Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to see that the member for Montmorency—Charlevoix thinks that Quebec can contribute a great deal to the Canadian identity.

Personally, I do not see any point in showing anything to the rest of Canada, other than demonstrating that we are going to be excellent neighbours and partners in all aspects of society, whether in commerce or international trade. I understand that my colleague's federalist point of view suggests that Quebec could contribute to making Canadians better citizens. I personally think that Quebec will be a better state, a better nation, once we finally have all the tools of our autonomy, that is, pure and simple independence.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, although this point has been made since the day started, I think it is important to raise it again.

Upon reading the brief submitted by the Attorney General of Canada with regard to the Supreme Court challenge of Quebec's legislation, An Act respecting the laicity of the State, one can detect something of a sanctimonious tone. The document seems to presume bad faith on the part of the provinces, Quebec in particular, as though they were dangerous. Conversely, the federal government portrays itself as a beacon of virtue, a bulwark against provincial abuse, including at the hands of the people of Quebec.

First, I would like to know whether my colleague shares that opinion. Second, in light of the past 150 years of history, is that what we are actually witnessing?

[Martin Champoux, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I was also blown away when I saw excerpts from this report, which mentions the possibility that a government could reinstate arbitrary executions and consider repealing freedom of the press.

My colleague from Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi said earlier that there was a danger of women's rights being rolled back. As my colleague from Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères implied, Quebec is the most progressive society in North America, certainly not one that could backslide to that extent. I think that using these terms, even if they are only examples of extreme cases, fuels fear and brings us back to the kind of fearmongering rhetoric that we have heard time and time again. The government has threatened to take away our passports, take away our army and even have Canadians invade Quebec, as if we would have nothing left to defend ourselves. Ridicule does not kill but, damn it, there are still limits.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, for as far back as we can remember, Quebec has wanted freedom, the power to express its distinctiveness and the ability to make its own choices.

This desire for freedom and democracy was behind the Patriotes movement in the 1830s and the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s. It is this desire for freedom and democracy that motivated the significant reforms made by René Lévesque's government starting in 1976, and more recently, Bill 21, concerning secularism, and Bill 96, which strengthens the protection of our French language.

Quebec is a people, a language, a territory with its own character and a nation with its own values.

Some, including me, feel that the only way for us to be free is to have our own country, an independent francophone state in North America that would give Quebeckers full powers to govern their destiny. Quebec would be free to negotiate the treaties it signs with other countries, free to democratically determine the way it develops and free to protect its language and support its economy.

However, for others, Quebec should be able to adapt in order to grow within Canada. In their view, there would be enough room for Quebec's distinctiveness within the rest of Canada. For these people, the notwithstanding clause is precisely proof that Canada occasionally allows Quebec to assert its distinctive nature. The notwithstanding clause is part of the Constitution, which allows a province, as well as the federal government, to pass a law without having it be reviewed by a judge. It is also called the parliamentary sovereignty clause, because it allows a legislature to vote democratically on a law that will not be subsequently overturned or struck down by judges.

This clause is limited. It only allows for exceptions to certain individual rights in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is only valid for five years at a time. The Quebec government invoked the parliamentary sovereignty clause to protect the law on state secularism from any challenge. Since 1982, Quebec has used this clause on numerous occasions to protect laws passed by the Quebec National Assembly. It has used it to protect the French language and Quebec's national identity, but, more generally, Quebec has also used this clause to promote collective rights and social goals. For example, it has done so to provide benefits to the next generation of farmers, to promote the employment by the government of people from under-represented communities, to improve access to justice with the small claims court and to protect the identity of young people in youth court.

All these social advances, which Quebec wanted, were unable to be put forward because of individual rights enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Thus, the parliamentary sovereignty clause is a small window of freedom through which Quebec democracy can express itself. It is a way of resisting the uniformity imposed by the Canadian courts.

For René Lévesque, who suffered the night of the long knives when the patriation of the Constitution was negotiated, this clause was not enough. That is why Quebec, even though it is subject to it, never signed on to the 1982 Constitution. However, for several Canadian provinces, this was the compromise that made the Constitution acceptable.

Today, this Liberal government wants to shrink this small space of democratic freedom. It has asked the Supreme Court to limit how the parliamentary sovereignty clause can be used. Since it is not courageous enough to propose negotiating with the provinces, it is asking the judges to do its job. It argues that, without new limits, Quebec could commit dangerous abuses. This is an extremely condescending view of Quebec, and it is really nothing new.

