Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

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

Madam Speaker, despite my white hair, I am afraid I am too young to have drafted the notwithstanding clause. The clause's limits are set out in the act that includes this provision, and none of those limits are like the ones that the current government wants to propose.

Do the provinces have limits? They do not have any more than Quebec or the federal government. Section 33 exists, and it can be amended only through the consent of elected officials, not through a Supreme Court decision.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, we are faced with a Liberal government that is currently trying to create a crisis, and that is really very disappointing. I would like to ask my Bloc Québécois colleague a somewhat technical question.

Does the time-limited nature of the notwithstanding clause help protect the Constitution as a whole?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, but there is some confusion there. My colleague is right; section 33 does not help protect the Constitution. Section 33 enables the provinces, Quebec and the federal government to pass legislation that goes against, or does not take into account, the specifics of section 2 and sections 7 to 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It does not protect the Constitution, but it protects the right of Canadians and their leaders, in the various legislatures, to work despite the restrictions imposed by the charter.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to congratulate my hon. colleague on his excellent speech. It was clear and straightforward.

Everyone knows that the reason for this legal challenge is the Act respecting the laicity of the State that was passed in Quebec. Could my colleague share his comments on the government's hypocrisy in taking a blanket approach to limiting the notwithstanding clause?

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

Madam Speaker, that is a good question. I mentioned it briefly in my speech. It has become clear that it is not just the Act respecting the laicity of the State, but all the laws in Quebec and all the Canadian provinces that are being jeopardized by the current government's legal challenge.

The government is saying that the notwithstanding clause must be regulated, that its use must be limited. However, in Quebec alone, without the notwithstanding clause, the Charter of the French Language would be out the window; laws protecting children who can testify out of court would be tossed aside; the lack of lawyers in small claims court to allow people to represent themselves at a lower cost would never be addressed.

Quite a number of laws have been passed because it is possible to opt out of the charter. This is the problem we have both elsewhere in Canada and in Quebec. Everything will—

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

The hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite‑Patrie.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, the notwithstanding clause is a tool that is constitutional, legal and legitimate in many cases, including the ones that he just mentioned. However, in recent years, we have seen the notwithstanding clause being used more and more, in some cases in a heavy-handed way, especially when it is included in the bill itself. The provincial governments say that they are suspending fundamental rights and freedoms and that there is nothing the federal government and the courts can do to stop them. This has us concerned.

We saw Doug Ford's Conservative government invoke the notwithstanding clause to suspend education workers' right to strike. This is a slippery slope that New Democrats do not want to go down.

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

Madam Speaker, I cannot do anything about the Ontario government's slippery slope, but it is questionable. The important thing to understand about the pre-emptive use of section 33 is that it is neither preventive nor curative. That is how the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is set up.

For the sake of argument, let us assume that the notwithstanding clause is not written into the bill. The legislation will remain in force unless and until the Supreme Court rules that it is no longer in force and that it is invalid. When that happens, the government will just add the notwithstanding clause and it will come back into force. The legislation will therefore remain in force the entire time. The problem is that some people will have spent hundreds of thousands of dollars challenging it, engaging in a years-long legal battle and creating chaos in society just to reach the same outcome.

In its wisdom, if any, the government of the day allowed the use of the notwithstanding clause from the outset, and I believe that we must continue to do so—

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

We have to resume debate.

The hon. member for Saint‑Jean.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

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.

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

Madam Speaker, I think we should have some concern and thoughts about this not being just a Quebec issue. This is an issue that affects all provinces.

It would be reasonable for us to pose the question my colleague asked: Are there any situations in which the Bloc believes the notwithstanding clause should be used?

Back in the eighties, I was very proud to witness our nation signing the Charter of Rights. I felt very good about that and how the notwithstanding clause came about in the first place. However, I am very concerned about the need to ensure there is a sense of fairness. I was in the Manitoba provincial legislature for almost 20 years. I am concerned about what the Bloc is saying we should or should not be able to do.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, the parliamentary secretary just demonstrated that the Attorney General's position goes well beyond the specific question of secularism. What he really wants is to deprive the provinces of their autonomy, which they won in a hard-fought battle during constitutional negotiations around section 33.

On the issue of excessive, pre-emptive or disproportionate use of the provision, this is a matter for the provincial legislatures, which are subject to a tool that, despite its flaws, is the best we have, namely, democracy. The way to overturn a government's decision is to call an election and remove that government.

[Marc Dalton, Conservative, Pitt Meadows—Maple Ridge, BC]

Madam Speaker, does the Bloc Québécois member agree that the Liberal Prime Minister is trying to manufacture a crisis to avoid talking about the real crisis that is happening here in Canada with respect to crime, the economy and immigration, a crisis that Quebeckers are also facing?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, and I am happy he asked it in excellent French.

