Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague.

I will continue to address my colleague from Bourassa. Minorities are important. Quebec is probably one of the places that respects its minorities the most. We must continue to do so. Unfortunately, the problem is that we are a minority that is subject to the majority, and legislation such as the Official Languages Act is imposed on us. English is imposed on us as an official language.

Secularism is recognized as a perfectly legitimate principle. Whether one agrees with it or not, the ban on religious symbols for government officials in positions of authority is part of this principle. That was one of the findings of the Bouchard-Taylor commission, which was established by Jean Charest. This whole debate was also caused by a Supreme Court decision. I do not think that we should muddy the waters in this way.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, far be it from me to muddy the waters. I want to be specific this time, and I would like an answer from my colleague.

When I speak about minorities, I do so as a Quebecker, representing Quebec here. I was referring to minorities in the province of Quebec compared to the francophone majority in Quebec.

What values are we talking about? Are they values defined solely by that majority, or values based on inclusion, diversity and the richness represented by immigrants who choose to settle in Quebec?

Within the Liberal Party, there are a number of members representing the province of Quebec. The Quebec Liberals are diverse: Some are women, of course, but there are also people from different ethnic backgrounds. My question is this: How many Bloc Québécois members are from other ethnic backgrounds?

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would remind my colleague that one of the very first Black members to sit in the House was elected under the Bloc Québécois banner. That said, one of the challenges we face today is the increasing anglicization of Montreal, a phenomenon caused in large part by Montreal's municipal government. It makes things difficult for us.

I am the only Bloc Québécois MP on the island of Montreal. However, I can assure my colleague that I know many immigrants who are running for office and who agree with us that we really must fight to defend French in Quebec. They are on our side—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I must interrupt the member.

Resuming debate. The member for Québec Centre.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with the member for Bourassa.

I rise today to discuss the Bloc Québécois opposition day motion. First, I would like to congratulate and thank my colleagues in the House for offering many complementary perspectives on this issue. The use of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, is indeed an important issue that affects all Canadians, including Quebeckers.

As Ban Ki-moon, former secretary-general of the United Nations, used to say, protecting minority rights protects the dignity of all people. Quebeckers and other Canadians expect their governments to protect their rights and freedoms. With that in mind, I consider it perfectly legitimate, reasonable and responsible for the Attorney General of Canada to provide an opinion in the context of a judicial exercise of tremendous importance to the evolution of Canadian constitutional jurisprudence.

First, I think we should take a brief look back in time and revisit comments made by certain political leaders who were intimately involved in negotiations surrounding the Canadian charter. As we will see, many of them saw the notwithstanding clause as a tool of last resort, to be used only in exceptional circumstances.

I would also like to use my brief time to point out that the charter is structured so as to allow the government and Parliament to introduce important public policies, provided that achieving these objectives does not disproportionately restrict Canadians' rights and freedoms. This appropriate balance between individual rights and collective interests also strengthens our democracy, helps society thrive and supports the well-being of all Canadians.

When a legislature invokes section 33, the courts cannot strike down the law, even if the law places unjustifiable limitations on charter sections 2 and 7 to 15. This is an extraordinary power. Nevertheless, it is clear that the relatively recent uses of the notwithstanding clause appear to depart from some of the original views on section 33.

For example, Roy McMurtry, Ontario's attorney general at the time, saw the notwithstanding clause as an exceptional tool that might be necessary in the “event of a decision of the courts that is clearly contrary to the public interest”.

Furthermore, Allan Blakeney, the then premier of Saskatchewan, explained in an article published in 2010 that he believed that the notwithstanding clause might be necessary in the event that a court rendered a decision that would have a negative impact on rights not protected in the charter, particularly social and economic rights.

Many political leaders at the time saw the notwithstanding clause as an exceptional tool of last resort that should be invoked with caution. It was not designed to systematically thwart the very purpose of the charter, which is to respect fundamental rights and freedoms, much less to circumvent the courts before they have had a chance to rule on the constitutionality of the legislation in question.