It targets Quebecers because, if the Liberal government were truly concerned about the overriding of fundamental rights, it would start by cleaning up its own laws. It must be said that most bills of rights contain a notwithstanding clause. Quebec's has one, Alberta's has one, Saskatchewan's has one. Even the Canadian Bill of Rights contains a notwithstanding clause. It is a bill that applies to areas of federal jurisdiction. It was adopted in 1960 under the leadership of Mr. Diefenbaker, and section 2 contains a notwithstanding clause. If the federal government were so concerned about the possibility of this clause being used, it could have started by amending this law itself in the House of Commons.

However, what worries the government is not so much notwithstanding clauses in general, but rather the possibility that Quebec may express its difference. That is why the government only wants to define the parliamentary sovereignty clause that applies to Quebec.

To fully understand what is happening, let us take a step back. On November 20, 1981, during the debates surrounding the adoption of the parliamentary sovereignty clause, the Liberal Minister of Justice at the time, Jean Chrétien, addressed the House:

The purpose of an override clause is to provide the flexibility that is required to ensure that legislatures rather than judges have the final say on important matters of public policy...

It is because of the history of the use of the override clause and because of the need for a safety valve to correct absurd situations without going through the difficulty of obtaining constitutional amendments that three leading civil libertarians have welcomed its inclusion in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

[...]

It should be clear, in conclusion, that the compromise reached by the Prime Minister with the nine Premiers [Quebec never signed on] maintains the principle of a full, complete and effective constitutional Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not exclude rights which have previously been guaranteed. In fact, the charter has been improved because unforeseen situations will be able to be corrected without the need to seek constitutional amendment. For those who remain concerned about the override clause, let me remind them that it has been said that “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance”.

In this last sentence, Mr. Chrétien could have been speaking to those who are now members of the Liberal government.

Forty years later, the former prime minister still had not changed his mind. On April 19, 2017, he told the CBC that he was in favour of the notwithstanding clause because he believed that we need it and that we could not rely solely on the courts. He said that this was the reason why he was happy that we had a notwithstanding clause. In his view, judges know, when they make their rulings, that governments may object to them.

There is more. I will now quote Pierre Elliott Trudeau, who was also quite satisfied with the notwithstanding clause:

I must be honest and say that I don't fear the notwithstanding clause very much. It can be abused as anything can, but the history of the Canadian Bill of Rights Diefenbaker had adopted in 1960, it has a notwithstanding clause and it hasn't caused any great scandal. So I don't think the notwithstanding clause deters very significantly from the excellence of the Charter.

He went on to say that:

[I]t is a way that the legislatures, federal and provincial, have of ensuring that the last word is held by the elected representatives of the people rather than by the courts.

When former prime ministers Pierre Elliot Trudeau and Jean Chrétien are being quoted to defend provincial autonomy, things are not going well. That is because Ottawa's appetite for centralization is stronger than ever before these days.

We need to take stock of what is happening right now. This provision, which was not enough to convince Quebec to sign the 1982 Constitution, is now too important for Ottawa to tolerate. This space of democratic freedom for Quebec is now treated like a historic mistake that the federal government wants to correct.

The more time passes, the more the federal government wants to shackle Quebec. This shows the real state of affairs. Canada is working against Quebec's distinctiveness. It will always push further and further. It will never stop. However, Quebec is a people, a language and a territory with its own colours. It is a nation with its own values, and one day, I am certain, a majority of Quebeckers will agree that the only way to achieve true freedom is to be our own country.

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

Mr. Speaker, I like the quotation my colleague referenced: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” I am listening carefully. That is precisely why I am rising to ask him a question.

The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a number of rights, including women's rights. We are in the Parliament of Canada. If a future Canadian government were to decide to limit these rights by invoking the notwithstanding clause, does my colleague think that there would be circumstances in which the judiciary might review this and set limits on these rights?

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I took the time to read Jean Chrétien's comments.

Mr. Chrétien kind of answered my colleague's question by saying that the notwithstanding clause is a compromise. It is a compromise that Mr. Chrétien and Mr. Trudeau could both live with. What Mr. Chrétien said to those who feared that things would get too out of hand is that vigilance is always required and that there are ways for lobby groups to fight it out in the political realm.

What is happening here is quite scandalous. There is a notwithstanding clause, a limited option for democratic freedom that is used very sparingly. This government is going further than any other Liberal government to once again shut down this option for Quebec.

[Tamara Kronis, Conservative, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for his remarks. I particularly appreciate the depth of the historical references and the research he has done.

