Mr. Speaker, Ottawa talks about national unity when it is convenient, but becomes divisive and paternalistic as soon as Quebec asserts its uniqueness and its choices. When faced with Washington's tariffs or the threat of American annexation, we are called upon to join forces. However, as soon as the external threat is averted, Ottawa turns against Quebec to challenge its democratic choices and undermine its institutions.
Today, it is not just a law that is being targeted, but the very heart of Quebec's democracy. Ottawa is attacking Quebec's secularism law by seeking to restrict and weaken the notwithstanding clause, even render it meaningless. This is not the first time we have debated this issue. In February 2023, the Bloc Québécois tabled a very simple motion: “That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.” This motion did not ask for approval of Bill 21 or for a decision on secularism. It simply asked for recognition of a fact. However, the Liberals, NDP and Greens voted against it. They refused to acknowledge this reality. That is the whole story, the true story.
The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. In the 1988 Ford decision, the Court recognized that the National Assembly of Quebec has complete freedom to invoke the notwithstanding clause. It can do so pre-emptively without waiting for legislation to be struck down. Furthermore, the courts cannot rule on the merits, only on the form. The invocation must be clear and explicit. It is written in black and white. The notwithstanding clause belongs to the elected representatives. It is up to Quebec to decide for itself and on its own behalf.
Secularism is not a partisan whim. It is a deep-seated consensus, confirmed since the Bouchard-Taylor commission. All polls indicate that a clear majority of Quebeckers support Bill 21. This legislation was not born out of a sudden impulse, but rather out of a long social debate. It expresses the democratic will of an entire people. It is this choice that Ottawa is seeking to undermine by attacking the very tool that allows us to protect it.
In his September 17 factum to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General of Canada had the nerve to claim that the use of the notwithstanding clause could lead to slavery, arbitrary execution or the banning of newspapers. These are not arguments; they are caricatures. This is what Ottawa thinks of Quebec democracy and its elected officials: that they would degenerate without the oversight of federal judges.
The notwithstanding clause is not an abuse. It is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution. It was even the compromise that allowed the provinces to accept the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981. In fact, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a Liberal, who had to include it in order to get their agreement. Members will recall that he said that he was not afraid of the notwithstanding clause and that it is the elected representatives of the people who have the last word, not the courts.
This notwithstanding clause works. It allows a parliament duly elected by the people to temporarily exempt a law from the courts. In other words, it puts the decision back in the hands of citizens. If a government abuses it, it will pay the price at the polls. That is the real limit: democracy. Forty years later, these same Liberals are the ones who decided to destroy what they had put in place earlier. The current Prime Minister is following in the destructive footsteps of Justin Trudeau and the centralist Liberal Party.
Let us not forget that, thanks to the notwithstanding clause, Quebec has been able to make progress not only in terms of language and identity, but also in social matters. Here are a few examples. Small claims court, access to justice for all, was made possible by the notwithstanding clause. The Act Respecting Equal Access to Employment in Public Bodies was a step towards greater social justice. The Youth Protection Act, which ensures the protection of children's anonymity, is guaranteed by the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause is not the exception; it is democracy in action.
Make no mistake, this is not just about Quebec. Five provinces, namely Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia, will take the same position before the Supreme Court. The Liberal government is attacking not only Bill 21, but also the parliamentary sovereignty of all the provinces.
Above all, secularism is not a Quebec fantasy. France, Belgium, Germany, Austria and Denmark regulate the display of religious symbols in state institutions. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed this on numerous occasions. In short, when it comes to secularism, Quebec is a normal nation. Canada is the outlier, and it has been so for a long time.
Since 1982, it has always been the same story: repatriation without us, the failures of Meech and Charlottetown, challenges to Bill 101. Today, it is Bill 21, and soon it will be Bill 96. Every time Quebec wants to move forward, Ottawa changes the rules or imposes its judges. Every time, we hit the same wall. We are at a dead end.
The question is simple: Who decides for Quebec? Is it the National Assembly, made up of elected members who derive their legitimacy from the people of Quebec, or the Supreme Court appointed by Ottawa, interpreting a Constitution that we have never ratified? Ottawa chooses its judges while Quebec chooses its elected officials: that is the difference.
As long as we remain strapped in this straitjacket, our collective choices will remain fragile, disputed and precarious. The only normal outcome for a normal nation is national independence, not against Canada, but for Quebec.
Independence is the peaceful expression of a people that wants to decide for itself. Like all nations, as Lucien Bouchard used to say, Quebec is tired of always being told no. If Quebeckers keep being told no, they will eventually say yes, yes to our national destiny.