House of Commons Hansard #157 of the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was clause.

Topics

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:20 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this topic today.

I just want to take a few seconds at the beginning of my speech to send my best wishes to the families affected by the tragedy in Laval yesterday, as this is the first time I have had the opportunity to do so in the House. My heart goes out to them.

The motion today is much simpler than many parliamentarians seem to think. It is a reminder of how this provision is written and what function it has served for the last 40 years or so. It works.

The intent of today's motion is not to change anything, it is to remind the government that there is only one part of the Constitution—which we are forced to live with—that we can rely on when we need to protect our uniqueness. I ask members not to fall into the ridiculous trap of asking me to recognize this Constitution today. Everyone already knows the answer. We are simply asking that this part, at least, be respected. That is what we are doing today.

I am going to go back to a couple of comments that were made today. The member for Charlesbourg-Haute-Saint-Charles wonders why the Bloc is still here. It is because we are hard-working people and we do not give up on our cause. Of course, we would have liked it to take less time, but it has not happened yet. Until it is done, we need to be here to salvage what we can. We are doing an excellent job and we will keep doing it wther they like it or not. What I think is a little more outdated is Conservative populism. I would encourage them to come up with constructive solutions rather than sloganeering all day long.

As for our colleague from Lac‑Saint‑Louis, who was referring to what a beautiful, great country Canada is, I could not agree more. It is a great country. However, I regret to inform him that it is not mine, and I will explain why.

Today we are talking about the Constitution, which we have to live with even though the people of Quebec never agreed to it. Governments of Quebec never agreed to it. This is not a new thing. It has been going on for some time. I think this is yet another attempt to weaken Quebec and its ability to protect its social integrity, its unique society and its pursuit of true community, which is stronger than individualism. These are conflicting visions. If that is not the intention, I would like to hear it from government members.

I would sure like to give a little history lesson so people here can see that every constitutional law ever passed was not approved by Quebec. Anytime such a law benefited Quebec a bit, it was only because people wanted to use us. In this Confederation, one government is dominating another, and that does not always work for us. Actually, it never works for us. It should not even be called a confederation. If it really were a confederation, we might have far fewer problems.

The Constitution contains the notwithstanding clause, which allows us to pass reasonable laws collectively. Later on, I will share some examples of reasonable laws so my colleagues can see that this is of vital importance to Quebec, contrary to all the other anti-francophone laws that have been passed in Canada's history and to the federal government's determination to always block Quebec's emancipation.

I would also like to remind the House that Quebec's relative weight within Canada is constantly—

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Order. I have to interrupt the member for a few seconds.

Could we please make sure that there is no noise coming from the lobbies?

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

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—

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I apologize, but I must again interrupt the hon. member.

I ask the colleagues who are speaking in the chamber to please go to the lobby to pursue conversations.

The hon. member for Berthier—Maskinongé.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:25 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, regarding the bill on farm succession, as a society, Quebec has decided to give young people a leg up as they are starting out in agriculture. This is certainly discriminatory, because it provides them with financial support that we are not offering to older people. The notwithstanding clause is being used. It may come as a surprise, but we are talking about ordinary laws.

The notwithstanding clause in the Employment Equity Act has been used to encourage the hiring of women and visible minorities. As my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord mentioned earlier, lawyers are not allowed in small claims court, so that people can avoid having to mortgage their homes to defend cases involving smaller amounts of money. Otherwise, someone could say they have a right to a lawyer and scrap the whole system. It is used in intelligent ways like that.

Is it really unreasonable to protect children's privacy in cases involving the rights of youth? I think the Quebec government has demonstrated that it is reasonable.

As I was saying earlier, today we are seeing a clash of cultures. The 1982 Constitution was imposed on us. We live with it because we do not have a choice and because a court decided that it was all right. Now we are being asked to give up the opportunity to use the notwithstanding clause and to give this power to those same judges. Seriously?

We are talking about the power of elected members to get elected, to make collective choices and to present their vision of society to their voters. Today individualism is being pitted against collective values. In Quebec, we decided that we live together with shared values, and we want that to continue to work.