Turning to the situation and the serious challenges that we are facing today, including things like failure to get a trade deal, mounting federal debt, runaway costs and serious crime in our communities, I wonder if the hon. member agrees that the Prime Minister's decision to intervene here really risks creating a constitutional distraction at the very moment when we most need the federal government to be focused on more urgent day-to-day concerns.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform my colleague, although I am sure she already knows, that Alberta currently wants to use the notwithstanding clause. It is considering it.

What the government is doing here, like with this debate, is far from being a distraction. We are in the process of discussing to what extent the provinces will be able to decide for themselves how they want to live and how they want to act. If this debate continues in the direction the Liberal government is taking it, what will happen if the Supreme Court agrees with its argument is that the provinces will be less equipped to deal with all the challenges of our time, including the economic crisis.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, in fact, I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about the Liberals' hypocrisy in this debate.

The Liberal spin they tried to pass off is that they did not want to touch the issue of secularism, boasting about being the great defenders of Quebec. They hide behind this pretense to challenge the notwithstanding clause, implying, for example, that it could even be invoked to suppress the freedom of the press. However, they are the ones hindering freedom of the press by backing down on GAFAM and not adequately protecting local media. This hypocrisy shows, and the member for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi seems to think so, that the Liberals still think that Bill 21 is a bad thing for women. Again, that is hypocrisy.

[Alexis Deschênes, Bloc, Gaspésie—Les Îles-de-la-Madeleine—Listuguj, QC]

Mr. Speaker, this government is obviously against the Act respecting the laicity of the State.

Essentially, with the path it is taking, it does not need to attack secularism head-on. That is what it decided. It said that there are several other parties before the Supreme Court who will do so. However, by attacking the notwithstanding clause, which was perhaps a way for the Liberals to avoid adding fuel to the fire, they are not only attacking the democratic decision that we made in Quebec on how we live together, but they are also attacking the power of Quebec and the provinces within Canada. That is even worse.

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Les Pays-d'en-Haut.

I rise today in response to a motion calling on the government to fully withdraw from legal challenges on Bill 21. The motion would have the House agree that the Government of Canada, the government of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, should not participate in one of the most important constitutional appeals to the Supreme Court in recent memory.

This case directly concerns Quebec legislation, of course, but the legal issues that it raises and that the Attorney General of Canada has addressed are of prime interest and deal with the role and importance of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in our modern governance system. The Supreme Court must determine what it means for the federal Parliament or a provincial Parliament to use section 33 of the charter.

Section 33 of the charter, known as the notwithstanding clause, has never been used at the federal level. Today, I would like to talk more about some of the less understood ways in which the government promotes good governance and the improvement of policies and laws under the charter. I do so to highlight well-thought-out practices that could be at risk if the use of section 33 were allowed to become more common and less taboo.

The point I want to make today is that the charter imposes a necessary discipline on government policy and law-making. This discipline would be lost if the use of section 33 became normalized. I will explain.

Let me explain. The charter is part of the Constitution and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. That means that every law and every move the government makes must be charter-compliant. As a country founded on principles that include the rule of law, governments must be committed to ensuring that the measures they take and the laws they pass comply with the charter.

Prior to 1982, there is no doubt that governments recognized the fundamental value of a free and democratic Canada, a value that ultimately needed to be enshrined in the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. After 1982, upholding these values became a constitutional imperative.

To be clear, respecting rights and freedoms does not mean never limiting them. Charter rights and freedoms are not absolute. Section 1 of the charter specifically sets out limits, which is very important, and guarantees rights and freedoms, subject to “reasonable limits” prescribed by the rule of law that can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What are these reasonable limits that can be imposed on the rights and freedoms of Canadians? In essence, the standard boils down to a deceptively simple set of questions.

Is the government's objective sufficiently important to justify limiting a right? Is the limit a rational way to achieve that objective? In trying to achieve that objective, does the law use the option that causes the least harm to the right being limited? Finally, if the answer to each of these questions is yes, is the overall harm to the exercise or enjoyment of the right worth it when weighed against the benefits of the rights-limiting measure?

If so, then in Canada we consider such a limit to be reasonable, and, assuming that a government is well armed with supporting evidence, logic and reason, demonstrably justifiable as well.

When potential impacts on charter rights and freedoms are identified in the policy development process, governments need to carefully evaluate whether any limits on rights and freedoms are reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in Canada's free and democratic society.

As I just mentioned, this requires asking a series of questions that relate to the reasonableness of what is being considered.

