Debates of Feb. 9th, 2023

International Trade

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the fourth report of the Standing Committee on International Trade in relation to the motion adopted on Thursday, February 2, 2023, regarding prohibiting the importation of goods linked to the use of forced labour and developing a related strategy.

Criminal Code

[Frank Caputo, Conservative, Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo, BC]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-313, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (justification for detention in custody).

Mr. Speaker, as every day, it is an honour to rise in the House today on behalf of the people of Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo and Canadians at large. It is a further honour to be here to table my fourth private member's bill in the House.

This bill aims to address a serious problem when it comes to bail reform. It addresses people who are alleged to have possessed a firearm, while prohibited by the Criminal Code, during a serious gun offence. They would have a steeper hill to climb when it comes to bail if this bill is passed.

I urge Parliament to pass this bill expeditiously.

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

Seniors

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, Humber River—Black Creek, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the current income tax system for seniors gives couples numerous ways to lower taxes while singles get none. Senior couples can split their pension income, thereby allowing them to pay less tax and qualify for the age amount tax credit and old age security with limited or no clawbacks.

The undersigned single members and other citizens of Canada call upon the Government of Canada to offer tax benefits to senior singles equal to those now in place for senior couples, which would include offering single seniors a reduction of 30% on their income to be taxed and allowing, upon death, single seniors with an RRSP, RRIF or TFSA to transfer it to the RRSP, RRIF or TFSA of a beneficiary of their choice.

Expanded Polystyrene

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from over 60 folks from Powell River who have a lot of concerns about foam from marine infrastructure, as it is an increasing source of pollution in Canada's beaches.

Expanded polystyrene is impossible to clean up from shorelines after it breaks down and has a high likelihood of entering the marine environment from damaged marine infrastructure, whether it is encased or not. The petitioners are asking for the government to prohibit the use of expanded polystyrene in the marine environment.

Questions on the Order Paper

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Speaker, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

Opposition Motion—Use of the Notwithstanding Clause

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

moved:

That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Mr. Speaker, rest assured that I am excluding you from this argument, but I get the impression that Quebec does not have many friends in the House. This has been made particularly evident by what seems to be—and this may seem harsh—the Liberal government's descent into hell. The government is essentially the only one to blame, and it is useful in this context to revisit—and, again this may sound harsh—a recent debacle. I will let you be the judge of that. Speaking of judges, we will, once again, have to refer to the Supreme Court of Canada on this matter.

I have made a little list. Bill C-21 on gun control was a lesson in clumsy backtracking, an unruly fiasco and a retreat that was anything but strategic. There was not even a whiff of them admitting to an error—an implicit error—and no recognition of the fact that, indeed, one must consider the safety of civilians and women while also preserving the legitimate privileges of sport hunters.

One example is the electoral map. I remember going to the Gaspé region last summer, just a few days after the Prime Minister, when the first new version of the electoral map had been considered and the riding of my colleague from Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia was disappearing. The Prime Minister was in the region and had not said a single word about the fact that the regions in Quebec were being weakened. There might even have been a threat regarding the expressed desire of the member for Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine to keep the file. The Prime Minister, however, never said a word; again, the government is essentially its deputy minister.

There is Medicago, a company, a flagship in technology research that, due to a kind of negligence perpetuated over time and interventions that were often too late, risks seeing the achievements of Quebec engineering go to Japan, subject to the good will of Mitsubishi, which will certainly be a major loss for Quebec and Canada.

There is the acquisition of Resolute Forest Products by Paper Excellence, which is owned by Sinar Mas. That represents 25% of cutting rights in public forests in Quebec and does not qualify in the new Bill C-34, which does not even protect it. Good heavens, if that is not protected, what will Bill C-34 protect?

There are obviously the health transfers. That is really very interesting. Of everyone here, we see that only the Bloc Québécois is both speaking for Quebec and representing the provinces' common front. The Bloc Québécois is the only party to stand up for Yukon, Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and Alberta. We will wait for the thanks from the benches next to us. Only the Bloc Québécois is standing up for the will of the provinces, the territories and Quebec, while the others are being opportunistic or lazy. We will be told that what we are doing is a waste of time. It is not a waste of time; it is very revealing of how things work.