The federal government constantly obstructs the work we have to do as administrators. We saw it again this week. We cannot get our own damned money back so we can manage our hospitals. Federal laws constantly interfere with Quebec's laws. There is constant duplication of legislation, especially in immigration, which was mentioned by someone earlier, and horrible delays are created by the federal government. That is a constant.

When we do get a reasonable measure we can use to create our own laws and protect them, we are told that we cannot use it unless we spend 10 years in court first. Let us be reasonable.

The motion is not revolutionary. We are calling on the government to acknowledge the contract it made behind our backs and have a modicum of decency and respect it.

Quebec needs it to protect our language. Who could blame anyone who arrives in Quebec from anywhere else from opting for English, when they realize that using English is no problem and there is a pool of 400 million anglophones around? That is why we need legislation.

As far as religion is concerned, it was mentioned earlier, people are pitting Canada's model of religious neutrality against the model of secularism that we have chosen in Quebec. Quebec has a history with this. One day we finally had enough and said everyone can have their own religion, but not in the government. Individual rights get mixed up when we have these debates. My individual right ends where the rights of others begin. If I represent a government, then I should not be imposing my personal symbols on people I welcome or serve. It is as simple as that. It is not discrimination, but because of the Constitution, which we did not sign, we have to use this notwithstanding clause. We need it. It is a democratic tool.

I want members of the House to stop with the rhetoric about the big beautiful country where everyone is different. I would like them to try for just 30 seconds to stop trampling over and muzzling Quebec. Any time the least little thing happens, the government lets a bit of time go by and then finds another way to try to once again bury Quebec and deprive it of its tools.

Fortunately, the Bloc Québécois is still in Ottawa after all these years. It is a good thing we are here to hold down the fort. Today, Quebec is faced with a choice. It can assimilate into the Canadian model or retain its differences and become independent. I think the choice is becoming more and more obvious. Long live independence.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Outremont Québec

Liberal

Rachel Bendayan LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that this was not his Constitution.

However, the Bloc Québécois is currently defending section 33 of that same Constitution, the same Constitution that guarantees the Bloc's right to participate in this Parliament and the same Constitution that enables my colleagues to hold this debate today.

What other sections of this Constitution that is not his would he like to keep besides section 33?

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, my answer is quite simply “none” because I did not sign that contract.

When I said that this was not my Constitution—and by the way, I also said that I am not arguing with the fact that this is a big beautiful country—I was repeating what someone else had said. I was explaining that it is too bad but that this country is not ours because we were not shown any respect in the way the administrative system was implemented.

If one day my colleagues want to stop wondering why there are still separatists, then they need to start by showing Quebec some respect and recognizing what Quebec actually is in everyday life.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Julie Vignola Bloc Beauport—Limoilou, QC

Madam Speaker, I would like to come back to something that my colleague briefly touched on at the end of his speech because members do not seem to understand these three overlapping concepts: secularism, religious neutrality of the state, and state secularism.

In the spirit of good communication and a better understanding between cultures that live side by side but that do not always understand each other because they are different, can my colleague quickly explain the difference between these three concepts?

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

I would ask the member for Berthier—Maskinongé to keep his answer brief.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:30 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, that is going to be a challenge.

Here is what is at issue here.

Canada has chosen a neutral model, in other words, everyone can display whatever symbols they want. That is fine. It does not bother the Bloc Québécois that Canada is multicultural. What we want is the power to keep our own model. That is what neutrality is.

In Quebec, we made a different choice. We chose to ensure neutrality to preserve the right to neutrality of every citizen coming into contact with the government. We decided the government should have no religion.

That is the difference, and the notwithstanding clause allows us to do that.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Liberal

Francis Scarpaleggia Liberal Lac-Saint-Louis, QC

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?

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his questions. However, there is some confusion.

First, am I afraid? Not too many things scare me. We are here to debate. What we are trying to stop, and not because we are scared, is the federal government's centralizing tendency.

I did not give a history lesson earlier, but I am going to give a short one now. I remind members that since 1867, the famous John A. Macdonald, who is loved by some and hated by many more—I will not join that debate—wanted a hypercentralized federation. The people representing Quebec at the time decided to join because they needed a common market. They received guarantees that certain matters would be the sole jurisdiction of their government. These guarantees have not been upheld, and this is yet another attempt to interfere.