Let us look at the first question: Is the government's objective in introducing legislation important enough to warrant limiting a right or freedom?

This can prevent governments from introducing trivial or merely symbolic legislation that would limit rights and freedoms.

The second question is whether the proposed means of achieving the government's objective is rational or, in other words, whether it is the right tool for the job. This prevents relying, for example, on “common sense” that may be unfounded or simply uninformed. Saying that public safety will be enhanced by doing a particular thing does not make it so, especially if the weight of evidence shows that such is not the case. If we are honest with ourselves, evidence-based solutions to certain problems are counterintuitive, and governing with respect for charter rights and freedoms helps us to recognize this and propose better and more effective approaches.

The third question is whether there is another effective means of achieving the important objectives, while lessening the harm to rights or freedoms. Meeting this standard requires assessing the various options available to advance an objective and choosing the most reasonable one that does the least amount of harm to Canada's fundamental values and to the Canadians whose rights and freedoms will be restricted.

The final question is whether the benefits of the legislation proposed to achieve an important objective outweigh the harms to the exercise or enjoyment of the right or freedom. That is the ultimate cost-benefit analysis, and it must be objective. This aspect of the section 1 standard prevents enacting legislation that has marginal benefits and real impacts on the rights and freedoms of Canadians. It does not tolerate legislation that disregards the rights and freedoms of individuals who may be unpopular, such as people charged with or punished for a crime, or laws that disregard the negative impacts on members of a minority group who have limited political power and little or fleeting public sympathy.

I think we can all agree that the questions the charter requires us to ask when considering new legislation are good, appropriate questions. We must ask these questions and evaluate their answers throughout the policy development process, from the initial departmental discussion about ways to solve a problem, to cabinet consideration of the options, to the drafting of a bill and, ultimately, to the most important stage, debate and passage of a bill by Parliament. Feeble answers to any of the questions should sound the alarm and lead to more in-depth study and consideration of alternatives.

When we get good answers to the questions that the charter forces us all to ask ourselves, we can adopt more thoughtful policies and better laws for Canadians. If we do not get good answers, and if the arguments and evidence in support of poorly crafted legislation are weak, the government should be held accountable for its choices.

This is what should worry us if section 33 becomes commonplace in Canada. Instead of thoughtful, reasoned, logical, evidence-based laws that limit rights and freedoms and are subject to robust checks and balances in the form of judicial oversight in the courts, section 33 eliminates this disciplined approach to law-making. The use of section 33 may amount to a crude assertion of power over the rights and freedoms of individuals in Canada that stands in direct opposition to the way federal governance has functioned for over 40 years.

Although Canada is one of the best countries in the world to live in, we are far from perfect. We have made serious mistakes in the past. Prejudice and blind spots are an inherent part of being human, and they also exist in the institutions we create and operate. Here are a few examples of what we have done in the past: We imposed a head tax on Chinese immigrants, forced generations of indigenous children into residential schools and, in 1939, turned away Jewish refugees fleeing Germany aboard the MS Saint Louis. There may be some people who still believe that all of those decisions were right, but in general, as a nation, we have come to regret them and apologize for them. The discipline that the charter imposes on the government during the decision-making and legislative process helps prevent such tragedies from happening again in Canada.

[Xavier Barsalou-Duval, Bloc, Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have never hidden it: They have always said that Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State bothered them. Quebec's laws defending French also bother them. Now they have realized that Quebec is using the notwithstanding clause to defend its identity, language and secular principles. Since the notwithstanding clause exists in the Constitution, they are stuck with it and are wondering what the solution is.

For them, the solution is to ask the Supreme Court to reinvent the law in their stead because they do not have the courage to amend the Constitution themselves. They know that they will get neither the support of 50% of the public plus one, nor the support of seven out of 10 provinces, as required by the procedure for amending the Constitution. Since they know that they will not be able to amend the Constitution, they are asking the Supreme Court to do it for them.

Does my colleague not think that this shows a lack of courage on their part?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, as everyone knows, I am a proud Quebecker. I come from a family in the Lower St. Lawrence and was raised by proud parents on a dairy farm, but that does not make me any less Canadian.

Today, we are talking about prejudice that could cause harm in the future. I come from the world of finance, and I can tell members that the past is no indication of the future. The actions we are taking today have an impact on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which has been protecting us for 43 years. No one can predict what will happen in 10, 15 or 20 years. What we are seeing south of the border reminds us how important it is that we continue to safeguard the charter, which has protected us for 43 years, for all future generations.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is making a statement similar to the one made this morning by the member for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi. They are arguing that implementing a policy that regulates religion is at odds with invoking the notwithstanding clause, which allows Quebec to follow its own political leanings. I find that quite surprising.