There is the McKinsey case. I do not have time to go through everything about McKinsey. There would be far too many secrets to be brought to light, like McKinsey and ethics, McKinsey and lobbying, McKinsey and defence, McKinsey and standing offers, and so on. McKinsey's former boss himself—who is surely not as naive as he tried to make us believe in committee—said that, if he had been the client, he would not have signed the contract that the Government of Canada signed. That is interesting. There is also McKinsey and immigration, as well as McKinsey and Century Initiative. One hundred million Canadians, how nice. That is quite a lot, given Quebec’s inability to absorb, over time, in French and with our values, the number of immigrants that that requires. I asked Mr. Barton whether he had considered Quebec. They did not consider it at all. It was not even on their radar.

Based on the ignorance expressed, my word, I want to be the boss at McKinsey. He does not work that hard and says he does not know anything. Also, I suspect the pay is not too bad. McKinsey has a role to play in border management and, of course, in language and identity.

There is also the exploitation of Roxham Road. As my colleague from Lac-Saint-Jean mentioned, according to recent revelations, not only do we have criminal smugglers, we now have an all-inclusive package on offer, on both sides. A bus ticket is provided and migrants are openly and brazenly sent to Roxham Road. No one likes handcuffs. However, a brief moment of discomfort from being handcuffed is worth it for migrants, who are very happy to have reached Quebec; of course Quebec is paying the costs of welcoming them in a humane manner.

There is the appointment of Ms. Elghawaby. I will not repeat the whole speech and I do not want to make this personal. That said, it was clear that the government has an extraordinary ability to isolate and protect itself. If our homes were as well protected as the government, we would not need insulation.

Of course, there is also the referral of Quebec’s secularism law to the Supreme Court of Canada in the hope of overturning it.

Beyond that, the divisiveness over Bill C-13 is quite dramatic. I would not want to invite myself to a Liberal caucus meeting, and I think its members would not like that either, but there must be some very passionate conversations within that caucus. It must be just as fascinating as the Conservatives’ conversations about abortion. There may be a few little things that need to be resolved. For our part, everything is going very well. The federal government may also go to the Supreme Court over Bill 96, which deals with the French language.

We have now come to the motion on the notwithstanding clause, which may also go before the Supreme Court of Canada. I would like to speak about a very interesting aspect. In principle, Trudeau senior said that the will of Parliament had to ultimately prevail. That is why the 1982 Constitution, which we consider to be a despicable document, includes this principle of ensuring the primacy of the democracy of parliaments. Let us keep in mind that we have never signed on to that Constitution. We have been pointing that out for a few weeks now.

That was quickly tested. In 1988, the Ford decision established, on the one hand, that the use of the notwithstanding clause was legitimate and, on the other hand, that the role of the court was not to engage in pointless discussions, but to rule on the substance and wording of things.

Let us not forget that Mr. Lévesque firmly invoked and inserted the notwithstanding clause in all of the laws passed by Quebec’s National Assembly. Many fits were had, but Canada survived.

It is important to understand the current government’s legislative or judicial approach—or flight of fancy. By invoking federal documents such as the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Constitution, and by appointing new judges as old ones leave, the Prime Minister hopes to replace the decisions of the provincial legislatures and of the House of Commons with those of the Supreme Court of Canada in order to modify by interpretation the Canadian Constitution. As we said earlier, the Constitution is much more theirs than it is ours.

Having had the opportunity over time to appoint judges, the Prime Minister is confident that he has a Supreme Court of Canada whose constitution, pardon the pun, will be favourable to him. He wants to modify the Constitution by having it interpreted by judges he has appointed. This happens elsewhere in the world, and it is rarely an honourable procedure. A Parliament is always sovereign, otherwise any one Parliament could impose its will on another.

Quebec’s National Assembly is sovereign in its choices and its votes. Quebec’s Parliament is, in a word, national. Now, more than ever, Quebec’s National Assembly needs the notwithstanding clause, which guarantees the prerogative and primacy of parliaments and elected members over the decisions of the courts. Courts are there only to interpret, despite the fact that we have learned, particularly over the course of Quebec history, that interpretations can, over time, and without casting stones, be nudged in a certain direction. We do not want government by judges, but government by elected members, government by the people.

