Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to this important motion, and I want to thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for moving it today so that we can debate it. I also thank him for his very enlightening speech.
Like him, I will take the liberty of rereading the motion for the benefit of everyone here and the many people who I know are tuning in at home.
That the House:
(a) call on the government to fully withdraw from the legal challenge of Quebec's Act respecting the laicity of the State before the Supreme Court;
(b) call on the government to withdraw its factum filed on September 17, 2025, with the Supreme Court contesting Quebec's right to invoke the notwithstanding clause; and
(c) denounce the government's willingness to use the Supreme Court to take constitutional powers away from Quebec and the provinces.
The Attorney General of Canada filed his factum challenging Bill 21 with the Supreme Court. He will say that is not accurate, but it is. He is challenging Bill 21. He can say that he is simply challenging the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause, but since he is doing it in the context of the challenge to Bill 21, he is clearly challenging the Act respecting the laicity of the State.
The member for Beloeil—Chambly, who is also the leader of the Bloc Québécois, likes to say that foresight of consequences is part of intent.
The Attorney General is therefore indirectly challenging Bill 21, which was passed in 2019. If the Supreme Court were to agree with the Attorney General's argument that the notwithstanding clause can be used only for a period of five years, the consequence would be that Bill 21 could be struck down. In any event, it would no longer be protected by the notwithstanding clause. Foresight of consequences is part of intent, and it is our opinion that challenging the secularism law is also part of the Attorney General's intent, even though he does not say so in so many words.
It is important to keep this in mind when reading the Attorney General's factum. The Liberal government's position is that the use of the notwithstanding clause is a step towards the end of freedoms. In its view, the notwithstanding clause is an undemocratic weapon with the potential to wipe out freedom of the press, unions and freedom of religion. It believes that when the notwithstanding clause is invoked, journalists can be silenced, churches can be shuttered and organized labour can be outlawed. My colleagues may think I am delusional, that I am fantasizing and making things up, and I can understand that, but I am going to cite a passage from page 12 of the factum:
The loss of means essential to the exercise of a right or freedom could produce effects that would subsist beyond the expiry of any declaration under s. 33. For example, the freedom of the press, guaranteed under s. 2(b) of the Charter, could disappear if independent newspapers and media were prohibited from carrying on business for a prolonged period. Similarly, freedom of religion, guaranteed under s. 2(a) of the Charter, could disappear if places of worship were declared illegal for a prolonged period. And freedom of association, guaranteed in s. 2(d) of the Charter, could disappear if all trade unions were declared illegal and prohibited from engaging in any activity for a prolonged period.
According to the Attorney General, the notwithstanding clause could open the door to a dictatorship, as if Quebec had nothing better to do at night than dream up ways to get around sections 2 and 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Attorney General's choice of examples is not insignificant. The Attorney General mentions places of worship to send the rather bizarre message that Quebeckers are so anti-religion that they might go so far as to ban churches, synagogues and mosques. That is practically what the Attorney General is telling us. That is the not-so-subtle subtext of this Liberal pamphlet.
However, it does not take the notwithstanding clause to weaken newspapers, unions, and rights and freedoms. The federal government is able to do this without resorting to a notwithstanding clause. The government is in the process of hypocritically taking away federal workers' right to strike, as we can see from its excessive use of binding arbitration and section 107 of the Canada Labour Code.
As a reminder, I would point out that Quebec passed its own anti-scab legislation in the late 1970s, while the federal government has only just done so 45 years later. Incidentally, we could talk about all the gaps and loopholes in that bill, but we would need a whole other sitting.
The Bloc Québecois introduced at least 11 bills along those lines, and all of them were defeated. Ottawa is telling us that the notwithstanding clause can be used to ban trade unions. Ottawa is also using newspaper arguments, even though its failure to take action is primarily responsible for the closure of the majority of regional newspapers in Quebec and Canada. The federal government cloaks itself in its vision of freedom of worship, yet it does nothing to crack down on hate speech under the guise of preaching. There is no excuse for these examples in a matter that concerns Quebec legislation. These examples should make us leery, and that is exactly what Quebeckers should be.
The factum of the Attorney General even goes as far as to talk about executions and slavery. The Factum states, “...a statute that invokes s. 33 to allow arbitrary executions or slavery would violate a constitutional limit...”. The Attorney General is telling us that a statute that would use the notwithstanding clause to allow firing squads and slavery would be going too far. We may agree, but why should his factum include unrealistic things, if not to demonstrate that the use of the notwithstanding clause is necessarily in conflict with the values of justice and democracy? In reading the factum, it is hard to believe that the notwithstanding clause has been in effect for the past 43 years. One has to wonder how people have survived this far, where the gulags are and how we have managed to protect our rights.
This government, which is lecturing Quebec and provinces, has just introduced Bill C‑5, a bill that states that all other legislation does not apply to specific government projects. It is a piece of legislation that circumvents all other legislation. Is this what respecting the spirit of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedom means? It can certainly not be said that the government is leading by example. This is the government that was negligent in invoking the Emergencies Act and suspended fundamental rights, which are also guaranteed in the charter, for some time. This is the same government that is condescendingly judging Quebec, a generous and welcoming society, and which suspects us of being xenophobic and racist and of having authoritarian inclinations.
This factum is an insult. It says more about how the federal government views Quebec than it does about secularism and the use of the notwithstanding clause. We are asking the government to withdraw from this case and take its surreal factum with it. We recognize that it has the right to try to review the notwithstanding clause, but that would require an amendment to the Constitution, which would be done by negotiating with Quebec and the provinces in the context of constitutional talks. As my colleague who spoke before me pointed out, this is not a matter to be debated before the courts. If the government wishes to debate the use of section 33, we would be happy to sit down with it. Then it can talk to us all it wants about slavery, firing squads, child exploitation and dictatorships, and at that point, we will ask it to try to be serious.
I would like to remind the government about something else concerning section 33. The government contends that this section is to be used in a temporary, time-limited manner. It is telling us that the charter, which forms part of the Constitution, is unconstitutional and that subsection 4 of section 33 has no application. In any event, its notion of the permanence of the law is arguable. We are legislators. The government makes laws. Laws can be changed, amended or repealed, if that is the will of the elected representatives, which, in turn, reflects the will of the people, a will that is equally subject to change. When this government talks about the permanence of a law, it is talking about a concept that is foreign to politics. We have the power to amend anything, including laws that use the notwithstanding clause. If the Attorney General does not like laws that use the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively, he should just support a party that is opposed to this, or follow Pablo Rodriguez' example and run in Quebec.
One thing is clear: This debate is not one that should happen in a courtroom.