Of course, section 33 of the charter preserves a form of parliamentary supremacy. At the same time, the notwithstanding clause should not be viewed in isolation. It should be assessed in light of the entire Constitution, of which it is an integral part.

In any event, it has now been 43 years since the charter was adopted. The concerns that some of those involved in repatriating the Constitution and introducing the charter may have had, rightly or wrongly, have largely dissipated with time. The courts have certainly interpreted the rights and freedoms guaranteed under sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the charter generously, as they do for the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.

However, they have also, under section 1 of the charter, maintained reasonable limits on those rights where a government has been able to demonstrate that the public interest justified them. This brings me to a brief discussion of the architecture of the charter.

The purpose of the charter is not to unduly obstruct government action. The government and Parliament have successfully advanced several major public policies that benefit Canadians in areas as diverse as health, the environment, immigration and public safety, while respecting the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. In addition to section 1 of the charter, other provisions of the charter allow for restrictions on rights and freedoms as long as the state acts reasonably. Rights and freedoms are not absolute and must sometimes be weighed against social and economic imperatives.

Consider, for example, section 7 of the charter. It states that everyone has the “right to life, liberty and security of the person” and that the state can only infringe upon those rights in a manner consistent with the “principles of fundamental justice”. This means that the rights to life, liberty and security of the person are not absolute. Limits are permitted as long as they respect certain fundamental principles of a free and democratic society.

In particular, the government cannot act in an arbitrary, excessive or procedurally unfair manner. It would be excessive, for example, to imprison Canadians for minor offences. On the other hand, imprisonment for more serious crimes is entirely justified.

It is this proportionate balance between individual rights and public interest objectives that courts seek to achieve when applying section 7 of the charter. This section constrains government action, but not excessively so.

This demonstrates that the charter is not an absolute obstacle to government action, but rather a safeguard against government action that could be considered arbitrary and discriminatory. It exists to prevent abuse and excess by forcing the government and Parliament to ensure that the laws to which Canadians are subject will not infringe on their rights beyond what is truly necessary to achieve important public policy objectives. This approach to governing can only enrich our democracy, which is why successive federal governments have succeeded in governing without exempting their laws from the application of the charter. This is a record of which Canadians can be proud.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my question has two parts.

First, our colleague from Bourassa mentioned earlier that, in his opinion, Quebec's National Assembly is like the leaning tower of Pisa in that it is always leaning in the same direction, against minorities. That is an extremely serious allegation. I would like to know whether the member for Québec Centre shares this opinion about the Quebec National Assembly. I would like to know whether, in his opinion, this also applies to Bill 21.

Second, the member for Québec Centre said that the notwithstanding clause should be used in exceptional cases and that it is being used more frequently than before. However, after 1982, René Lévesque's government used it systematically in each of its bills. I would therefore like to know how my colleague defines the word “exceptional”.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that one question contains many questions. I will leave it to my esteemed colleague from Bourassa to give the answer that my colleague obviously deserves.

To answer the second question, I would say that it is a matter of striking the right balance between individual rights and freedoms and the collective, social, economic and other objectives that we are able to set ourselves as a government. The charter is there to help an independent judiciary help us, as parliamentarians, achieve the right balance between those individual rights and freedoms and the social and economic objectives that governments are able to set for themselves.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague, who presented a beautiful framework, a very interesting vision of the angle that the charter should take. I congratulate him on that work.

My question is very simple. Can my colleague at least give us an idea of how this notwithstanding clause can also harm minority interests in Quebec, freedom of expression and freedom of religion?

I want to take this opportunity to say that when I alluded to the tower of Pisa, I was mainly talking about the Bloc Québécois, not the Quebec government or Quebec's legislative assembly.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague just raised an important point.

