Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Emergency Preparedness

[Eleanor Olszewski, Liberal, Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience and Minister responsible for Prairies Economic Development Canada]

Mr. Speaker, we are living in a new reality where natural disasters are more frequent and more severe. I am actively working with provinces and territories, indigenous partners and other stakeholders on how we can strengthen coordination and capacity.

Throughout the summer, I met with first responders, local officials and members of the Canadian Armed Forces to hear their first-hand experiences of wildfires this season. We will ensure that communities have the tools they need to respond, recover and rebuild.

[Yves Perron, Bloc, Berthier—Maskinongé, QC]

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

Last week, we raised a point of order because the Minister of Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship said that she would speak in another language because she had not been understood.

The point we raised last week was not an attack. We did not ask for an apology. We asked that members not make such comments. We asked that that comment be withdrawn. That did not happen last week. Maybe that is why it is happening again today.

I have the utmost respect for the Secretary of State for Nature, but when someone says they are going to repeat something so that a member can understand, it is an official languages matter. Both official languages are accepted and used in the House. It also shows a lack of respect for the interpreters, who do top-notch work.

If anyone in the House cannot hear what others are saying, I strongly suggest that they put in their earpieces. Not everyone has their earpiece in at all times. Perhaps that would help calm things down in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I will not ask you to call on the secretary of state to withdraw her remarks, because that did not work last week. Perhaps you could at least give a general reminder to members about the importance of respecting the members' right to speak in the language of their choice and respecting our interpreters' outstanding work.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I would be happy to do so. Members have to be careful about making such comments. As I said last week, it is one way to put it, but it may not be the best way to put it in the House. The point that the member for Berthier—Maskinongé raised is duly noted.

Presence in Gallery

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. René Legacy, Deputy Premier, Minister of Finance and Treasury Board and Minister of Energy for the Province of New Brunswick.

I also wish to draw the attention of members to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Jean-Claude D'Amours, Minister of Post-Secondary Education, Training and Labour, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister responsible for Immigration for the Province of New Brunswick.

Also, we have the Hon. John Herron, Minister of Natural Resources for the province of New Brunswick.

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear!

The House resumed from September 22 consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Oil and Gas Emissions Cap

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

It being 3:16 p.m., the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle related to the business of supply.

Call in the members.

(The House divided on the motion, which was negatived on the following division:)

Vote #37

Business of Supply

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

I declare the motion lost.

[Chris Warkentin, Conservative, Grande Prairie, AB]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, we noticed that the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier was out of his chair for a significant duration of the time that the vote was being counted. He was speaking with the leader of the Green Party. I just want to confirm if he intended to vote in the House or if he did it by app, because as I think the House wants to remember, a member cannot leave their seat in the middle of voting if they voted here in the House.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Could the hon. member for Honoré-Mercier clarify where he voted?

[Eric St-Pierre, Liberal, Honoré-Mercier, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I did not leave the chamber, but my apologies for standing up. My intent was to vote here.

[The Speaker, Francis Scarpaleggia]

Unfortunately, members must remain in their seat when voting in the chamber. We cannot register the member's vote, which he said was in favour.

I wish to inform the House that because of the ministerial statement and the deferred recorded division, the time provided for Government Orders will be extended by 11 minutes.

The House resumed consideration of the motion.

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will start by sharing my thoughts on what I have been hearing all day.

The government members, in all their speeches, tried to make us believe that they were not seeking to oppose Bill 21, but rather the notwithstanding clause. Even though we heard the former prime minister, Mr. Trudeau, strongly disavow Bill 21 repeatedly in the past, even though we heard many people on the government side strongly disavow Bill 21, as if by magic today, it would seem that the Liberals oppose the notwithstanding clause.

On the other side, the speeches we heard from the Conservatives focused mainly on the increased cost of living. We raised a few points of order to find out whether the Conservatives were going to speak on the motion and whether the Conservatives, particularly those from Quebec, are prepared to support Bill 21. However, it seems that that is not what they were interested in today. This leads me to say that, even though our Liberal friends have pointed out repeatedly that they hold a majority of seats in Quebec, Quebec is being served very poorly today. I would have liked to see a little more respect from the members from Quebec since this motion is so essential to us.

What we have before us today is clearly a challenge against Bill 21, which is part of the Canadian government's long history of attempting to make Quebec a province like any other. The common thread running through Canadian political action for many years has been a refusal to recognize Quebec's uniqueness. It has also often involved demonizing, by any means possible, the Quebec nation's desire to express its political autonomy.

