Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

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

Mr. Speaker, of course, my colleague's speech and the Liberals' central argument today is around the charter. They want to defend the charter. They want the charter to be front and centre.

The charter is not a smorgasbord where people can just pick what they want. The charter includes section 33, the notwithstanding clause. That is what enabled the repatriation of the Constitution and the implementation of the charter.

Let us try to illustrate that again to help my colleagues understand. The charter is like a book. The Liberals are not happy about one page ant they want to remove it. They want guidelines. In reality, all they want to do is attack Quebec's secularism and language model. That is the truth.

Taking a page out of the charter, which the government says it wants to defend and enforce, is not about defending the charter; it is about censorship.

I would like my colleague to explain how the charter can be defended by removing or limiting its section 33, the notwithstanding clause.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, we know the notwithstanding clause can be challenged, and we have seen that in Ontario. It has been tried in courts, and in some cases it has been overruled and in other cases it has been ruled as justified.

What we have before the Supreme Court is an assessment of the use of the notwithstanding clause and whether or not it does infringe upon the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important that this judgment is done before the Supreme Court to answer those four questions that I laid out. Have we done our due diligence? Is it being applied in a way that is respectful of the rights and freedoms of Canadians? By that, I mean the rights and freedoms of all Canadians.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her very interesting presentation on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which is a fundamental pillar of our democracy, as well as on the use of the notwithstanding clause.

Can my colleague elaborate on the use of the notwithstanding clause, in particular its pre-emptive use, which is at the heart of today's debate?

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, using it pre-emptively is not giving due justice to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I think it is important that the laws are passed and that citizens can challenge them when they need to, and certainly that is the case. There are many citizens challenging Bill 21, saying that it is not respecting their rights and freedoms. They have the right to be heard in court.

There is a great T-shirt I saw, and I always think of it; it says, "Equal rights for others does not mean fewer rights for you. It's not pie." We have to keep that in mind.

It is possible to protect the rights of Quebec—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to interrupt the member.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

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

Mr. Speaker, following the reasoning presented by the hon. parliamentary secretary, which the government also argued in court, today in Le Devoir, journalist Marie Vastel said:

However convoluted it may be, this reasoning would lead to a federal rewriting of the constitutional compromise that would usurp parliamentary sovereignty and give judges the final say. According to this logic, it would be up to the courts to create this new criterion for assessing the use of the notwithstanding clause and then, on a case-by-case basis, to judge its irrevocability.

Once again, there seems to be a desire to remove political debates from the chambers of elected representatives and hand them over to the courts. This is precisely what the federal government is seeking to do by challenging the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, even though it is provided for in section 33 of the Constitution. Let us not forget that Quebec did not sign the Constitution.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party is the party of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, so it will come as no surprise to anyone that our government is doing its job, which is to defend the charter.

The Supreme Court's decision will determine how federal and provincial governments can invoke the notwithstanding clause in the years to come. As this case is before the courts, it is important to keep an eye out for this decision.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I just want to make a very friendly suggestion to my colleagues that they read a book that taught me a lot on the topic of this debate, since there seems to be some misunderstanding about it.

The book is entitled The Charter of Rights and the Legalization of Politics in Canada. My colleagues can take notes. It was not written by a Bloc member, a sovereignist or a separatist, as the member for Winnipeg North would say. It was written by Michael Mandel, a professor of constitutional law at York University in Toronto. If my colleagues want to be proactive, reading this book will help them understand the debate we may have to have about Bill 96. That legislation may be reviewed by the Supreme Court.

I want to begin by saying that I am a sovereignist and separatist. I am a democrat because I am a sovereignist and separatist. The democratic ideal is rooted in the sovereignty of the people.

The Canadian government used our money to fund groups to challenge Bill 21 all the way to the Supreme Court. It had to be said. All day long, the Liberals have refused to take a position on the substance, except for the member for Bourassa, who had the courage to say he was against Bill 21. Everyone is hiding behind the technical detail of the notwithstanding clause as though it were being abused. Iwill come back to that.

However, I would point out that, in law, legitimacy is the basis of legality, not the other way around. There have been many laws throughout the history of humanity that were passed but were not legitimate. For instance, I am thinking about segregation laws. To understand today's debate, we need to look at the sociology of law. When I hear Liberals talking about the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Constitution, I get the impression that it is locked up tight with five padlocks, that it must not change and that it is the most accurate representation of the reality in Canada and Quebec.