Both inside and outside the House, people sometimes tend to lump together the views of Quebeckers as if one political party speaks for them all. Quebeckers are entitled to a wide range of opinions, identities and interests. It is a bit much to claim that one party, perhaps because of its name, speaks for all Quebeckers. No party here represents the Government of Quebec. Certain members represent Quebeckers, and the Quebec members have the right and the duty—certainly Liberal members have the duty—to promote the diverse opinions that they hear in their ridings.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the speech by my colleague from Québec Centre, who understandably refuses to take a position on the deplorable statement made by the member for Bourassa. However, let us return to the subject at hand.

My colleague spoke about balance, so let us talk about balance. The notwithstanding clause has been used more than 100 times in the last 43 years. Never in those 43 years has the federal government thought it was justifiable or necessary to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court on the notwithstanding clause. That is the legacy of Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who said he was not afraid of this clause. It is thanks to the notwithstanding clause that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms was able to be implemented when the Constitution was repatriated in 1982.

In all this confusion, I would therefore like my colleague to explain to me what balance he is talking about. This clause has been in place for 43 years and has already been used more than 100 times, but for some reason it is suddenly necessary and useful to seek an opinion from the Supreme Court of Canada.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have two quick things to say.

First, maybe it has taken too long. Maybe 43 years was too long to wait for the Supreme Court to rule on this important issue.

Second, it was not the Government of Canada that brought this case to the Supreme Court; it was Quebeckers and Quebec organizations. It was not the Government of Canada that created this case. It was Quebeckers who, rightly or wrongly, believe this issue must be addressed. The Supreme Court will be able to decide if the laws we are talking about, be they in Quebec or elsewhere, are laws that can invoke the notwithstanding clause on a regular basis.

In closing, I would have liked to add one relatively minor comment to the Attorney General's factum, but I see the Speaker is signalling to me, so maybe I will get to it some other time.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to talk about a matter of crucial importance: protecting the rights and freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Since 1982, this document has been not only a legal instrument, but also a symbol of our identity and our democracy.

Canadians see the charter not only as a law, but as a living guarantee that protects everyone, regardless of their origin, faith or background.

The charter is a pillar of our democracy. Above all, it has become an essential bulwark against arbitrary decisions. It protects all citizens. In fact, polls show that over 80% of Canadians believe it has been good for our country. In Quebec, there is also a large majority that recognizes its importance.

It is not a coincidence that other nations, such as South Africa and New Zealand, have looked to Canada's charter when drafting their own bills of rights.

As a Quebecker, I want to say today that the notwithstanding clause is a dangerous tool. Let me explain.

Section 33 says that the notwithstanding clause allows certain fundamental rights to be suspended: freedom of religion, freedom of expression, the right to equality and the right to a fair trial. These rights are at the heart of our democracy. Suspending these protections undermines the bedrock of our society.

The notwithstanding clause may appear technical, but its impact is very real. It allows governments to bypass the courts and silence minority voices. That is why its use must remain exceptional.

Religious freedom is a test of our democracy. Religious freedom, guaranteed in section 2(a), protects the right to believe or not to believe, as well as the right to express one's faith openly and without fear. It allows everyone, whether they attend a mosque, church, synagogue or temple, to express their faith with dignity.

Restricting this freedom through the notwithstanding clause sends a message that religious minorities can be pushed aside based on the political choices of the majority. We need to be careful and make a clear distinction between secularism and the Bloc Québécois' idea of secularism. The Bloc wants to impose values on us. They claim to know what Quebec's values are, and they want to decide what those values are. Quebec's values include the French language, as well as Quebec's rich diversity. That is Quebec's value. That is Quebec's culture. I want to come back to religion.

Freedom of religion includes the right to wear symbols of faith in public life. In Canada, multiculturalism is not an abstract principle. It is a lived reality, and religious diversity is at its core.