What we are seeing with Bill 21 is a bit like Groundhog Day. Every time Quebec legitimately uses the tools at its disposal to take responsibility for its destiny, express its difference and defend its identity, the federal government is there to throw up roadblocks. What we witnessed today looked a lot like that.

We need only look back over events from the political history of Quebec and Canada, such as the multitude of challenges to Bill 101. Back when Quebec's Bill 101 was debated in this parliamentary chamber, it was portrayed as Nazi legislation. All the federalist parties have consistently rejected the idea of Quebec as a distinct society. The same thing happens when we asked for more power over immigration, or tried to hold rounds of constitutional negotiations. Like me, the Speaker knows about them. There were the Meech Lake and Charlottetown accords. Both failed and both times, Quebec was plainly told “no”.

The same goes for limiting federal spending powers or the fiscal imbalance. We are used to that. In Quebec, we are used to being told “no”. That is what led to the sovereignist movement. However, I get a sense that we are adding a new wrinkle this time. The federal government is no longer content to lock down Quebec's political autonomy, it wants to send us a negative image of who we are.

Before I turn my attention to the substance of the factum, I would like to discuss a situation that strikes me as a corollary of what we are seeing today. As members may recall, it has long and often been said that Quebec is an insular community that does not welcome immigration or difference. Even in the good old days under Mr. Trudeau, Quebec's political agenda was described as belligerent nationalism. The Speaker must have seen that.

I do not know if anyone here has ever taken history classes, but there was a rather interesting dispute between Pierre Elliott Trudeau and Hubert Aquin. The crux of that dispute is clear to anyone who has ever read The Treason of the Intellectuals. Mr. Trudeau sees Quebeckers as an inward-looking and homogenous nation, while Mr. Aquin makes a rather convincing argument that Quebec has always been a multi-ethnic nation. What made Quebec so different was its culture.

Quebec may have a homogenous culture, but that homogenous culture is made up of people from different ethnicities. These criticisms that denigrated Quebec in the past have reappeared in the factum at hand. Today, some members are going even further than the Attorney General of Canada's factum by suggesting that Quebec wants to limit freedom of the press, limit freedom of religion, limit the rights of unions and open the door to forced labour and maybe even arbitrary executions.

This pile of nonsense that we read is part of a consistent pattern that has caused considerable harm to Quebec's reputation. It must be said for once and for all. There were debates on reasonable accommodations, on Quebec's place within the federation and even on the place of religion in the public sphere. Quebec is not closed to difference. Quebec is not closed to ethnocultural minorities. Quebec is not closed to immigration, but we are constantly seeing this harm to our reputation.

Quebec is an open society where there are fewer hate crimes. Quebec is a society that treats its linguistic minorities in an enviable way. I would like members to find another linguistic minority that represents 8% of the population but is still squeezing out 30% of education budgets. It does not exist anywhere else but in Quebec, and it would make any francophone community outside Quebec jealous. However, we have to constantly play with this reputational damage that is done to us.

This brings me back to the observation I made in my introduction: For Canada, Quebec must become a province like any other. What we are talking about today is undoubtedly the federal government's challenge of Bill 21. Let us say it once and for all, even though the Liberals are trying to pull the wool over our eyes by suggesting that the notwithstanding clause is what they are really challenging. To make this perfectly clear, I want to go back to the birth of multiculturalism in Canada.

In 1963, the Laurendeau-Dunton commission was set up. What exactly was going on in 1963? We were coming out of the Quiet Revolution. Quebeckers are no longer called French Canadians, but they are Quebeckers. At the same time, in Canada, some people are wondering what kind of collective identity can be developed to integrate Quebeckers. That questioning led to the Royal Commission on Bilingualism and Biculturalism, Canada's response to Quebec.

What was the original intention? Canada was supposed to become a bicultural and bilingual country. Well, biculturalism was completely ignored. Canada became a bilingual country in name only, and biculturalism was completely abandoned in favour of multiculturalism, so that was the first time Quebec was really told no. Canada chose to become a multicultural country where all cultures were recognized. By recognizing all cultures, we might as well say that we recognize none. That is what most commentators have to say about that period.

The first time Quebec was told no was during the Laurendeau-Dunton commission. In the process, Quebec decided to develop its own integration model, known as interculturalism, and the debate surrounding Bill 21 on secularism and the place of religion is directly linked to this interculturalism. There are three main principles of interculturalism on which there is a broad consensus in Quebec. It is clearly a rejection of multiculturalism, a rejection of assimilation, but also the importance of integration based on Quebec's fundamental values. What are those fundamental values? Quebec is a French-speaking state. Quebec is a state where gender equality is non-negotiable, and Quebec is a secular state.