We are talking about the sociology of law in the sense that laws are not immutable. They change with the times in so-called free and democratic societies, obviously. Otherwise, it becomes a democracy of judges or a dictatorship in other cases. Before I address the federal government's claim that the notwithstanding clause has been misused, I will provide a historical overview to understand the context in which Bill 21 came to be.

When a human community established within a given territory has its own language, history, culture and heritage, when it is aware of its specificity, when it is driven by a desire to endure in history, and when it is organized around a common goal, then a nation exists. The people of Quebec form a nation. The fact that the House symbolically recognized Quebec as a nation has no legal impact. The Liberals paid lip service to it the second time. The government does not want this recognition enshrined in the Canadian Constitution. If it were, we would not be talking about what we are talking about today. Indeed, the Constitution would guarantee specific provisions to allow Quebec to have historical continuity. That is fundamental.

Quebec is not just a distinct society. We asked the question twice, there was a debate twice, and the rest of Canada said that we were not even a distinct society.

I want to remind my colleagues of something that has often been said: No Quebec premier, whether federalist or sovereignist, has ever ratified the Canadian Constitution. I just wanted to remind the 44 Liberal members who are lecturing us about the fact that they have a majority in the House. No—

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

This is not a pub. If people want to talk, they can go somewhere else.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I thank the hon. member. It seems to be quieting down.

The hon. member for Montcalm.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, no Quebec premier, whether federalist or sovereignist, signed the Canadian Constitution. Why is that? Because, lectures about respect for minorities aside, the Constitution took away our status as a minority and as a nation. Pierre Elliott Trudeau's fantasy about establishing bilingualism and biculturalism foundered in the murky depths of a ghettoizing multiculturalism that failed to foster interculturalism.

Even Will Kymlicka, a scholar of multiculturalism, says that multiculturalism is unsuitable for a minority nation such as Quebec. He wrote: “Had Quebec not been guaranteed these substantial powers—and hence protection from being forced to submit to English Canadian majority decisions—either it would not have joined the Canadian federation or it would have seceded soon thereafter.” Yet Quebeckers are the ones viewed as nasty separatists who, seated astride the high horse of our linguistic majority, trample upon rights and freedoms. There has to be a solution, but that is a bit much.

One thing is certain: All independence activists throughout history have demonstrated their commitment to the foundations of democracy. We did not pull out bazookas. When the referendum was stolen from us and we lost in 1995, we continued to pay taxes to Ottawa. We continued to respect Canadian parliamentary democracy. The proof is that we are bringing our point of view to the House and, as long as we pay taxes, we have the right to be represented.

I am a child of the Quiet Revolution, which was unquestionably a time of political and sociological effervescence. We transitioned from a society where institutions were entirely denominational to a secular, neutral society. A look at conflicts around the planet shows that any time religion found its way into a political agenda, things went off the rails. Polarization would happen, leading to wars and intolerance. That was why Quebec decided to separate church, religion and state.

Quebec is a francophone nation in a sea of 370 million anglophones. We adopted a way of living together in harmony built on a cultural convergence centred on three essential principles. Intercultural relations are the common denominator of our shared existence. Our different roots join us together. In Quebec, everything happens in French. As I said, there is a separation of church and state, and gender equality is enshrined. That goes hand in hand with the separation of church, religion and state. Every religion I know of subordinates women to men. If anyone knows one that does not do that, please rise and tell me.

The problem we are seeing in this debate is a misunderstanding of a phenomenon known as the legalization of politics. What is that? The Canadian Parliament is well versed on this subject. It always waits for the courts to rule before changing laws. However, we, the representatives of the people, are the ones making the laws. The Supreme Court justices must interpret the laws we enact in accordance with section 1 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

A charter right can be infringed within reasonable limits if it can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. On the substance of the issue, which the Liberals refuse to speak to, the courts can rule on Bill 21. How, exactly, is freedom of religion or conscience infringed beyond reasonable limits?

When Quebeckers had the Canadian Constitution shoved down their throats, Jean Chrétien boasted about the notwithstanding clause in a little book I have at home and should have brought with me to quote from. He said, for the benefit of those who may not know, that parliaments must be above the courts.

This means that if the Supreme Court says that the legislation unreasonably infringes a right guaranteed in the charter, we have options. The notwithstanding clause can remain in place for five years, allowing time for a review, especially if the goal is to change the law and bring it into compliance after five years of debate in the legislature that is violating the charter. What is happening here subordinates and devalues the parliamentary democracies in Quebec and the provinces. That is where the debates should take place.