This clause raises other questions. It may affect freedom of expression and freedom of the press, which are essential for informing citizens and holding governments to account. The right to life, liberty and security, under section 7, protects against arbitrary interference by the state. The right to protection from unreasonable searches, in section 8, guarantees privacy. The right to equality, in section 15, prohibits discrimination on the basis of religion, sex, sexual orientation, origin or disability.

When one group's rights are suspended, all Canadians are weakened. Democracy is not only about majority rule; it is about protecting minorities as well.

It is a matter of principle. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us of this in his letter from the Birmingham jail: “Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere.”

Our duty as legislators is to protect the charter as a whole, without picking and choosing which rights are the most convenient to defend depending on the circumstances.

Steadfast respect for charter rights, without resorting to section 33, benefits all Canadians, strengthens our democracy and upholds the rule of law.

Respecting charter rights and freedoms is not just an abstract principle. It is a very real responsibility toward all citizens. Failure to protect these rights and freedoms undermines our democracy. Protecting these rights and freedoms strengthens our country's confidence, diversity and unity.

Quebec chose 44 Liberal MPs, many of them women and men from diverse backgrounds. Quebec voters chose a significant number of women. A huge percentage of people from diverse backgrounds represent the people of Quebec. I think the Liberal Party has the right to represent Quebec culture, Quebec values and, most importantly, Quebeckers' rights and freedoms.

[Jean-Yves Duclos, Liberal, Québec Centre, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I applaud my colleague's enthusiasm and passion. I have a quote for him, and I would like to hear his thoughts on it. The great Alexis de Tocqueville said that nothing is more dangerous than citizens' apathy toward the oppression of minorities. What are my colleague's thoughts on that?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is a great quote.

I think that protecting minorities is very important, especially when it comes to fundamental rights such as access to employment. I will give just one example. The people most affected by unemployment in Quebec are people of different racial backgrounds. These are people who, unfortunately, do not have access to employment because they wear a religious symbol. This includes women who wear headscarves, unfortunately. That is what we are talking about. When these people are oppressed, it undermines everyone's freedom.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the courage of the member for Bourassa, who, unlike many of his colleagues, has spoken out on the substance of Bill 21. I find that very courageous. He opposes Bill 21, a bill that was democratically passed by the Quebec National Assembly.

I do not know where he was in 1982, but I think he has forgotten something about the history of Canada and Quebec, specifically that the people of Quebec are a minority. In 1982, our status as a linguistic minority was usurped and our status as a nation was usurped. The minority he is talking about, the Quebec linguistic minority, is surrounded by 370 million anglophones.

Where is his minority?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is what I was saying earlier. Unfortunately, listening to the Bloc Québécois members, it is as though there are two sorts of Quebecker.

He asks me where I was in 1982. I know the history of Quebec. I had the choice to go to other provinces when I immigrated, but I decided to settle in Quebec because I believe in Quebec's values, in the values of diversity and the French language.

That is why I tell him here that one Quebecker is no better than another, none is more Québécois than an other. Simply put, that is my answer.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first of all, we never said that. We are all Quebeckers. I agree that diversity of opinion exists among Quebeckers. However, because a lot of Liberals were elected, they sometimes say that they represent Quebeckers.

When the 1982 Constitution was introduced, only one Liberal member from Quebec voted against it. It was Mr. Duclos, who subsequently resigned. Furthermore, no Quebec government has ever signed this Constitution.

How does my colleague explain that?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, once again, I really do not need any lessons from the other side of the House.

[Mario Beaulieu, Bloc, La Pointe-de-l'Île, QC]

Answer the question.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will answer the question by simply saying that, for us, Quebec values include the value of diversity. When we say in the House that we represent Quebec, it is a matter of arithmetic. There are 44 Quebeckers here who will represent and defend Quebec's culture and values. There are more of us. We have more women, more diversity and more seats. We will defend Quebec values and culture tooth and nail.

[Vincent Ho, Conservative, Richmond Hill South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the member mentioned the unemployment that people are facing in his community. I am curious why the Liberal government is not addressing the unemployment crisis that Canadians are facing all across the country. We are faced with a youth unemployment crisis that economists are saying is at a recessionary level.