Some silly things were said today, justified by quotes from Simone de Beauvoir, about how the notwithstanding clause could somehow infringe on women's freedom to make their own choices. I have never heard so much nonsense in my life. The women of Quebec who had to break free from the Catholic church in the 1950s and 1960s know very well the price women can pay when religion controls everything in a society.

I will be pleased to answer questions. In sum, the Liberals just need to stop telling us that they are against the notwithstanding clause. What they are trying to do—

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

The hon. member for Joliette—Manawan.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to begin by congratulating my hon. colleague on his excellent speech.

I would like to quote a few lines from constitutional lawyer, André Binette.

Defending the Canadian Constitution means defending the notwithstanding clause, and everyone must accept that. It is impossible to remove it because it is the central component of the 1982 political compromise from which Quebec was excluded.

The notwithstanding clause is not unique to Quebec. It is part of the very essence of Canada.

I would like my colleague's reaction.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly right.

What happened is that Quebec was sidelined after 1982. If Quebec, as a national minority, wants to follow its own path and create its own laws, it needs some kind of political autonomy. We have constantly been denied that political autonomy by the different federal governments.

The notwithstanding clause is an insurance policy that at least allows Quebec to bring in its own legislative measures. Even that is too much to ask for the Liberals.

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

Mr. Speaker, l will have the opportunity to address, in more detail, the concerns that I have, but the question I have for the member is fairly specific. First of all, I would say that this is not about the province of Quebec. The issue of the notwithstanding clause applies to all provinces and to Parliament.

Does the member have any concerns whatsoever about using the notwithstanding clause as a pre-emptive measure?

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, that ploy is not working, not even with the media. If, as they claim, this challenge is not specifically against Quebec, why does their factum specifically challenge Bill 21? Why did they do it in this specific case?

I sense a touch of, shall I say, hypocrisy on the part of the government. They want to have it both ways, but the principle is clear. If we go by what the government has said in the past, the Liberals are very much against Bill 21. Now they are trying to sneak this through using the notwithstanding clause so they do not have to take responsibility for who they are.

It is sad for them, but not for us.

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate my colleague on his eloquent speech. It covers all the essential elements of our cause.

Since the Constitution was repatriated in 1982, a phenomenon known as the judicialization of political space has taken hold. In other words, we are constantly sending issues to the courts when we lack the courage to resolve them politically. If the Liberals object to the notwithstanding clause and want to return to the spirit of the 1982 Constitution, could they not reopen the Constitution?

What does my colleague think of that political position? It seems like cowardice to me.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, cowardice is the right word. We watched the red herring all day long as the Liberals stood up to say they have nothing against Bill 21, but they want clarifications about the possible impact of the notwithstanding clause. Only the most fearful would go to such lengths to avoid standing by their position.

There was a Liberal government in place before. Most of the members I see are familiar faces from the previous Parliament. Every time their Prime Minister rose to bash Bill 21, they stood behind him clapping. Today, they expect us to believe that what they are objecting to is the notwithstanding clause, not Bill 21.

Personally, I will let my colleagues judge for themselves.

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

Mr. Speaker, Canadians elected us as parliamentarians to work together to solve the crises that the Liberal government has caused: the immigration crisis, the cost of living crisis, the debt crisis, the inflation crisis and the housing crisis.

I wanted to ask our colleague whether he agrees that this is just another distraction that the Liberal Prime Minister is trying to stir up for Canadians.

[Mario Simard, Bloc, Jonquière, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Quebec's identity is not a distraction. Quebec's plan to govern itself is not a distraction. Quebec's autonomy to make its own choices is not a distraction. The Conservatives should be ashamed of this petty rhetoric they have been engaging in all day.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been here throughout the day, listening to the debate, and a couple of things come to my mind right at the beginning. I want to give a bit of a background with respect to why I want to be able to speak to the motion before us, because I have witnessed a lot of things that make me question why people are motivated to speak to the legislation.

I look at the Conservatives, as the official opposition, and they are just as comfortable trying to shift the debate and not talk about the issue. They literally accuse the government of trying to use it as some sort of a diversion strategy to prevent us from being able to deal with the many different things that have been happening since we elected a new Prime Minister not that long ago. I would invite the Conservative Party to bring forward such a motion on its opposition day. Let us talk about and review the last six months since we have had the new Prime Minister.

Then there is the motivation of the Bloc Party. Let us be very clear on this: the Bloc party is a separatist party. It wants to break up Canada. Its motivation is to try to get the government to say, “This is all anti-Quebec; this is all about Bill C-21”, even though the Bloc members know it is just not true. However, it does not stop them from saying that, because they are trying to hype up whoever it is they are trying to garner support for.