The other option is to change the Constitution. I do not know of any law that was put in place with the notwithstanding clause and that has been re-enacted ad infinitum, because a debate eventually takes place in a parliament. At some point, the public tells the government to come up with a law that complies with the Constitution or else it will be ousted.

What we are doing here is devaluing political power. It has been that way for years, and the charter gave rise to the relationship that Canadian politicians have had with the court. Take medical assistance in dying, for example. The Parliament of Canada has always lagged behind the Supreme Court. The justices forced the Canadian Parliament to pass laws, because it was too far behind to represent the people and do what the people were asking it to do. That meant people's freedom, right to life and freedom to choose were infringed. I did not see a lot of people on the other side rebelling over that. However, we are being lectured a great deal about rights and freedoms.

Quebec has passed a law on advance requests for degenerative diseases such as Alzheimer's. The Liberals have rejected the idea outright. However, 87% of Quebeckers want us to move in that direction, and the Criminal Code is not aligned with the Quebec law. I have not seen the 44 current Liberal members come forward and say that it is appalling that the Criminal Code is not aligned with Quebec law. These are just examples. We are faced with a legal stance that devalues the role of the legislative assemblies.

I think that in today's debate, we saw Liberals who lacked courage. In fact, only one of them showed any courage. What we are asking the government to do is not that complicated. We are asking it to withdraw its ridiculous factum that claims that the danger of the notwithstanding clause is that it could lead a legislative assembly to abolish unions. I would love to see a party in a legislative assembly manage that. I would just want to see if it gets re-elected and how things turn out in its province or in Quebec.

Shutting down newspapers and churches? Give me a break. It is one thing to say that public institutions must be neutral and secular in order to prevent polarization. If someone wants a church or a Jewish school, they can pay for it. We have no problem with that. No one is being forced to stop practising their religion, except in public institutions, because everyone pays taxes.

Secularism is a humanist principle. That is why we are asking the government to withdraw its factum.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

It being 6:26 p.m., it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of the business of supply.

The question is on the motion.

If a member participating in person wishes that the motion be carried or carried on division, or if a member of a recognized party participating in person wishes to request a recorded division, I would invite them to rise and indicate it to the Chair.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I request a recorded division.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the recorded division stands deferred until Wednesday, September 24, at the expiry of the time provided for Oral Questions.

The hon. member for Winnipeg North has a point of order.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I suspect if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:41 p.m. so we can get to the late show.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 38 deemed to have been moved.

Oil and Gas Industry

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

Mr. Speaker, back in June, I asked the government how many new pipeline projects we could expect completed within the next two years.

I would point out that over the last dozen years, the government has cancelled a dozen pipelines and 14 LNG projects because of the changes it brought to the legislation right here in Canada.

In response to the question I asked in June, the government replied that this was a golden opportunity to vote in favour of Bill C-5, which basically makes a workaround to all the terrible legislation the Liberals put in place over the last 10 years and allows the cabinet to pick and choose its favourite projects going forward. Bill C-5 was promised to build the economy of tomorrow.

As one could expect, we waited with bated breath over the summer to see what was going to happen. We had worked to expedite Bill C-5. We were fundamentally opposed to the idea that Bill C-5 would, basically, work around the rule of law in Canada and allow cabinet to pick and choose. However, we said that if this is what it would take to make Canada an “energy superpower”, which were the words of the Prime Minister, we would support Bill C-5 with the expectation that we would see major energy projects proposed clear across this country, from east-west pipelines to west coast pipelines.

Given the fact that Bill C-69 and Bill C-48 were the major impediments to these major pipelines, and given that Bill C-5 was basically skirting around these two pieces of legislation, which we have been calling for the repeal of for nearly a decade, we were saying that if the government got rid of these bills, these projects would go. The Liberals said they were not going to do that but would have a workaround.

We expected that over the summer we would see the government pick a number of projects, particularly oil pipelines for energy to the west and east coasts, getting our energy to market and making Canada the “energy superpower”. However, we did not see that. What we saw was 66,000 jobs lost in Alberta over this year. Excluding COVID-19, it is the worst job loss in Alberta since 2017. Last month, total unemployment hit its highest mark since May 2016, again, excluding COVID-19.

This slump cannot be totally blamed on what is happening south of the border. This is entirely because the major projects of our country are being completed: The Site C dam is basically done, and the west coast LNG project is basically over. We see that the government has failed entirely.