The government never misses an opportunity to deflect. However, our role is to hold it accountable for all of its actions, and we can do so on several fronts. That is what we are trying to do today. We can talk about how the provinces need to be able to make their own decisions, and we can simultaneously hold the government accountable for its bad decisions on housing, immigration and the economy. As the saying goes, we can walk and chew gum at the same time.

That said, I agree with my colleague that the government never misses an opportunity to sweep some of its failures under the rug.

[Anthony Housefather, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Emergency Management and Community Resilience]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

I am somewhat surprised that the Bloc Québécois motion calls for the Attorney General of Canada to withdraw his factum in a case where the notwithstanding clause affects not only the provinces, but also the Government of Canada. It also affects the House of Commons and the Senate too. It can be used.

Does the Bloc Québécois believe that the Government of Canada should not intervene when there is a conflict between decisions made by the Quebec Court of Appeal, the Saskatchewan Court of Appeal and the Superior Court of Quebec on the use of the notwithstanding clause?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, at the risk of repeating myself, we are not saying that the government should not disagree on the notwithstanding clause. It absolutely has the right to do that. However, if it wants to get rid of it, it should hold constitutional talks instead of using the courts to sidestep what could be a very meaningful political debate. We think that is cowardly, and that is what we are speaking out against.

If the government wants to discuss the notwithstanding clause, it should invite us to constitutional talks. We will certainly have a few minor requests to make.

[Jacques Gourde, Conservative, Lévis—Lotbinière, QC]

Madam Speaker, does the member believe that removing the time-limited aspect of the notwithstanding clause will lead to a constitutional amendment without any national negotiations?

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Madam Speaker, unfortunately, I missed the beginning of the question, but I think I got the gist of it, and I just answered it, in part. The courts should not be tasked with examining the use of the notwithstanding clause. We are not saying that there should not be any discussion on the notwithstanding clause. We are saying that the government is using the wrong forum.

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

Madam Speaker, I am rising on a point of order.

When I gave my speech, you signalled to me that my 10 minutes were up when, according to the timer that I set before I began, I still had some time left. What is more, you interrupted me. With all due respect, I am not saying that you do not have the right to do that. It is fine, but that also made me lose some time.

I just rose to ask my colleague some questions. You gave both the Liberals and the Conservatives two chances to speak, but you did not give us any.

Is there a problem with me participating in the debates of the House?

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

With regard to your speaking time, I am sorry, but I have to follow the timer that I have in front of me. It is the only one I have. With regard to the interruption, I interrupted you because a member rose and I thought that she was rising on a point of order, which did not turn out to be the case. As for this time, I did not see you until it was too late and I had already given the floor to the Conservative member.

The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food.

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

Madam Speaker, as I rise in the House today, I want to convey just how important the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to me and to my identity as a Quebecker and a Canadian. I will also explain why it must be protected.

Like so many women before me, my mother and my grandmother fought for equality before the law. To give a little background, my grandmother owned several newsstands in Montreal. She was an entrepreneur. She had employees. However, the law at the time prohibited her from having a bank account. It had to be in her husband's name. She also did not have the right to vote.

Considering what is happening south of the border these days, it is more important than ever to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution and in the charter. Legislatures must not be allowed to limit these rights without any oversight or without a court being able to examine exactly whether the limits are justified.

It was Simone de Beauvoir who said that it only takes a political, economic or religious crisis for women's rights to be called into question. She also said that we must remain vigilant throughout our lives. That is exactly what I am doing today. I rise in the House to defend the rights and freedoms that my grandmother and generations of women in Quebec gained at great cost. I rise to support our government and to prevent cracks from forming in the protection and guarantees afforded to us by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am talking about women's rights, of course, but also the rights of minorities and workers, as my colleague previously mentioned.

I take the floor today to support the important role played by the Attorney General of Canada when he appears, through counsel, before the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court of Canada, to provide his legal viewpoint on constitutional questions, including the protection of our hard-won rights and the definition of the limits of section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, that we were just now discussing.

The constitutional limits set out in section 33 prevent the notwithstanding clause from being used to amend or abolish the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Indeed, unfettered use with no limitations of any kind would be the same as saying that our rights and freedoms can be reduced to nothing. The courts have the responsibility of ensuring that the use of a notwithstanding clause is limited, respected, and exceptional.

Our constitutional democracy is based on balance. I am going to keep coming back to this concept of balance. This essential balance lies at the heart of our democracy. Parliament and the provincial governments have broad latitude to enact laws in the public interest within their respective jurisdictions, but that latitude is not absolute, and in a way that is the matter under debate here. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty has always been framed within the Canadian constitution, which includes a charter of rights and freedoms. The notwithstanding clause cannot override the jurisdiction of a court to find that rights and freedoms have been unreasonably limited within the meaning of section 1 of the charter.

It is important to remember that our country is governed by the rule of law and that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. In our federal system, it is the Constitution that confers legislative powers on Parliament and the provincial governments.