The province of Quebec is not the only province that has used the notwithstanding clause. Provinces in every region of our country have used the notwithstanding clause. It has not been every province, but there has been a province in every different region: Atlantic Canada, Ontario, Quebec, the Prairies and B.C.. We could probably even think more in terms of the provinces that have thought about the possibility of bringing it in.

Let us take a look at the history, which is where my motivation comes from. I was a relatively young man of 20 years old when Pierre Elliott Trudeau sat at the table and signed off on the Constitution and the Charter of Rights in 1982. At a very early age, I had a keen interest in getting involved in politics, and I was very proud of my prime minister and the nation of Canada.

At the time, my favourite NHL team was the Montreal Habs. I was also passionate about football, and if the Bombers could not win the Grey Cup, I wanted the Montreal Alouettes to win it. In fact, if we take a look at my biological ancestry, we will find that a few generations ago, my family comes from Saint-Ours, Quebec, three hours from Ottawa in terms of a drive.

When I approach the discussion we are having today, it is not to talk about how one province is being alienated from the federal government. I will not buy into that, because it is a separatist party that is trying to shove that aspect down our throats. I do not buy it.

There is a responsibility for the Government of Canada to deal with the issue because it is coming before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is the reason the Government of Canada has to address the issue, and there is an obligation. If we did not do that, I would suggest we were neglecting our responsibility.

I would be wanting to talk to the Attorney General of Canada, saying that the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is something we believe in as a political entity. The Liberal Party is the party that brought it into being under Pierre Elliott Trudeau.

I am very much aware of the constitutional discussions that took place then, much like I was aware of the constitutional discussions of the Charlottetown Accord and the Meech Lake Accord, because I was an elected member of the Manitoba legislature and understand the dynamics of the power play between the provinces and the federal government. There is nothing new there.

All provinces tend to want to look at ways in which they can represent their constituents on important issues, and we have an important issue. That is why parliamentarians need to express their thoughts on the issue, whether they are from the Manitoba legislature, B.C., Nova Scotia or the province of Quebec. It has an impact on Canadians' rights and freedoms. As a member of Parliament, I have a duty to do so, and I resent the fact that there are members from the Bloc trying to tell me that I do not have a duty to do so.

Bloc members approach the issue through a motivation that ultimately works to the detriment of us as a nation, and that is why it is without reservation whatsoever that I talk about the issue today. I understand and appreciate a multi-faceted or holistic approach in dealing with this critically important issue. Is the timing the best? That is debatable, but at the end of the day, we have a government and a Prime Minister who are solely focused on our economy, Canadians, the environment and trying to bring it all together so we can advance and continue to move straight forward.

However, there are still other responsibilities. That is why we have the different ministries we have. The primary responsibility of the Attorney General of Canada is to protect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for all Canadians. If not that minister, then who does that? That is his job, and he has to do that. Was I surprised when we heard that there was a factum put before the Supreme Court of Canada? Absolutely not.

It will be interesting to see where the members of the Conservative Party of Canada stand on the issue. Where do they stand? Are they going to be voting with the Bloc, understanding the motivation as to why it brought forward the motion, or are they going to vote in the national interest? The national interest means everyone: young, old, French-speaking, English-speaking or whatever their ethnic background might be. It is all Canadians. We all have that role and responsibility, even members of the Bloc, I must say.

How will the Conservative Party of Canada vote on the motion? Is the coalition between the Bloc and the Conservatives so strong that the Conservatives are going to abandon their responsibilities and vote for the motion? We are going to find out tomorrow. It is going to be very interesting to see where they stand on the issue. I have listened to all the debate on the issue and have witnessed the Conservatives' stepping back and not providing an opinion on how they will vote. My colleagues and I know where we stand: We are going to be voting against the motion, and I hope the Conservative Party will do likewise.

For individuals wanting to get a good appreciation or understanding of the importance of the issue, I did a quick Google search and want to quote something I found from the Government of Canada website. I think it encapsulates why this is such an important debate and why the federal government has a role to play. The Government of Canada website states:

The Charter of Rights and Freedoms...protects basic rights and freedoms that are essential to keeping Canada a free and democratic society. It is a powerful force for progress, protection, and fairness with the power to influence our society by interpreting laws and policies. The Charter ensures that the government, or anyone acting on its behalf, doesn’t take away or interfere with these rights or freedoms in an unreasonable way.