Why not address the crisis the Liberal government has created instead of creating a national unity crisis to distract Canadians from the real problems?

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, first, our government is tackling unemployment, developing employability and creating plenty of job opportunities. It is building a very strong economy.

However, I would simply like to point out that there may have been a misunderstanding with my message. The fact is that in Quebec, a woman who wears a veil cannot teach. A woman who wears a veil cannot really work in a day care. Many job opportunities are being eliminated for those people. That is what we want to defend. It is freedom of religion.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Rimouski—La Matapédia.

It is sad to have to speak after the previous member, after hearing a supposedly honourable member. During a debate on a constitutional issue, he initially said in veiled terms that the Bloc Québécois was racist. He said that the Parliament of Quebec was like the Leaning Tower of Pisa and systematically leaned away from minorities. He said that the 44 Liberal members in Ottawa are worth more than the 125 members of the National Assembly. Do people realize how serious his comments are? He just told us that he represents Quebec. He says he represents Quebec's diversity. That is what he just said. He is telling us that the 125 members who voted unanimously on motions in the National Assembly are worthless. According to the member for Bourassa, the members serving in the Quebec National Assembly are garbage. It is mind-boggling that this is tolerated in the federal Parliament. I am also disgusted by his comments about us not being representative of diversity in any way.

My wife immigrated here. She was born in Algeria. At home, we speak Kabyle and French. We have mixed origins that are part of our lives. That is what interculturalism is all about. It means being able to live together. When a member rises with a rude, contemptuous, pseudo-intellectual attitude and tries to teach us a life lesson, as if all the Bloc members were from Saguenay—Lac-Saint-Jean and we were all descended from one Tremblay ancestor, it is a disgrace to the House and to our democracy.

The notwithstanding clause is valid in 41 statutes. In 31 of those, it is there to protect people's rights and ensure that, if they have a small debt, they do not have to go to court and pay $100,000 in legal fees. Does the member realize that? No, he does not, because he is not sticking to the party line. We understood what the member for Québec Centre, a true intellectual, was saying. He talked about balance. That makes sense. However, the member for Bourassa rose and said that the notwithstanding clause should be scrapped and that they hope the Supreme Court will do just that.

This is about rewriting the Canadian Constitution. A redo of 1982 would be a betrayal. It would be a betrayal of history, a betrayal of consensus, a betrayal of philosophical liberalism as conceived by Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Jean Chrétien. The member thinks that is okay. That is how he wins votes in his riding. That is how he sows division and spits on interculturalism. He says it is fine for his government to protect people's rights by going to the Supreme Court and saying that Quebeckers might use the notwithstanding clause to bring back some form of slavery. We have certainly seen some Quebec bashing—more than ever, in fact. Whenever we think they can go no lower, they do.

I urge my colleague to pull himself together and stop making gratuitous accusations. The types of accusations being made by the member would never be tolerated from a sovereignist. Sovereignists have made unfortunate statements. They apologized. They went through a difficult experience. They know what it feels like. Everyone makes mistakes. Why is it tolerated when it comes from a Liberal? I take it as a personal insult to me, my family and my vision of interculturalism. In my family, back home, people left their country of origin to escape religious persecution and to avoid seeing religious symbols in public. These people, like many other Quebeckers, believe that this issue should be debated in Quebec City, in a civilized manner.

This is an appeal from the heart. It is not written down. I have some papers here, but nothing I am saying is written down. I found the member's words very harsh and undignified. At least he had the honesty to say that his government is against the nowithstanding clause and that he is against it. He is not spouting nonsense like the member for Winnipeg North with his pseudo-intellectual remarks, reading us all kinds of legal articles to tell us that, in the end, it is just a quasi-constitutional issue. The member for Bourassa is honest. At least he said what he thinks. I can tell my colleagues that we hear what is said in the halls of Parliament, and we know that many of them think that way, at least those who think at all.