Anyone with even a passing knowledge of Quebec history will quickly realize that Quebec needed to break free from religion and become secular in order to build a modern society. Perhaps my colleague can enlighten me on this point.

How could the notwithstanding clause become a threat to women's freedom, as the member for Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi said earlier?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to clarify a few points for my colleague. The Bloc Québécois is trying to bring the debate back to Bill 21 and religious freedoms. When I was a child, we went to church every Sunday. I was raised in the church. I have aunts who are nuns.

Now, I am before the House to talk about protecting the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Bloc Québécois would love to reopen the debate on Bill 21 and stir up more controversy on this issue. I am a Quebecker, like my colleague. Do not forget that there are twice as many Liberal MPs from Quebec as there are Bloc Québécois MPs. Everyone knows that Quebeckers are tired of controversy. They have no use for it. They want a responsible government that will protect their laws.

[Kurt Holman, Conservative, London—Fanshawe, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government is trying to create a crisis to ignore the real crisis Canadians are faced with. Canadians are thinking about the inflation crisis. Food inflation continues to rise 70% above target. Food prices are now 40% higher than when the Liberal government took office. The Liberals are creating a new crisis to distract from the problems they have created.

Will the Liberal government please tell Canadians, including the constituents of London—Fanshawe, how it will solve the ongoing inflation crisis?

[Steeve Lavoie, Liberal, Beauport—Limoilou, QC]

Mr. Speaker, we are not trying to create a crisis. Quite the opposite, in fact. We are not trying to create controversy, as I said earlier. The people who elected us with a clear mandate want us to protect them. That is what we are doing right now.

We are stepping up and standing up to defend our constituents from coast to coast to coast, right across the country. Yes, I am a Quebecker, but I am also a proud Canadian, just like my colleagues from Ontario and the Yukon, who are also standing up to protect the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is why I am here today.

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Rivière-du-Nord, who is my riding neighbour.

To begin with, I want to remind the House that the question raised by this motion is not insignificant. It touches on one of the pillars of our democracy, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which applies to all Canadians. It also raises fundamental concerns related to the interpretation and use of the notwithstanding clause, an exceptional provision of our Constitution.

Our presence before the Supreme Court is not intended to reopen old debates. It is not in any way intended to pit Canada against the provinces or to cast doubt on their legislative authority. Our participation in this appeal is intended to fulfill an important constitutional duty of the federal government: to uphold the rule of law, ensure the integrity of our Constitution, and protect the rights and freedoms we all share as citizens of this country.

There is nothing unusual or unexpected about Canada's participation in the appeal filed by the English Montreal School Board. By supporting the Supreme Court in this case, the government is simply doing what it has always done and will always do, which is to defend all Canadians, as is our responsibility and privilege.

Before going into detail on the case at hand, I would like to review the institutional framework surrounding the federal government's intervention before the Supreme Court. When the court is seized with constitutional and charter issues, the rules require that notice be given to the Attorney General of Canada and provincial attorneys general. In these circumstances, the federal and provincial attorneys general have the power and every right to intervene.

The Attorney General of Canada is frequently called upon to act as an intervener before the Supreme Court. This should come as no surprise. To defend the public interest, the Attorney General must have an opportunity to participate in cases that raise important constitutional issues, ensuring that the constitutionality of laws is fully and properly debated before the courts.

This role helps uphold the rule of law, ensures that the government's actions respect the limits set by the Constitution and the charter, and ultimately ensures that the rights and interests of all Canadians are protected.

I would like to stress the specific role of an intervener before the Supreme Court. As an intervener, Canada's main objective is to make a significant contribution to resolving complex legal issues that have major consequences for all Canadians. The government's goal is not to advocate for a particular outcome or to take a position on the validity of the disputed provincial law. Instead, its goal is to support the court by providing a useful and distinct perspective on the legal matters at hand, based on its constitutional responsibilities and its ability to provide a national and federal perspective on matters before the court.

For example, as a national government, Canada has a major interest in ensuring that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is interpreted and applied consistently across the country. As a national government, Canada also has an interest in promoting and protecting national unity, a role grounded in the principle of federalism.

Furthermore, as a national government, we have a clear interest in the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, regardless of where they live. The Attorney General of Canada has an important role to play in ensuring that minority rights are respected consistently throughout the country.

