SoVote

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

May/23/24 1:47:24 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her question. This is a good example of what the Constitution says. There was no Internet when the Constitution was created, when the federal system was created. All new powers belong to the federal government, and for once, the government acted with respect for jurisdictions. For once, the federal government handed over the money to Quebec, and it was a victory for the Bloc Québécois. As a result, Quebec became the province with the best connectivity in Canada. Thanks to the Bloc Québécois, which pressured the federal government into accepting its responsibilities and sending money to Quebec so that it could do what needed to be done, everything was resolved.

125 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

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

May/23/24 3:51:38 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the member focused a great deal of his speech on the constitutional element. I want to go back to the constituents he represents. Does the member believe that the dental program that is in place, the school food program that is being rolled out and pharmacare, which is going to provide medication for people with diabetes, are programs the member will not support because of his position with respect to the Constitution? Would he deny his constituents those program benefits?

87 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Rhéal Éloi Fortin

May/23/24 3:54:07 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we do not want discussions. There is nothing to negotiate in the Constitution. It has been signed for 150 years. It is important to remember that. Everyone should reread it and it should be respected. Health is a provincial jurisdiction. The government needs to transfer the money to Quebec, the provinces and the territories, and stop meddling in areas that are none of its business. That way, there will be no more bickering. Let us stop wasting time and be efficient. People will love us. They will love the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, me and all my colleagues in the House.

110 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Alexandre Boulerice (Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, NDP)

May/23/24 4:09:51 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, we wanted to improve the motion that was moved earlier. I moved an amendment to reaffirm the principle of co-operative federalism, where the federal government must work with the provinces in a way that respects the jurisdictions recognized in the Constitution, and to demand that the government work co-operatively with all levels to meet the needs of citizens while systematically offering Quebec the right to opt out unconditionally whenever the federal government interferes in its jurisdiction. At the end, the amendment proposed that we recognize the fact that 600,000 seniors in Quebec have already registered for dental care and that labour groups welcome the development of a universal public pharmacare plan. That is a fact. His House leader refused to accept the amendments I moved. Which parts does he not agree with?

137 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Denis Trudel (Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, BQ)

May/23/24 4:21:43 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, what we are hearing here is shocking. Earlier, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie said that the Bloc Québécois is the party that cares the most about the Constitution. I almost died laughing. It is not about caring about the Constitution; it is about efficiency. My colleague just talked about housing. She said things are going well with Quebec. People are talking and listening to each other. When the big, important national housing strategy was launched in 2017, it took three years for the government to release those funds and start building housing in Quebec. The housing accelerator fund came along in 2022. The $1.8‑billion agreement with Quebec—$900 million from Quebec and $900 million from Ottawa—took two years to negotiate. In the meantime, money was being spent all over Quebec. Yesterday, the Parliamentary Budget Officer said that the national housing strategy was supposed to cut chronic homelessness in half. Well, it has doubled in the past five years. If the government's measures were working, we would know it. I would like to know what my colleague thinks of what the Parliamentary Budget Officer said yesterday about how it would take an extra $3.5 billion a year to solve Canada's homelessness problem.

219 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Hon. Arif Virani

May/23/24 7:09:29 p.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-63

Mr. Speaker, I find this line of questioning quite fascinating, given that the main charter issue that is at issue in Bill C-63 deals with very sensitive issues about the protection of freedom of speech, which is protected under section 2(b). What I will do is always maintain my oath under the Constitution to uphold the Constitution and people's charter rights. This individual works under a leader who has brandished the idea of using the notwithstanding clause to deprive people of their charter rights. Section 2(b) is subject to the notwithstanding clause. If we are talking about who is actually committed to protecting people's freedoms, including freedom of speech, people on that side of the House should be looking at themselves in the mirror.

129 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Hon. Arif Virani (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, Lib.)

May/23/24 9:15:03 p.m.
Watch

Madam Chair, I want to make two clarifications. The study on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights generated a report from the committee on December 7 of last year. In addition, what the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo was asking was quite troubling, because the notion that a sitting attorney general would appear in live court during the middle of a criminal proceeding would, in my view, raise a very significant concern about undue influence and possibly efforts to influence the outcome of a proceeding. That would be entirely untoward and inappropriate. With respect to the question presented by the member for Niagara, what is troubling about even floating the idea of invocation of the notwithstanding clause is that it presents a spectre where the charter and the rights and freedoms contained therein are an inconvenience that needs to be overcome. The fact that they would be cavalierly overcome by a man who is the leader of the official opposition, who would purportedly claim the role of prime minister one day, is very troubling. It would set a precedent, as it has never been done in the history of this country. It would also demonstrate a real disregard for the important interests that Canadians have in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself. Why do I say that? It is because the charter protects fundamental things, such as the free expressive rights that we have been talking about in the context of the online safety bill, which are protected under section 2B; freedom of religion, which is so preciously at stake right now when we are dealing with so much troubling anti-Semitism; the ability to peacefully assemble, which is protected under section 2 of the charter; and our rights to equality and our rights to basic presumptions of innocence. If the Leader of the Opposition would so cavalierly use the notwithstanding clause to trump basic presumptions about innocence, it raises a lot of questions for Canadians, including those who are watching right now: In what other ways would he use it? Section 7 protects a woman's right to have an abortion in this country. Section 15 protects such things as equality rights in terms of gay marriage. Would he use it in those regards? I do not know the answer to these questions. However, as Minister of Justice and as guardian of the Constitution and the rights and freedoms contained therein, I am very troubled. Our position as a government, our position as a party, is clear. We created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we stand by it; that means every right and freedom contained therein. Canadians need to know what we stand for and what the official opposition stands for.

457 words

Context: House Hansard - 316 - May/23/24

Mr. Charles Sousa

May/23/24 9:54:23 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, protecting our Constitution is critical, and I hope all in this House share that same concern. Could the minister elaborate or give us a sense of what it was previously? Did the former Conservative government have the same engagement with the indigenous community in order to make things right, in order to collaborate and promote their engagement in our society and their prosperity?

65 words