Since 1982, the Charter has been an essential part of Canada’s democracy and it will continue to shape our identity as a nation. The Charter affirms that we are a multicultural society and that it must be read and understood with this in mind.

The debate today is all about section 33, and the website provides a very specific comment about section 33:

Section 33 of the Charter, also called the notwithstanding clause, allows Canada’s Parliament, provincial and territorial legislatures to pass laws that may violate certain Charter rights. A legislature may do this if they clearly state to the public that they are passing a law that violates the Charter and which rights in particular the law infringes. All levels of government must review and re-enact this declaration to Canadians every five years, or the limits are automatically lifted. The federal Parliament has never used the notwithstanding clause.

I am very proud of the fact that the federal government has never used the notwithstanding clause. Even in my time in Parliament, we have had legislation come to the House because the Supreme Court or superior court made a decision. As much as it might offend a lot of parliamentarians, we respect what the Supreme Court or the superior court has said, and it has obligated us to change the law. We have before us today a bill that would do that.

We are not bringing in the notwithstanding clause because, my God, we are taking a hard position on this. No, we are changing and modifying the law so that it still reflects the interests of Canadians and hopefully deals with the concerns of the independent judicial system, our Supreme Court or superior court's decision, which we respect where we can.

A number of provinces have made the decision not to amend a law that was ruled as going against the charter. Instead of bringing in modifications, they have brought in the notwithstanding clause. My friends in the Bloc would say, “That is provincial; let the provinces do whatever they want”, but Liberals recognize the debate is not about Ottawa saying it has control in any fashion whatsoever over the provinces. The Bloc will say that, but it is not the case.

We have a judiciary responsibility to the very same people the provincial governments represent: to ensure that the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being respected. This means that part of the charter includes the notwithstanding clause, within which there is a caveat that if a right is being taken away, the law needs to be reviewed and re-enacted every five years. If that is not done within five years, the law needs to be allowed to expire, and the court decision will prevail.

What is being proposed? We are seeing more and more governments consider, with consideration coming even from the Conservative leader, using the notwithstanding clause. In the last election, he talked about using the notwithstanding clause on a crime bill.

This is not something that is focused on any level of government or any provincial government in particular. It is to get clarification from the Supreme Court of Canada and to allow the Supreme Court of Canada to provide an opinion, which, because of its independence, should be respected. That is an admirable thing for us to be doing. I would have much preferred that members opposite, if they were to have an opposition day motion on that, to provide their thoughts on that issue.

My thoughts, to be very clear, are that I am concerned about two aspects of implementing, revoking or using the notwithstanding clause. Number one is that I want a sense of comfort for the people I represent that their rights and freedoms are not going to be unduly infringed upon. I can ensure that by realizing that the sunset clause should not automatically allow for any level of government to say, “We brought in the notwithstanding clause four and a half years ago, and the time clock is coming up, so let us redo it for another five years,” making it an automatic thing. That is disrespectful of what Canadians feel about our freedoms and our rights, which were well-established back in 1982. That is a concern I have, and I know many of my colleagues share that concern. The Federal Court will hopefully take that into some consideration.

Number two is with respect to the other aspect, which I have actually posed questions about. What about using the notwithstanding clause as a pre-emptive measure? That is something that we are starting to see more of. All of us should be concerned about that.

When, for example, we have the leader of the official opposition saying that he does not care what the court system, the Supreme Court of Canada, says because he will use the notwithstanding clause to ensure x, y and z, I believe that is a highly irresponsible approach to governance. I do not think any of us should be supporting that sort of a proclamation, if I may put it that way. Whether it is from a federal leader, a provincial leader or anyone else, I would suggest that is an inappropriate use of the notwithstanding clause.

That is my opinion, based on the many hours of discussions I have had and the studies I have put in over the years, from 1982 to being an MLA back in 1988 for the Meech Lake accord and the debates on the Charlottetown accord during the nineties. I understand the importance of joint responsibility and jurisdictional responsibility. I understand why it is so critically important, with respect to the issues for which we have shared responsibilities, that all of us have a role to play.

However, if we are not here to defend Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then why are we here? I would like to think that the charter and the Constitution make up who we are as a nation. I believe that there is an obligation for members, and that is why I started off by talking about the motivation factor. People know what my motivation is: It is love of country. I want Canada to continue to be the best country in the world to call home. That is my goal, and that is what motivates me to come in every day.

When it comes to the motivation that I have witnessed today, I do not like what I am seeing, because I am seeing more division trying to be sowed. I see issues that a vast majority of Canadians would not support. That is the reason I felt it was important that I share my thoughts today. I look forward to any questions that might be asked.