As I said at the beginning, it is important to mention that the notwithstanding clause is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau. I remember a question period during which we were told that it was awful, that they were not against the notwithstanding clause but against its pre-emptive use.

Of course, as it is wont to do, it is when the government runs out of arguments that it starts spouting the worst nonsense. That was a good one. If the notwithstanding clause is not to be used pre-emptively, what is the point?

The notwithstanding clause is like a COVID-19 vaccine. People get vaccinated to avoid getting COVID-19, not after they get it. The notwithstanding clause protects Quebec’s laws. We could say “the laws of Quebec and the provinces”, but let us be clear: Aside from a recent notorious case in Ontario, the notwithstanding clause is mostly used in Quebec, particularly when it comes to national identity and jurisdiction, precisely so that we do not have to hear the courts say that we cannot apply our own legislation, that it is being challenged, and that we now have to use the notwithstanding clause to fix a situation that, in the meantime, has had a deleterious effect.

Clearly, that is not how we want to or even how we should use the notwithstanding clause. Too often, harm would be done, and the same courts would have to suspend the application of the law. The notwithstanding clause is a small piece of sovereignty. “Sovereignty” is a word that frightens people. Using it inspires strong feelings and cold sweats. Sovereignty, however, is merely exclusive jurisdiction held by any party. This Parliament claims sovereignty, except in the case of Chinese spy balloons.

It is essential to recognize that, by invoking the notwithstanding clause, a jurisdiction that is a parliament, which by definition is sovereign, is claiming a small part of its sovereignty in jurisdictions which, logically speaking, should be exclusive to it.

This logical relationship between identity, the fact that Quebec is a nation begrudgingly recognized by this Parliament in a very specific context on June 16, 2021, and the fact that Quebec is the one that must resort to this clause is because Quebec is a nation, and its parliament is a national Parliament. Allow me to say that, in my opinion, this is too little.

It is too little because, of course, we want Quebeckers—in their own time, obviously, but we will encourage them—to think about sovereignty as a whole, a nation with a single national Parliament, which, as Mr. Parizeau said, would collect all taxes—we are capable of doing this and we would be having an entirely different conversation about health transfers—vote for all laws applicable in Quebec, sign all treaties and honour all existing treaties, as necessary.

Usually, people do not think about being normal. It goes without saying. We embrace normality, we seek normality and we assume normality. Quebec just needs to think about it right now, and for some time, and observe how its national identity is treated in a Parliament that should at least be a good neighbour if it cannot be a good partner.

This remains an essential reflection, but given the current context, it may no longer hold tomorrow or the next day. The game of cat and mouse, the jurisdictional stonewalling, the encroachments, the interference are anything but progress, efficiency or instruments for the greater good.

Until that necessarily deeper reflection occurs, we certainly need, in this Parliament, to solicit the good faith of colleagues and elected officials in recognizing that Quebec and the provinces have a legitimate right to use the notwithstanding clause. We are not requesting a change to the way things are done. We are asking that it be acknowledged. We simply wish to state the truth and are calling on Parliament to say that it does indeed reflect reality.

Voting against this truth would be akin to challenging the Canadian Constitution itself. This temptation was evident in the Prime Minister's comments. That raised some eyebrows, given the legacy. We are calling on the House to recognize a literal truth, if only out of respect.

In the meantime, and regardless of today’s vote, the Quebec nation and its representatives have only one true friend in this place. Only one political party raises the issues of language, identity, immigration, health care funding and the preservation of the notwithstanding clause in this House. Its members have just as much legitimacy as those of every other party. They are the members of the Bloc Québécois. The Bloc Québécois is proud to stand once again, without compromise, but with a sense of responsibility and with courage, to raise, defend and promote the interests of Quebec, which we hope will accomplish even more.

[Francis Scarpaleggia, Liberal, Lac-Saint-Louis, QC]

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?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the driver cannot really complain about the route that is taken. Members of the federal government hold more keys to the Constitution and the back rooms of the Supreme Court than Quebec sovereignists or the provinces and territories.