The other example mentioned by my colleague is just one of the many arguments, but this is not strictly about money. It is also about respecting the contract that they made behind our backs. Is that so hard?

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:35 p.m.

Kingston and the Islands Ontario

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Senate)

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Winnipeg North.

I would like to start my debate contribution today by addressing one of the more recent points from the Bloc member who spoke before me. He said that this Constitution has been forced upon Quebeckers. I would remind the member that Quebec has decided, not once but twice, not to leave Canada. As recently as 1995, which would have been after the 1982 Constitution came along, Quebeckers chose not to leave. Despite the fact that the Bloc will come into the House and assert a degree of sovereignty over Quebec, I would remind him that the majority of Quebeckers have decided to stay within the country of Canada.

Quite frankly, as a member from Ontario, I am very grateful for that. I think our country is so rich and diverse because of the incredible contribution we have from Quebec, the culture and the diversity. It is a relationship that no doubt has been difficult from time to time over the years, but a relationship that has made this country a better place. It has not just added to the cultural vibrancy and diversity, but it has encouraged us to tackle the challenging issues around this relationship and it has made Canada a better country.

My issue with this particular motion today is not that I see the notwithstanding clause as being a problem when it was originally put into our Constitution years ago. I see it as a problem now because of the pre-emptive nature of the way in which it is being used. I will focus my comments primarily on the use of it in Ontario recently; however, it definitely links back to some of the comments that the member for Drummond made earlier, and I will address those in a moment.

Let us talk about Doug Ford's pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. Right after Doug Ford was elected premier, one of the first orders of business, oddly enough, was to determine the makeup of the Toronto city council. Do not ask me why he did that, as a new premier of Ontario, one of the largest provinces in the country. I do not understand why that had to be a job for day one, but it was. He put into his legislation the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause.

The problem is that, when people use the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion like this, they are basically saying, “I don't care if the law I am making is constitutional. I don't care if the court will uphold it. I am not even interested in arguing my case with the court to try to prove that what I am doing is right.” What they are basically saying is that they do not care about any of that because they do not care about the law or the Constitution. That is effectively what is happening when the premiers are trying to use it in a pre-emptive fashion.

On day one, Doug Ford did that. He then did it again, in 2021, with the Protecting Elections and Defending Democracy Act, which ultimately received royal assent, on June 14.

The most recent time Doug Ford utilized that clause, which I brought up in one of my questions, he used it as a pre-emptive tool to prevent teachers from having the ability to negotiate in good faith. Imagine that. Teachers, like all organized labour, have the right afforded to them in our country to negotiate their union's position in a collective manner. That is a fundamental right with organized labour in our country, and I would argue in most developed countries, especially ones that operate under a democratic system like ours. Here we have a premier saying he does not really care about their ability to negotiate. He does not care about whether they want to do that. He is just going to supersede it before even bringing in a law and determine that they do not have the right to do that.

I found it most interesting when I brought this up a little while ago and asked the member for Drummond what I thought to be a very legitimate question. I have concerns about that. I believe in the collective bargaining process. I believe in union rights. I believe that unions should have the ability to negotiate in good faith. I always thought that Bloc Québécois members felt the same way. They have always come in here and talked about unions, the strong labour movements and the need to have a strong labour movement, so I asked the member for Drummond a very simple question: Does he believe that Quebec should have the right to trample on those union rights the same way Doug Ford did? The member for Drummond just attacked my question and basically said that the provinces should have the right to use it in their own way, which is a de facto way of saying he supports it.

I am left to believe that the Bloc Québécois is okay with a province, including Quebec, using the notwithstanding clause to strip away the rights of a union to negotiate. That leaves me with the conclusion that the most important thing to the Bloc Québécois, above any rights out there, is power and ensuring that the province has the power to trample over top of any legislation. That is effectively what they are saying by not answering that question and not coming clean by at least saying Doug Ford went above and beyond. They could have said that. The member for Drummond could have stood up and said that maybe Doug Ford went a little too far, but the member did not do that, because the Bloc is afraid of giving an inch on this. Bloc members do not ever want to suggest that there might even be a time when it is not appropriate to use it.

