Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

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

Madam Speaker, I am always happy to rise on behalf of the people of Pays-d'en-Haut.

I am a proud Quebecker, and I am also concerned about the growing use of the notwithstanding clause.

I would like to ask my hon. colleague to explain how the Attorney General of Canada's intervention could prevent the erosion of rights and freedoms enshrined in the Canadian charter.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question.

It is important for the Attorney General to intervene. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more legislatures invoking the notwithstanding clause to limit our fundamental rights and freedoms. Perhaps it is justified, but it is up to the court to decide.

The Attorney General's intervention will prevent a serious breach of our rights, prevent the exception regarding the notwithstanding clause from becoming the rule and ensure that our rights and freedoms continue to be protected.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I would like to pick up on what the member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères said in his question.

The parliamentary secretary responded that there was a a risk of violations based on what is happening in the United States, but that is precisely the crux of the issue. We are currently seeing a rise in religious influence on the government in the United States. That is why the principle of secularism involves not attacking the rights of individuals to practise their religion. The parliamentary secretary also invoked rights and freedoms. It is more a matter of remembering that there should not be any connection between church and state. What is more, Quebeckers' money is being used to challenge this fundamental principle, the consequences of which are being seen in the United States. Quebeckers' money is being used to challenge a law passed by the Quebec National Assembly.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague reaffirm that the situation is worrisome.

Again, as Simone de Beauvoir said, we must always remain vigilant. We must never take our rights for granted. Right now, our rights are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

It is important not to create a back door that could be used to circumvent the protections and guarantees provided by the charter. That is the risk governments run when they pass laws using the notwithstanding clause to avoid judicial scrutiny, which would determine if those rights are being unjustifiably curtailed. We can agree on that.

However, the way to do that is to protect the charter and set limits and guidelines in case someone tries to ignore the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Madam Speaker, right now, there is a wave of unity across the country. Canadians of all stripes from all regions have realized that the Liberal government has failed in reining in crime and has failed by allowing immigration to run rampant in a reckless way. Canadians are also in agreement about the many problems the government has caused on affordability.

When so many Canadians agree about the very real crises that Canada faces, why is the Liberal government trying to create division and a national unity crisis?

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, we agree that Canadians are more united than ever in facing up to the impact of Donald Trump's tariffs on our economy. We have seen their enthusiasm for buying Canadian, their support for our businesses and organizations and their support for the Prime Minister. It is very important that we stand united behind him, because we are facing historic economic challenges. As Simone de Beauvoir also said, when there is an economic crisis, women's rights are put in jeopardy. It is very important that we unite behind the charter.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague quotes Simone de Beauvoir extensively. I would like to congratulate her for that. Kudos to her. However, she should be aware that women in Quebec have been fighting hard to break free from religion. In the 1940s to 1950s, women in Quebec did not have the same rights as men, and they had to campaign for a long time and fight hard to replace religion with something else.

Now, what my colleague is saying is that developing the tools to break free from religion would be a setback. I struggle to understand her logic. Either she does not understand Simone de Beauvoir, or I do not understand her argument about feminism and the link she is making between feminism and the notwithstanding clause.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, only women can truly understand the insecurity they feel and the importance of ensuring that their rights and freedoms are guaranteed by the Canadian charter.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the many words the member has put on the record.

My concern is the issue of using the notwithstanding clause in a pre-emptive fashion. A good example of this at the national level is that, for the very first time in Canada's history, we have the Leader of the Opposition saying he will use the notwithstanding clause in order to bring in and support legislation.

I believe Canadians have a great sense of pride in the Charter of Rights and believe we should not easily overlook the Charter of Rights. Therefore, we all have a responsibility, no matter what province we are from, to take the notwithstanding clause seriously.

[Sophie Chatel, Liberal, Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, QC]

Madam Speaker, I agree.

The Attorney General's factum and intervention are intended to support the Supreme Court in interpreting the notwithstanding clause with a view to regulating its use and ensuring that, as I said earlier, our rights and freedoms are not eroded to the point where we no longer recognize them and they all but disappear in the long term.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will begin by reading an excerpt from the Attorney General of Canada's factum in the case we are discussing today.

The following excerpt is taken from the first paragraph:

In accordance with his role as intervener, the Attorney General of Canada takes no position, on any basis whatsoever, on the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act respecting the laicity of the State. However, as s. 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is invoked with increasing frequency, it is important to consider whether there are constitutional limits on the use of this provision in addition to those outlined in Ford v. Quebec.