It would be surprising if the federal Parliament were to make use of a constitutional provision that serves to protect it from itself. History being what it is and future prospects being what they are, it is understandable that that did not seem realistic to us.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to hear what the leader of the Bloc Québécois is saying this morning. His diatribe against the Prime Minister and the Liberal government is interesting. The government has failed in many respects, and the Prime Minister has sown division throughout Canada by pitting Canadians against Canadians and Quebeckers against Quebeckers. A total of 63% of Canadians, including Quebeckers, think that Canada is broken after eight years under this Prime Minister.

Does the leader of the Bloc Québécois think that the Prime Minister is trying to create a crisis in the country to divert attention away from his failures?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would be surprised if he was not tempted to do so.

Sometimes in politics, I think people have a nasty habit of exploiting crises or difficult situations to serve their own ends. This time, he had a lucky escape.

There are so many crises, issues, failures, boondoggles and comedies of errors going on that he cannot turn them to his advantage in the short term. I would be surprised to hear anyone say that the government is on top of things.

If he really was hoping to exploit these crises, it seems like we can add that to his list of numerous failures.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

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?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there was a self-congratulatory tone to my esteemed colleague's comments.

I can see why he feels a need to defend the minority, because he is the only Quebecker in his party, as opposed to 32 members of the Bloc Québécois. All things being equal, and since everyone's voice deserves to be heard, we certainly do not speak less for Quebec than he does, so we will not remain quiet. I do not think that he remains quiet or hesitates to say what he thinks just because there are 32 members who do not agree with him. The opposite will certainly not happen.

The Constitution is intended to provide guidelines for institutions, not to pre-emptively judge how it will be used. In his role as the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, our colleague finds himself in a position where he must serve a group of NDP members who are chronically ignorant about Quebec. He is therefore forced to defend things that we, and many other Quebeckers, find indefensible.

It is his judgment against that of the people who will vote when called upon.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, in his speech, my colleague suggested thanking the members of the House.

I thank him because he is the first member of the House to mention the threat against our forestry industry, Paper Excellence. This is the first time I have heard anyone talk about this company, which is owned by an Indonesian billionaire and has bought Resolute Forest Products, Domtar Corporation and others such as Catalyst Paper Corporation in my province of British Columbia. This huge company has purchased several pulp and paper companies, but not a single word has been said about it here except by my dear colleague from the Bloc Québécois.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will share that acknowledgement with my colleague from Jonquière. We have raised the issue several times since that transaction, initially in private with the minister responsible.

Notwithstanding the harmful effects of the transaction, if this had been an oil company, it would only have taken two shakes of a lamb's tail for Canada to stand up, invoke national security and block the transaction. In this case, however, it is only wood, it is only the forest, and it is only in Quebec, so they do not care.

If Bill C‑34 is any good, then it should cover the transaction that is shielding Sinar Mas and forced Uighur labour.

[Julie Vignola, Bloc, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

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.

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the difference is that I do not read planted questions in advance, but that is another debate.

Since 1982, no other Canadian government has been so intent on interfering in and encroaching on Quebec's responsibilities, especially with regard to language, values and identity. These regular and disrespectful attacks involve litigation, appointments that at a minimum are dubious, the weaponization of political issues and this bad habit of repeating the opposite of the truth.

Quebec keeps having to tell them, to put it succinctly, to mind their own business.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I must admit that I am a little surprised to see a Bloc Québécois motion that defends our Canadian Constitution so strenuously.

Given my colleague's speech, does the leader of the Bloc Québécois agree with me on the legitimacy of our 1982 Canadian Constitution?

[Yves-François Blanchet, Bloc, Beloeil—Chambly, QC]

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.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Tourism and Associate Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a fundamental constitutional document. It protects the rights and freedoms of everyone in Canada, including Quebeckers. This document is one of the cornerstones of our society. Since it was adopted in 1982, it has demonstrated its flexibility and ability to adapt.

Our charter has inspired many other countries—

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Deputy Speaker, Conservative, Chris d'Entremont]

Order.

The hon. parliamentary secretary.

[Rachel Bendayan, Liberal, Outremont, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I get the sense that the Bloc Québécois members did not like the question I asked their leader. I will continue my speech.