I think anybody out there who is watching this debate, or considering the disregard the Bloc has for those rights in an attempt to ensure that power is retained, should be concerned because, as my NDP colleague from B.C. said earlier, we live in a country based on the rule of law. We live in a country based on a Constitution that affords certain rights and responsibilities. We are required to ensure that those are upheld, and one of them is the right of organized labour to negotiate, and, in particular, unions.

I will end where I started this, which is by saying that I am extremely concerned when provinces start to pre-emptively use this tool, because what they are saying is that they do not care if what they are doing is unconstitutional; they are doing it anyway, and that is problematic. That should concern every citizen, because Doug Ford has maybe done it only three times, but it pretty much had never been done in Ontario before that.

Doug Ford and the Conservative government in Ontario are just testing the waters. They are banking on the fact that eventually people will not really care about it, because it will have happened a bunch of times and life still goes on. We have to be careful about this. We have to protect this, and we have to ensure that people's rights that are afforded to them under the Constitution are not infringed upon as a result of the abusive use of the notwithstanding clause.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Bloc

Yves Perron Bloc Berthier—Maskinongé, QC

Madam Speaker, since I was referred to directly, I will ask my colleague a question.

There are a number of points to address. Some big things are being said, and I would like to refocus the debate. Nobody here agreed with the Premier of Ontario's decisions. We did not. All we said was that these issues should be dealt with within the province. The public outcry has done its job, I think.

Just because something less acceptable has been done elsewhere, that does not mean that we should accept diminished autonomy for Quebec, which did not do anything like that. That is the first correction that I wanted to make.

I will now make a second correction. My colleague says that Quebeckers said “no” to independence twice and that they are happy to be in Canada. Quebeckers and the Quebec government never signed this Constitution. Quebeckers were duped twice by the kind of promises and sweet talk that can be heard here all week long when things are not too serious. In 1982, they said that they were putting their seats on the line to change the Constitution, and then this Constitution was shoved down our throats. We are full of good will, and in 1995, there was a great big love-in in Montreal. We said to ourselves that these were different people and that we would give them another chance. However, these people have done nothing since then.

My question for the member is this: When is he going to launch an initiative within his party to finally give Quebec what it wants?

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, what I said was that the Constitution was adopted in 1982. Quebec had an opportunity to leave after that and chose not to, and I am very grateful. I was much younger then, but I remember watching the news and I could not imagine, as a teenager, not having Quebec as part of our country. It means nothing to this member, who is throwing his arms up in the air. I get that, but I value Quebec's existence in this country. I would never want to see this country without Quebec in it, despite the Bloc Québécois.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

NDP

Randall Garrison NDP Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke, BC

Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to share one of my concerns. In the debate today, we do not spend much time talking about human rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is about human rights, and the notwithstanding clause is about avoiding respecting human rights and avoiding doing the hard work that would be necessary. I wonder if he would reflect a bit more on the importance of human rights in this debate today.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, that was my point toward the end and I appreciate the question, because today Doug Ford trampled on union rights. Tomorrow, who knows what he or another premier will try to trample on. Today, the collective movement and public pressure prevented Doug Ford from moving forward, but we do not know if that will be the case tomorrow.

The whole point of protecting those rights is to protect the rights of minorities. If we put people in a position where it becomes normalized to use this tool in order to strip people of their rights, the problem is going to be much greater than what we are seeing has happened to organized labour in Ontario.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Conservative

Marilyn Gladu Conservative Sarnia—Lambton, ON

Madam Speaker, my question for the member opposite is this. He seems to be very offended by the violation of charter rights and freedoms by all kinds of other levels of government. What would he say about his own government and the continual attacks on freedom of expression, freedom of religion, mobility rights and the like?

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Madam Speaker, I am so glad to hear the Conservatives get into this debate today, because they have been absent until this point. Even when they do decide to get in, they do not bring up the topic at hand. We are talking about the use of the notwithstanding clause and the motion brought forward by the Bloc, so I find it incredibly rich that the Conservatives suddenly want to participate in the debate when they have been completely silent the entire morning.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Green

Elizabeth May Green Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands for talking about rights. I have been deeply offended, worried and frightened for this country because the premier of Ontario flings around like corn flakes the idea that he is going to grab the notwithstanding clause to stomp on the rights of teachers and workers. I really want to encourage all of us in this place, without regard to partisanship, to stand up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

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.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Winnipeg North Manitoba

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today and address this particular motion brought forward by the Bloc.