We have watched billions of dollars exit this country. We had the energy east pipeline, the northern gateway pipeline and the Pacific northwest pipeline that were going to be built, but they are not going on. We had 15 LNG projects on the books ready to go back in 2015; today, one of them has been built.

I guess the question still remains. Back to reality, we have passed Bill C-5, and we have yet to see any new major energy projects coming online. There has been delay after delay. Will the government be proposing major energy pipelines across this country under Bill C-5?

[Claude Guay, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Energy and Natural Resources]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my opposition colleague for his question.

As Canadians, we believe in our ability to build. We believe that hard work and vision can provide future opportunities for our children and grandchildren. Throughout our history, when faced with uncertainty, we have risen to the challenge. Today, we must demonstrate the same spirit, because the issue before us is not just about fuel. It is about Canada's economic independence, our jobs and the leadership role we can play in the global energy future.

We need to take charge of our destiny. We need to build more projects of national importance. We are not ruling out new and expanded pipelines. Our efforts to advance major projects are how we strengthen our economy, how we create certainty for investors and how we build the resilience we need against unjustified trade actions. Canada has always risen to the occasion when faced with challenges, drawing strength from our unity, resilience and ambition.

The new Major Projects Office is our commitment to lead and to build the energy sector, acting as a single point of contact to prioritize and streamline nation-building projects that will secure Canada's place as an energy superpower. This unwavering focus is rapidly turning into action. Among the first set of projects that have been referred to the Major Projects Office for consideration, the LNG Canada phase 2 project stands out as a transformative opportunity. Located in Kitimat, British Columbia, this proposed expansion will double the facility's capacity, allowing us to export 28 million tonnes of liquefied natural gas each year.

Canadian LNG is produced to the highest environmental and labour standards and will diversify our markets, strengthen global energy security and reduce emissions by offering cleaner energy alternatives to the world. With its operation projected to emit 60% less greenhouse gases than the global average, LNG Canada exemplifies how we can deliver energy responsibly while generating more jobs for Canadians.

Through the Major Projects Office, we ensure that energy projects, such as phase two of LNG Canada, receive the attention, support and regulatory certainty they need to move forward quickly and successfully. Working with governments, indigenous communities and the private sector, we are building the infrastructure and partnerships needed for a strong, sustainable and sovereign economy.

We do not just ask ourselves whether we should build; we lead the way in how to build, with determination and speed. Our environmental obligations and our legal obligations to indigenous peoples are also non-negotiable.

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

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member talks about LNG Canada, for example. I am interested to know what roadblocks Bill C-5 pulled out of the way of LNG Canada. LNG Canada was well on its way to being built already. Bill C-5 has not created a new project in LNG Canada.

The member talked about certainty for business. Bill C-5 gives no certainty for business. All Bill C-5 does is say that someone better go and lobby the federal government and the cabinet to get a particular project on the books, and maybe they will say yes. What certainty for business looks like is a clear set of guidelines, and if a project fulfills those types of things, it will be able to be built in Canada; someone does not have to go to the cabinet and request special permission to build a particular project.

The government is a sham. It pays lip service to energy superpowers and does nothing to get out of the way to make these projects happen in Canada.

[Claude Guay, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would also like to remind the hon. member and the House that our government, alongside the B.C. government, approved the Ksi Lisims LNG project just last week.

As the Prime Minister said, we are diversifying our trade partners, we are developing new industries, and we are strengthening economic activity across Canada to build the strongest economy in the G7. That is what visionary leadership looks like, and I am here to say we are moving forward to make Canada an energy superpower.

Agriculture and Agri-Food

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, before I get the chance to follow up on the ag minister's non-answer to my previous question, I would like to say that this month, my home province of Saskatchewan celebrates its 120th anniversary of joining the Confederation.

From humble beginnings out on the wild frontier, we have seen a lot of growth since then. Farmers have played an essential part in that every step of the way. We continue to be the breadbasket of the world, and we will always be proud of the people who get up early, stay out in the field for late nights and work all year-round to feed Canada and feed the world. I give my thanks to the farmers and the producers for everything they do.

It has been a long time since we have had an ag minister from Saskatchewan or western Canada who has first-hand experience of what prairie farmers face in their industry. I just want to take a few moments to go over some key statistics from Saskatchewan producers and Canadian producers and what they mean for the world. Canada contributes 22% of global exports of canola meal, 21% of global exports of canola oil, 17% of canola seed exports, 37% of lentils exports across the world and 27% of global dry pea exports. When we look at Canada at large, 87% of Canada's lentils come from Saskatchewan, 85% of our chickpeas come from Saskatchewan and 55% of Canada's canola is grown in Saskatchewan.