Our charter also inspired many other countries around the world, who drafted their own similar constitutions. I am proud that, as a society, we decided to adopt this instrument 40 years ago.

Section 33 of the charter, better known as the notwithstanding clause, made a political compromise possible among the disparate entities that made up Canada at the time of its adoption. Section 33 authorizes Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain sections of the charter, namely those protecting fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equality rights. Simply put, it is a tool that allows governments to short-circuit charter protections.

What is clear is that legislation that invokes the notwithstanding clause is violating fundamental rights. Using the notwithstanding clause is allowed, of course, even though the intention was always for it to be used rarely and in exceptional cases.

However, in my opinion, the pre-emptive use of the clause is very problematic. By pre-emptively invoking the notwithstanding clause, a government is basically saying that it knows it is violating Canadians' fundamental rights but that it is going to go ahead anyway, without giving the courts a chance to weigh in.

Let us be clear. By pre-emptively invoking the notwithstanding clause, a government is saying that it knows it is violating Canadians’ fundamental rights and freedoms, that it knows it is doing so but that it is going ahead anyway, without giving the courts a chance to weigh in.

The Prime Minister, our Minister of Justice and other members of cabinet have been clear that our government is concerned with the pre-emptive invocation of the notwithstanding clause, and our federal government is firmly committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected by our charter.

This charter is an expression of some of the most fundamental values of Canadian society. It guarantees our rights and freedoms. I dare say that it represents what it is to be Canadian. These rights and freedoms are the very foundation of our country and of our democracy. However, even with these crucial rights, the charter recognizes that they are not absolute, and that is why section 1 exists.

Section 1 of the charter provides a workable, pragmatic framework for balancing different rights and freedoms, and it is there because sometimes a government can justify limiting constitutional rights and freedoms. Through decades and decades of jurisprudence, Parliament and provincial legislatures have been engaged in this ongoing dialogue with our courts.

The pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause ends that dialogue. It short-circuits the dialogue that is necessary to ensure that our charter is functioning as it should.

Our constitutional tradition is one marked by dialogue, mainly between the legislator and the courts. The pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause limits that dialogue by limiting legal debate.

When the notwithstanding clause is used pre-emptively, this dialogue and debate become mainly theoretical, because the courts are not given the opportunity to order remedies.

It is also important to remember that a strong, independent judiciary is the cornerstone of a healthy democracy. The pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause limits the work of our courts, which cannot fully assume their role under our Constitution.

Between 2001 and 2017, section 33 was never invoked. The political norm of rare use seemed to prevail and the notwithstanding clause was treated as an exceptional measure.

Since 2017, however, there has been a huge rise in provinces invoking the notwithstanding clause to pre-emptively shield their legislation. This has happened in Ontario, Quebec, New Brunswick and there have been threats of its use in Saskatchewan.

What is lost in a pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause? Transparency, engagement and accountability. The charter was not intended to save a government from these requirements. On the contrary, the imperative to justify limitations on rights and freedoms serves these very purposes. Proper use of the notwithstanding clause may be consistent with them, but pre-emptive use is contrary to the values that the charter was designed to protect.

In the past, the notwithstanding clause was treated as an exceptional measure, but its use is becoming more frequent. I repeat that, although the use of the notwithstanding clause is legal, it is not something that should be taken lightly, because it has the effect of suspending legal protections guaranteed by the Quebec and Canadian charters of rights and freedoms.

I believe that a government that uses a remedy of this magnitude must set out the exceptional circumstances that justify the suspension of these legal protections.

In closing, I want to point out that all members of the House should consider themselves very lucky to be Canadians and to be able to rely on the rights recognized in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is up to all of us in the House to protect those rights.

[Arnold Viersen, Conservative, Peace River—Westlock, AB]

Mr. Speaker, my hon. colleague across the way noted that the notwithstanding clause was not used very often until 2017 and onward. I would note that over the past eight years our country has felt broken. We have Roxham Road, inflation is running out of control, a whole host of issues are going on.

The Prime Minister has divided the country more than ever. Perhaps the use of the notwithstanding clause has crept up given the actions of the current Prime Minister. Would the member not concede that the Prime Minister has been the most divisive prime minister in Canadian history?