the Constitution while at the same time challenging its legitimacy. He needs to take a position. Either he supports the Constitution or he does not.
The Bloc Québécois cannot have it both ways.
89 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:00:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am a bit mystified. We are talking about a very solemn issue, the rights and freedoms of Canadians, and how those rights and freedoms can be maintained within a democratic framework, which includes the potential use of the notwithstanding clause, yet the member is bringing in a discussion about economic interests. I do not see the relevance.
60 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- 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!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:02:32 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, that is a good question, and I appreciate it. However, we know that the court's decisions evolve over time, depending on the circumstances and how society has changed.
Of course, I respect the Supreme Court's decisions. As I said in my speech, I have never supported the use of the notwithstanding clause by this Parliament. I respect the views of the court, but I would like to hear more from my colleague on this matter.
80 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:03:20 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, from what I understand, my colleague from Lac-Saint-Louis is telling us that the notwithstanding clause is legal, that we are aware that it can be used, but that the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is problematic.
I would like my colleague to tell us about the comments and concerns he is hearing from his constituents in Lac-Saint-Louis so that we can justify our comments today on the Bloc Québécois motion.
83 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:13:34 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.
Speaking of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, I think he would be a bit disappointed to see the way his son is running the country today. That said, when we talk about using the notwithstanding clause, be it pre-emptively or reactively, the fact remains that its usefulness is clear. I believe that when the Prime Minister spoke of using the notwithstanding clause, it was just another way to divide Canadians, derail debate and create a diversion so people would forget the current economic problems and the way he has been running the country for the past eight years.
106 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:20:57 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am raising the issue of relevance. We are debating the notwithstanding clause, the Constitution and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There is all sorts of room in which the member could provide comment on that. I do not think the member has been even remotely relevant, unless he is suggesting that we use the notwithstanding clause for bail.
62 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:44:41 a.m.
- Watch
That is indeed a good example, Mr. Speaker. I remember that somewhat unfortunate episode involving Toronto city council where the misuse of the notwithstanding clause undermined the rights of Torontonians to have adequate or proper representation by what they considered a suitable number of city councillors. Was that what the provincial representatives intended when, in 1982, they called for a notwithstanding clause to be able to occasionally be exempted from the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I do not believe this was their intent.
It is fine, in my opinion, to have this discussion today on the conditions for its use. Is there a real and urgent need? Is it for the greater good or is it being abused to erode fundamental rights?
Let us have this discussion. We should not be afraid to have it.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:45:48 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, my colleague finished his speech by saying that this issue is bigger than Quebec, and he is absolutely right. What he is failing to acknowledge or address is that this issue of the use of the notwithstanding clause quite often stems from the Prime Minister.
The use of the notwithstanding clause has spiked since 2017, and the common denominator is the very divisive Prime Minister, yet this member continues to prop the Prime Minister up. I am wondering if the member, at any point in time, will withdraw his support for this tired and corrupt Liberal government so we can address the issues affecting Canadians.
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:48:31 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I do not think my colleague really listened to my speech. I said right off the bat that I think using the notwithstanding clause to support the Charter of the French Language and Quebeckers' right to live in French is appropriate. I want to reiterate that.
I am kind of surprised to hear my Bloc Québécois colleague say that we cannot stand for a government of judges, because that is essentially the argument that Stephen Harper's Conservatives used and that the Republican Party often uses. Anyone who supports the rights of Quebeckers must also support their right to freedom of association and free collective bargaining. I find it passing strange that the former president of the Centrale des syndicats du Québec has no problem with the idea of using the notwithstanding clause to attack unions.
144 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:59:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his well-presented speech on the notwithstanding clause and in particular the impact it has had on LGBTQI rights.
I know that last year, in the U.S., we saw Roe v. Wade get overturned. It has been highly problematic, and not just in the U.S. Many Canadians are quite worried about the impact this will have on rights in Canada.
I wonder if the member could speak to the potential of the notwithstanding clause being used pre-emptively and in the wrong way with respect to abortion rights in Canada.
99 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:01:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech.
I am a little surprised to hear him and some other members, including the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, say that people on the left are always ready to defend all diversities, diverse expressions and minorities.
Wanting to limit Quebec's right to defend its differences is what we are talking about this morning. That is what the notwithstanding clause is all about. Quebec is a nation, which has been recognized in this place. It has a different language and a different way of life. The Bloc Québécois has to stand up for this distinctiveness day after day after day.
With this morning's motion, we are once again trying to say that this right is enshrined in law and we are tired of being attacked all the time. We are not the same, and we want to keep it that way. We want to safeguard our ability to defend Quebec's distinctiveness. That is all.
172 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:02:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the only thing I can say to that is there is an internal contradiction in the argument that was made when the member said that Quebec's recognition as a nation and Quebec's rights are enshrined. They are in this country, and they are recognized by virtually everyone in this chamber. I am not sure how the reference to the need for a notwithstanding clause has anything to do with the rights that are already recognized and enshrined when it comes to Quebec.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:04:10 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one thing this debate does today is allow us to bring public attention to the fact that this was never the way the notwithstanding clause was intended to operate, and to remind Canadians that we have to be vigilant to protect our rights and have to be vigilant in making sure that suspending rights does not become the normal course of action for certain governments in this country.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:14:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Minister of Justice clearly indicated that the government had concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. The provinces should be convinced that their laws comply with the charter. We have serious concerns about the clause being used in this way.
I would like to ask my colleague if he agrees with Doug Ford's use of the notwithstanding clause last fall.
67 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