I am not surprised by Bloc members bringing forward this motion, because, after all, from the Bloc Party's perspective, they want to cause division, even though when we look at their attempt this time around, the member for Kingston and the Islands is correct in his assumption.

If we think through the logic, what the Bloc is actually proposing is to say that the federal government plays no role and that it should be silent when a province wants to invoke, in a pre-emptive way, the notwithstanding clause. The best example I can use offhand is the Province of Ontario, which is the largest province by population in the country. When the Province of Ontario makes the statement that it wants to take away labour rights, all of us should be concerned as it affects thousands of people. The Bloc tries to give the false impression that it is sympathetic to the labour movement or the working person, but this motion contradicts that. However, I am not surprised by the Bloc. I expect that.

I can tell members that Canadians would be very disappointed in the official opposition, which is what I would like to pick up on. I would suggest that one of the greatest values we have as Canadians that we treasure, besides health care, which is a debate for another day, is our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We understand how important that is. In terms of values, we like to share our values around the world, and there are countries around the world that have adopted Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Canada has demonstrated leadership for 40 years on the issue of human rights and the protecting of freedoms and rights for the individual. One would think that the Conservative Party of Canada would care about that when it applies here in Canada, but that is not the case.

In reference to the teachers' and union issue in Ontario and the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause to walk all over the rights of thousands of people in Ontario, here is what the Prime Minister had to say:

Canadians themselves should be extremely worried about the increased commonality of provincial governments using the notwithstanding clause preemptively to suspend their fundamental rights and freedoms. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms cannot become a suggestion.

Since 2017, we have had Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec and, to a certain point, the Province of Saskatchewan, entertain or use pre-emptive notwithstanding, which I would suggest is a form of threats, to take away rights. The Prime Minister, demonstrating leadership, makes statements in regard to it.

However, the current leader of the official opposition is nowhere to be found. If members watch the debate today and take a look at the debates that have been occurring on this very important issue, they will find a vacuum of leadership coming from the Conservative Party. Liberals will stand and defend the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and recognize how—

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:50 p.m.

Some hon. members

Oh, oh!

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès) Liberal Alexandra Mendes

Order. Can we allow the hon. member the courtesy of making his speech in peace? Thank you.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding ClauseBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders

1:55 p.m.

Liberal

Kevin Lamoureux Liberal Winnipeg North, MB

Madam Speaker, as my colleague says, truth is hard to hear at times. At the end of the day, we have not heard any significant word. Yes, they were obligated to address it a couple of times, but they were virtually forced to do that. If we read the content of the speech, the Conservatives are more concerned about talking about the Conservative spin lines that they get from the Conservative MP lobby. These are the types of things the Conservatives want to talk about.

When it comes to issues of great substance that impact the rights and freedoms of Canadians and I pose questions for the Conservatives on this, they just scramble and do not know what to say. In fact, one of the members said they do not have anything to do with it and that it is completely up to the province. They asked, in one of the questions I got on the record today, why they would participate in that sort of discussion. However, the Conservatives do not like to stand up because they do not want to be held accountable on this particular issue.

I made reference to the number of provinces that had been using it since 2017. I suspect that since 2017 we have probably seen more usage of pre-emptive-type measures than we had seen in the previous 35 years. I do not know that for a fact, but I suspect that could be the case. At the end of the day, when the people of Canada are looking for their politicians here in Ottawa to stand up for those rights and freedoms, the Conservatives are being silent. I hope that maybe they will reflect during question period and decide to participate genuinely in this debate.

Does the Conservative Party support, for example, what Doug Ford was doing when he pre-emptively took the notwithstanding clause to walk over the rights of union people in Ontario, affecting thousands of workers? Is there a Conservative member of Parliament who will stand up in this place and say that was wrong? Of course the Conservatives will not do that, but it is nothing new because they will not do that for any provincial jurisdiction, based—