That is why I brought up the issue of tariffs on canola oil, canola meal, canola crush and on our peas, yellow peas in particular. They are all being tariffed by China. It is extremely important that the government understand how important agriculture is, not just to the Saskatchewan economy, but to the general economy as a whole. One in eight jobs in Canada come from the agriculture sector. Numbers like these underscore just how important agriculture is to Saskatchewan.

I represent southwest and west central Saskatchewan, right near the heart of what is called the Palliser Triangle in Canada. It is an area that was supposed to be uninhabitable for man. However, within that very region, the farmers of Saskatchewan and Alberta have been able to essentially feed the world. Looking at the numbers of the various kinds of crops being produced, it is important for the government to understand just how important the export market is.

With China being a major export market, we have seen 100% tariffs and 76% tariffs on various products from China. We have also had a trade relationship with India that goes up and down. There are other markets around the world that have been on-again, off-again for us, so it is important that those export markets remain available to our producers.

We hear the Prime Minister talk about how amazing he is going to be for our relationships with China and other countries because he has all this fantastic experience. At the end of the day, he has been in power now for over six months, and these tariffs still exist. Some of these tariffs were recently introduced. It is not even like they have been on for a long time. They were recently introduced, and the Prime Minister has not done anything about them.

We know that with China, the only way this is going to be resolved is through our country's Prime Minister and the leader of China meeting. That is the only way we are going to be able to get this resolved. The Prime Minister has not gone to China. Instead, he has been going off to Europe and other countries for, more or less, fake trade announcements or fake announcements of things that we already have in place with these countries.

I am just wondering if this time the parliamentary secretary can tell the producers of Saskatchewan very clearly when these tariffs will be removed.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for reminding us once again about the importance of agriculture.

I completely agree with him. The agricultural sector is a pillar of our economy that feeds not only our country, but much of the planet as well. It is an economic driver, as my colleague said, and not just with respect to jobs, although it accounts for one in nine jobs in Canada. It also accounts for a significant portion of our gross domestic product. I want to join him in thanking all our producers, including canola producers.

Canola producers are facing the unfair tariff that China has imposed on canola products. Canola in Canada is one of the best in the world, and we should be very proud of that. We are responding to support the sector.

I want to mention a few things. I would like to remind the member that canola producers were front and centre in the Prime Minister's recent announcement of measures to help them with the impact of tariffs. Those measures include an increase to the interest-free limit for canola advance payments, under the advance payment program, to half a million dollars for the year 2025-26. This change is expected to provide an additional interest savings of up to $35 million to more than 6,000 producers of canola.

In response to the canola sector's call for a domestic market, the Prime Minister also announced more than $370 million to support the stability and resilience of Canadian producers of biofuel and renewable diesel. As part of this announcement, the Prime Minister also made a commitment to make targeted amendments to the clean fuel regulations. Taken together, these efforts will support Canadian farmers through increased demand for feedstock used to produce these renewable fuels, such as canola. We heard at committee some of the sectors saying that it is indeed growing the domestic market economy for canola producers, and that is really welcome.

The Prime Minister also announced new funding of $75 million over five years to the AgriMarketing program to support the diversification of agricultural exports into new high-growth markets such as Africa, the Middle East and the Indo-Pacific. With this change, we are standing up to support our canola farmers. Of course, we will continue to negotiate with China so that it withdraws its unfair tariffs on our sector.

[Jeremy Patzer, Conservative, Swift Current—Grasslands—Kindersley, SK]

Mr. Speaker, Kevin Hursh, who is a producer from southwest Saskatchewan, writes for The Western Producer on a regular basis. The latest article he wrote was regarding net farm profitability. The whole point of the article is to show, with current prices, input costs and the way things are, what the most profitable and what the biggest-loss crops are.

Right at the very bottom of that list is yellow peas, and yellow peas are the subject of tariffs from China. Going back just a year, yellow peas did quite well, and now they are down at the bottom of the list. Adding this trade irritant with China is going to further exasperate the yellow pea growers. That is one of the crops that actually grows quite well in southwest Saskatchewan.

We are seeing very minimal returns on canola now with the price point the way it is, and then we add this other trade irritant. We need the Prime Minister to take this seriously, and the relief steps they are taking just do not cut it.