The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly indicated, particularly in the reference to secession, that respect for minorities is one of the underlying principles of the Canadian Constitution. That principle, along with federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, forms the foundation of Canada's constitutional framework.

As we know, this government has shown an unwavering commitment to defending the rights of linguistic minorities across Canada.

I would now like to illustrate how those principles actually apply to the case at hand today, that which involves the English Montreal School Board and other appellants. We have always indicated that, given the nationally important issues that this case raises, we would be there to defend the charter before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is exactly what we are doing today.

To be clear, many questions about how the Constitution is interpreted or applied are at play in this case. Several provinces, in addition to Quebec, as well as some 40 organizations, are already involved in this case, each presenting its own arguments on the issues. To me, that is the clearest indicator that this is a very important debate for our country and our federation.

That is why this government signalled its intention to intervene in this case last March and submitted its brief to the Supreme Court on September 17. In so doing, we are making the Government of Canada's voice heard in a debate that directly affects the interpretation and future of the charter.

This case is not limited to the immediate issues before the court. It touches on fundamental freedoms and rights, as well as the interpretation and application of the charter. I would like to clarify that the Attorney General of Canada's submissions are not aimed at the Act respecting the laicity of the State. They relate exclusively to the proper interpretation of the charter. The Supreme Court's decision will determine the conditions under which the federal and provincial governments may invoke the notwithstanding clause in the years to come.

The Attorney General of Canada is firmly committed to participating in these important national discussions, which could have repercussions for all Canadians. For that reason, the government will not withdraw from this debate before the Supreme Court. Doing so would be a dereliction of its duty to defend the charter and to help maintain a clear and consistent constitutional framework for the entire country.

It is in the interest of the court, the public and the Constitution for the government to contribute to this debate, particularly as it relates to the interpretation of section 33. As it has already stated, this government is very concerned about the increased use of the notwithstanding clause, namely, section 33 of the charter. The first word should not be the last in the dialogue between parliaments and the courts.

We are seeing the notwithstanding clause being increasingly invoked by parliaments across the country. We have heard from Canadians who are concerned about the appropriateness of invoking the notwithstanding clause in such a way. Again, our role is to provide helpful observations to the court on the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution, which in this case is the notwithstanding clause.

This contribution is intended to enrich the debate, not to single out a province or to challenge its ability to legislate. We respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, including Quebec, but respecting does not mean staying silent. When an issue concerns the interpretation of the charter, it is normal, critical even, for the Government of Canada to make itself heard.

[Alexis Brunelle-Duceppe, Bloc, Lac-Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the real question in today's debate is this, and I want to put it to my colleague: Will my colleague be happy if Bill 21 is struck down as a result of the federal government's intervention, its factum, before the Supreme Court?

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is not the issue here.

Bill 21 is not being taken before the Supreme Court. It is solely a question of the use of the notwithstanding clause. I believe that, when it comes to the Constitution, it is important to defend the rights of all Canadians.

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are two of 44 proud Liberal MPs representing Quebec, which is twice as many as the Bloc Québécois. We are very proud to stand in the House during this very important debate.

Earlier, my colleague mentioned the importance of our citizens asking us, their MPs, to protect them against the erosion of their fundamental rights and freedoms. How will our government's intervention before the Supreme Court succeed in fulfilling this very clear mandate to protect the rights of all Canadians, including Quebeckers?

[Tim Watchorn, Liberal, Les Pays-d'en-Haut, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I think the notwithstanding clause is a necessary part of the charter.

However, repeated use of the notwithstanding clause will undermine Canadians' fundamental rights. I think that the debate, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, is going to centre on how to apply the notwithstanding clause in such a way as to ensure that the fundamental rights set out in the charter are fully protected at all times.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal Party of Canada is the party of national division at a time when Canadians are facing an immigration crisis, a cost of living crisis, a debt crisis, a crime crisis and a housing crisis that was intentionally perpetuated by the Liberal government. I am wondering why the Liberal Prime Minister is so keen on distracting Canadians by creating a national unity crisis at this time.

[Bardish Chagger, Liberal, Waterloo, ON]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we have to respect that within this chamber there are rules, and opposition parties are able to raise their opposition day motion. However, the Conservatives are not giving value to the debate on the floor of the House of Commons, so I would ask for relevance on this matter.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

As the member knows as a former government House leader, there is a broad latitude for relevance during questions and comments.

The hon. member for Les Pays‑d'en‑haut.