Francis Scarpaleggia

[Online Streaming Act, March 9th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, the member and the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent before him said that this bill would give the government the right to dictate algorithms to streaming services, but subclause 9.1(8) of the bill says very clearly, “The Commission shall not make an order under paragraph (1)(e) that would require the use of a specific computer algorithm or source code.” It is here in black and white.

Why is the member engaging in a kind of relativism? No, it is not relativism, it is fantasy. Why is he engaging in fantasy about what is in this bill?

[Online Streaming Act, March 8th, 2023]

Madam Speaker, I listened intently to the member's speech, and I must say I found the first couple of minutes rather engaging and rigorous. It included an enunciation of principles. I did not agree with the suppositions and the line of argument, but it had rigour. Then, of course, the member lost me when she started comparing Canada to North Korea. I do not think anyone lends credence to that kind of argument.

I also found there were contradictions in the member's speech. She said the cybersphere is limitless, where everyone has a voice, and that is absolutely true. One cannot suppress the Internet, so how can one even begin to think that it could be censored? Second, the member says that Canadian culture does not need support, that it should survive on its own and that it can survive on its own, yet if we look at all the feature films that make it to the Oscars, if we look at the end of the credits, there is funding from government agencies and there are tax credits to make sure the films are done here, and that is how we are supporting Canadian culture, too.

[National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act, March 8th, 2023]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-317, An Act to establish a national strategy respecting flood and drought forecasting.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to table a bill to address a problem that has caused severe environmental damage across different parts of this country and created enormous financial loss for individuals, insurance companies and governments at all levels. I am talking about flooding and drought, as well as the need to take advantage of the latest technological advances and opportunities to ensure that Canada has at its disposal the most accurate flood and drought prediction systems in the world.

My bill is calling on the government to create a national flood and drought forecasting strategy in co-operation with the provinces, indigenous communities and other relevant stakeholders.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

[Business of Supply, February 14th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I am trying to understand, and maybe the member could help me by telling me how putting food on the table during a crisis, how helping Alberta get oil to tidewater, how lowering child care costs and how providing dental care to children is contributing to inflation.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

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?

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for her question. I think it basically goes without saying that many of my constituents are very concerned about what seems to be an increasingly common use of this provision as a preventive measure. It is indeed a issue of concern in my riding.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

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.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

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.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to start by talking about this big, beautiful country we call Canada, a country blessed with a diverse abundance of riches that make us the envy of the world.

Take hydroelectricity from Quebec, for example. It not only meets our energy needs and heats our homes, but it also supplies energy to our neighbours in Ontario and New York State, in the U.S. We also grow wheat and other crops that help feed our planet. We even produce oil that is used to manufacture medical supplies and that continues to heat our homes during our transition to a cleaner, greener economy. Lastly, our waterways nourish our ecosystems and serve as transportation routes for our resources and our intermediate and finished products headed for markets in North America and overseas.

However, a country's real strength lies in its citizens' values. Here in Canada, Canadians, including Quebeckers, value community spirit and co-operation. They also espouse democratic values. These values translate to, among other things, a profound attachment to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution. Whether in British Columbia, Prince Edward Island, Quebec or Ontario, Canadians across the country are tenacious about asserting their rights and freedoms, regardless of what governments may do from time to time.

Consider, for example, the late Nicole Gladu, who invoked the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution to assert her right to medical assistance in dying. I must point out that it was a Quebec court that granted her that right under the charter. I believe that we should thank and honour Pierre Elliott Trudeau for his decision to devote his political life to patriating the Constitution and adding the charter, which is one of the most modern laws in the world, in that it recognizes community interests.

The charter also includes a notwithstanding clause. It should be noted that this clause cannot be used to violate the rights of official language minorities. I want to stress that point because many people often forget that this notwithstanding clause cannot violate every right, because some are guaranteed by the charter and the Constitution Act, 1982.

Since being elected, and even before that, I have never been in favour of invoking the notwithstanding clause, which, by the way, Parliament can do under the Constitution. People seem to forget that. This clause exists and it has a clear objective, namely to allow the federal government or a provincial government to take the time to consider and adjust to a court decision that would invalidate one of its laws in whole or in part. Its application is time-limited, so it is not a blank cheque nor open season. In fact, the use of this notwithstanding clause has to be renewed every five years.

There are several aspects of this clause that we could view as democratic. For example, it is not quite the final word, because the clause must be re-invoked every five years. It allows a legislature to temporarily derogate from a court decision.

Obviously, this matter is open to debate, but, in my opinion, the notwithstanding clause was intended to allow courts to render judgments and provide opinions based on our legal system's judicial traditions. Moreover, the notwithstanding clause was intended to create a requirement to have an open political debate every five years on the merits of using the notwithstanding clause.

In both of the cases that are before the court right now, namely Bills 96 and 21, the Legault government in Quebec used the clause pre-emptively. This pulled the rug right out from under the court. In fact, the court's hands are tied. It cannot do anything. We know that, in the case of Bill 21, the Superior Court of Quebec discussed some aspects of the bill that impede certain rights. However, it admitted that it could not do anything because of the notwithstanding clause.

What is problematic about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause is that not only are the court's hands tied, but we cannot have a full debate on the use of the clause, a debate in a legislative assembly in front of the cameras, a debate whose every detail could followed by our media. I find that extremely problematic, and it adds an anti-democratic element to a provision that is undeniably democratic and perfectly legal.

When governments use this provision pre‑emptively, whether it is New Brunswick, Ontario, Quebec or any other province, one question comes to mind: What are those governments afraid of? Are they afraid of their legal experts, their courts or their citizens? Are they afraid that their citizens might watch the debate on a measure that will take away their rights and that they will change their minds about the measure that the government has put in place with its law? Are these governments afraid of both the lawyers and the public?

I will stop there, and I am ready to answer questions.

[Business of Supply, February 9th, 2023]

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?