I think it is very important that we take stock and discuss this situation. This is really just another crisis that the Liberals are trying to manufacture to avoid talking about the real crises that they themselves have created and that the Prime Minister has inflicted on Canadians after 10 years of this wasteful, ideological and opportunistic regime.

Think of the opioid crisis, which is killing vulnerable Canadians at an alarming rate. Incidentally, I would like to thank all the Canadians and members of Parliament who have sent me messages of support since last week. It is important for me to mention this. Canadians across the country have been very kind about the statement I delivered regarding what happened to my son and about the bill that I tabled last week. I would like to personally thank each and every person who took a few moments to express their support.

Now let me get back to the crises created by this Liberal government, which the Prime Minister is desperately trying to sweep under the rug by creating another crisis, a constitutional crisis this time, to avoid talking about his results. In particular, let us talk about the cost of living crisis. Everyone here knows very well that the cost of living is skyrocketing thanks to inflation. I clearly recall what the Prime Minister said when he swore in his cabinet. He said that he would be judged by the prices at the grocery store.

I think the verdict is very clear. Food inflation is 70% above the Bank of Canada's baseline target. What does this mean? It means that beef is more expensive. It means that vegetables are more expensive. It means that the price of groceries is higher than ever. This week, I read about an elderly lady who has to make extremely hard choices due to the cost of groceries. She only eats two meals a day now. She cannot even remember the last time she had steak.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

I can see why my colleague might think the government is trying to avoid the cost of living crisis, which is affecting people. However, I think that Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State and the fact that it is being challenged are important issues for Quebeckers. I would politely ask my colleague to focus on the motion we moved today. I do not understand why anyone would see a connection between the price of peas and the laicity issue.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Jonquière knows that members are given a lot of leeway regarding the topics they discuss in their speeches.

I would remind the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière of the substance of today's motion. He has the floor.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, there is clearly a connection.

This Liberal Prime Minister made a lot of promises to Canadians. Now he is trying to further divide Canadians to avoid being held to account. The factum that was submitted to the Supreme Court is yet another attempt to divide Canadians, to pit them against each other so they forget about all the crises and the many promises this Prime Minister made to Canadians to get elected. Now he finds himself in the position of not having an answer.

That is the reality. That is the food crisis facing Canadians and Quebeckers.

This elderly woman, the one I was talking about before my Bloc Québécois colleague interrupted, has to make very hard choices. She is going without food. She says she cannot remember the last time she had steak. That is the reality, despite this Liberal Prime Minister's promises to do things differently and end 10 years of chaos. He was supposed to restore order and lower the cost of living to an acceptable level. That, however, is not what happened.

There is no shortage of similar examples. Four million more people are using food banks in Toronto alone. It is mind-boggling. Rising inflation is forcing people to make hard choices. Families can no longer afford to fill their children's lunch boxes with the food they deserve. That is the reality. That is what Canadians want to hear about.

What solutions is this government bringing forward to end the Liberal cost of living crisis?

There is also another crisis, the debt crisis. Would members believe that this Liberal Prime Minister is spending more and spending faster than his predecessor, Justin Trudeau? It is true. He is spending more and spending faster than his predecessor, Justin Trudeau. We did not think it was possible. I think that if anyone had been asked before the election whether they honestly thought that a prime minister could spend more and spend faster than Justin Trudeau, they would not have believed it. However, that is what has happened. We are in a situation where the government desperately wants to sweep all this under the rug without tabling a budget. Imagine someone is getting ready to renovate a house. They tell the contractor they want a castle, but when the contractor asks if they can afford it, they say they will take care of that later. What will happen? Before the castle is even half built, the bailiffs will show up. They will seize everything, and the person will lose everything.

That is where we are headed. That is the kind of crisis the Liberal Prime Minister is creating by refusing to present Canadians with a budget. He promised us a budget in early fall because we were expecting one. Then it was changed to October. Finally, we found out it will be November 4, which is rather late because the year is already well under way. If we follow the usual schedule, it will be less than six months before another budget is presented.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

With all due respect to my esteemed colleague, he is getting a bit off topic. Today is the Bloc Québécois opposition day, and we are having a debate on the Act respecting the laicity of the State and on section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, its constitutionality and ways to amend it, among other things. I do not think that is what my colleague is talking about. I would be grateful if he would stick to the order of the day.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

I take note of the hon. member's point of order. I pointed out earlier that members are given a lot of leeway regarding the topics they discuss in their speeches.