Since they cannot rewrite the Constitution themselves, they decided to ask the court to ban the pre-emptive use of a provision that was in fact purely designed to be used pre-emptively. They are like kings telling us to install an alarm system in our homes, but to not connect it to the monitoring centre until someone is breaking down the door. This is the constitutional equivalent of that.

When there is a consensus, when there are debates, the National Assembly passes a law. The people of Quebec are not complete idiots. We have lively debates involving people of all origins. Despite that, the federal government is saying that the Superior Court has to strike down the law first. Then people would have to go to the Court of Appeal and get it to strike down the law as well, and that challenge would be funded with federal money. It would take five, six, seven, eight, nine, 10, 12 or 13 years before the case reaches the Supreme Court. Then, when the law is struck down by that court, that is when the notwithstanding clause would be useful and should be used. The federal government wants us to believe that, but the reality here today is that it does not like Bill 21.

The declaration that invokes the notwithstanding clause must be re-enacted by a vote every five years. It is not permanent; there are guidelines. The way the notwithstanding clause can be used has already been defined in the Ford decision. The safeguards already exist.

What is more, what is completely absurd is that these Liberals act as if we in Quebec need a federal grandpa. When I say “we,” I mean all of us: the member for Bourassa, the member for Québec Centre, the Bloc, the member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, everyone, my family, his family, their family.

We have lively debates. Kim Thuy, an extraordinary artist who was on TV the other day, was uncomfortable with the debates on immigration in Quebec. Some nice things and not-so-nice things were said. We debated. We have a civil society, journalists, a parliament and courts. There are lively debates happening in Quebec, outside the federal bubble where 44 Liberal members say they are worth more than 125 members of the National Assembly of Quebec.

They are not ashamed that a gentleman from Winnipeg is telling them to stand up and vote against Quebec, not against the Bloc, but against unanimous motions. They tell us they will vote against it if a gentleman from Winnipeg tells them to. They say that we, the Bloc Québécois, are a bunch of hicks, that our ridings are just farmland and that we represent nothing. I congratulate them on their lesson in democracy.

The notwithstanding clause is the result of a historic consensus. It is the outcome of a profoundly liberal reflection on democracy, which means that, ultimately, we cannot always rely on judges. That is what this clause says.

I know that the member for Bourassa, like others, does not believe in his heart of hearts that we are going to bring back slavery. I apologize for using him as an example. I know he does not believe that we are going to bring back slavery, but perhaps he is winning votes by saying so. That is the issue. He wins votes by calling us racists, by saying that we are exclusionary, that we do not like minority groups, that we only speak French, that we are against religion and that we are going to prevent women from working. He may win votes by doing that, but I would invite him to think hard about that type of rhetoric. When he talks about division, I would invite him to reflect on that type of rhetoric.

Does everyone have to agree 100% with what is in Quebec's Bill 21? No. People do not have to agree 100% with Bill 96 or any of the other laws, either. That is why we have a democracy; that is why we have elections. These are not easy questions, and that is why we eventually have to make decisions about them. That is why the use of the notwithstanding clause is temporary, and that is why it always needs to be voted on again. That is healthy.

I invite the 44 Liberals from Quebec to start respecting Quebec's parliamentary system and the members of the National Assembly. They, too, are elected, and they represent Quebec. Even though we are the only party that brings unanimous National Assembly motions to the House of Commons, I urge the Liberal members to stop thinking that we represent the Bloc's opinion and never represent 125 unanimous MNAs.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

Before I recognize the next member, I would remind the member for Mirabel to choose his words very carefully. The member referred to papers that he had in his hands. They are considered a prop. Members cannot refer to a report, papers or a printed speech that they are holding in their hands or that are on their desks.

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think there was a misunderstanding. What he meant was that his comments were not based on a written speech, but rather on what he had just heard. Therefore, he did not use papers as—