I invite the hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière to use his remaining three minutes to speak to the substance of the motion.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, the federal government's intervention is clear: “the Attorney General of Canada takes no position, on any basis whatsoever, on the constitutional validity of the provisions of the Act respecting the laicity of the State.” This is the position that the government took before the Supreme Court to avoid addressing the real issues affecting Canadians. It wants to create a constitutional crisis to prevent us from talking about the opioid crisis, the inflation crisis and the debt crisis.

To return to the matter of the budget, how much of our money will this Prime Minister have spent by the time he finally presents us with a budget? No one can say. However, the interim parliamentary budget officer has been quite clear, and I want to emphasize the word “interim” for reasons that will become apparent later on.

The interim parliamentary budget officer said last week in committee that he does not know whether the government currently has fiscal anchors. He told us straight out that the government does not know where it is heading. He said that, at this point, it is impossible for him and for us as parliamentarians to assess the likelihood or probability of the government hitting any fiscal target. He also said that we can bet our boots that we are going to be paying more for debt pretty quickly.

The only thing we knew for certain after the interim parliamentary budget officer's committee appearance is that we are going to be paying more for debt. The worst part is that the Liberal members of this committee are keeping him in a constant state of crisis by appointing him on an interim basis rather than confirming his appointment. Why? It could be because he has been highly critical of the government.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

The hon. member for Pierre-Boucher—Les Patriotes—Verchères is rising on a point of order.

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

Madam Speaker, what is happening right now is really frustrating and insulting. I hope you will call my colleague to order because we are talking about an issue that is crucial for Quebec. The federal government is attacking Quebec's ability to decide its own destiny and make its own laws. My Conservative colleague, who is himself from Quebec, does not appear to have any interest in the matter and is not taking a position on today's motion, even though we have only one day to debate it.

When will my colleague talk about his position on today's topic?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Alexandra Mendès), Alexandra Mendes]

As the hon. member knows, the Chair has little authority to direct members' speeches as long as they remain more or less within the scope of the motion in question.

The hon. member for Mégantic—L'Érable—Lotbinière.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I forgot to mention that I will be sharing my speaking time with the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle.

One thing is very clear. I am explaining why the Prime Minister is trying to divert attention from the real issues affecting Canadians, issues that impact people's daily lives. That is the reality, and it is not for nothing that the preamble states that the government will not touch Bill 21. The goal is not to take a position on the issue, but to create a crisis that prevents us from talking about the other Liberal crises that have been affecting the country and Canadians for the past decade.

The Minister of Finance and National Revenue promised us a budget containing a generational investment, but, as he is so adept at doing, he will table a budget containing multi-generational spending and debt that citizens and young people will be paying off for generations. I want Canadians to hear that.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to answer the question that I put to you earlier.

I would like to know why, as a staunch federalist, but especially as a member of the Conservative Party, which always claims to be the most decentralizing party in Canada, he is not defending the rights of his province. He has an opportunity right now to prove it. The Liberal government says that it is going to attack powers that are already in the Constitution and that allow provinces to overcome possible federal overrreach or certain constraints that the federal government could impose on the provinces.

Since the member supposedly supports decentralization, why is he not defending his province's power to enact its own laws?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will never put up with being told that I am not defending the interests of my province, the interests of the people back home and my constituents. That is not true.

When I talk about the mother who cannot afford to buy lunch for her children, when I talk about seniors who are forced to make tough choices, I am defending Quebeckers who are struggling after 10 years of this Liberal regime. What I am doing is standing up for the people back home, the people of Beauce and the Appalaches region.

My colleague should wait to see the results of the vote tomorrow before making all sorts of claims and speaking nonsense.

[Andrew Scheer, Conservative, Regina—Qu'Appelle, SK]

Madam Speaker, I have a quick question for my colleague.

Is this the first time the government has tried to deflect attention from its terrible record on the cost of living and crime? For the past 10 years, I have noticed that every time the situation in Canada gets worse, especially when it comes to quality of life and the cost of living, the Liberal government finds a way to change the channel.

Does my colleague agree that this is the government's MO?

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L’Érable—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, it has indeed been their MO for 10 years now. Sometimes the Liberals accidentally tell the truth. We saw that this past week with the Minister of Public Safety. It is coming back to haunt him now.

I must say that, unfortunately, when there are moments of lucidity like that, it is purely accidental. The Liberals usually want to cover things up and make sure the crises that they are going through and that they themselves created are swept under the rug.