As the Supreme Court has said, the Constitution binds all governments. Their sole claim to exercising legitimate authority is grounded in the powers conferred under the Constitution and cannot come from any another source.

In our system, federal, provincial and territorial governments strive to co-operate for the greater good of all the people they represent and their communities, whether provincial, territorial or local. Disputes may arise from time to time as to whether one level of government or another has overstepped the bounds of its constitutional authority. The courts are there to rule on these disputes according to legal principles. Our courts appreciate efforts to promote co-operation between the different levels of government, and of course, to preserve provincial autonomy, which is important to mention because it is a feature of our federal system.

As the Supreme Court has observed, the desire to protect provincial autonomy reflects both a commitment to accommodate diversity within a country by granting significant powers to provincial governments and a broader constitutional goal of maintaining a balance between unity and diversity. There is unity in diversity. I believe that this value is at the heart of our democracy and our country. It is also at the heart of the charter.

There is also a constant need for balance between other constitutional principles and values. Parliamentary sovereignty has to be balanced against the protection of minorities, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Constitution has always reflected a commitment to respect minorities, as historically evidenced by provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Manitoba Act, 1870, relating to linguistic rights and denominational schools. When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, additional protections, including fundamental rights and freedoms, legal rights, the right to equality, and a broader range of language rights were entrenched in the Constitution.

The Attorney General of Canada played a key role both before and after the charter came into force to ensure these principles, such as parliamentary sovereignty, were balanced within the overall framework of the Constitution, including the protection of minority rights and fundamental protections in the charter. For instance, the Attorney General appeared before the Supreme Court in Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie et al. and the 1979 case Attorney General of Manitoba v. Forest on the subject of the constitutional right to use French and English in the statutes, legislatures and courts of Quebec and Manitoba. The Attorney General also intervened the matter of the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards in 1984 and has done so in many other cases since then to assist the Supreme Court in interpreting the right to education in the minority language. This right is now enshrined in section 23 of the charter and in its application in several provinces.

As the chief justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, the late Jules Deschênes, noted when granting intervener status to the Attorney General of Canada in the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards case in 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional instrument that applies everywhere in the country, and the Attorney General of Canada naturally has an interest in ensuring the sound administration of the charter throughout the entire country.

The Constitution provides a stable and balanced legal framework for democratic governance and the protection of all of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Parliament and the provincial legislatures are sovereign in their respective areas of jurisdiction, as conferred on them by the Constitution and insofar as they do not contravene other provisions. Since 1982, the charter has formed an integral part of the Constitution and it guarantees the rights and freedoms set out therein, subject, of course, to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

It is true that, in the compromise reached with the provinces to finalize the patriation of the constitution in November 1981, the notwithstanding clause was added. It allows Parliament or a provincial legislature to enact, on an exceptional basis, legislation that applies notwithstanding certain rights. It was said that section 33, the notwithstanding clause, would preserve a modicum of parliamentary sovereignty in exceptional circumstances. However, the balance inherent in the constitutional framework would be disrupted if the exception were to become the rule, so that instead of upholding the central idea of the charter, which is a sort of solemn Magna Carta intended to constitutionally protect and guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians, the provincial legislatures systematically invoked the notwithstanding clause as a means of completely circumventing the charter and denying the courts any possibility of speaking to the matter. This would not respect the underlying structure of our Constitution and the primary objective of having a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. The notwithstanding clause, found at the end of the charter, would reduce the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter to nothing, to a mere legal fiction.

The growing temptation to use the notwithstanding clause in an attempt to prevent judicial review of the legislative action in light of the charter's guarantees threatens our fundamental rights and values, and it threatens the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and other constitutional principles, such as the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The fundamental principle of the separation of powers gives us a strong and independent judicial branch and underscores the legitimate role of the courts in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Constitution, including the charter.

The House has a long tradition of abiding by the inherent constitutional convention of sub judice by refraining from debating legal matters that are before the courts. As the Supreme Court noted in Canada v. Vaid in 2005, “[i]t is a wise principle that the courts and Parliament strive to respect each other's role in the conduct of public affairs.” Parliament refrains from commenting on matters before the courts under the sub judice rule, and the courts refrain from interfering with the workings of Parliament or a provincial legislature.

In the case of the appeal launched by the English Montreal School Board and other parties, the factum of the Attorney General of Canada in his role as an intervener does not challenge the validity of the Act respecting the laicity of the State. In light of the increasing use of the notwithstanding clause, meaning section 33 of the Charter, the Attorney General invites the Supreme Court to clarify the constitutional limits of this power. This is very important for the rights and freedoms of all Quebeckers and all Canadians.

At its core, this argument is based on the principle that the Canadian Constitution strikes a delicate balance between legislative authority and our fundamental rights. Although Parliament and the provincial legislatures have broad discretionary power to pass legislation in their respective areas of jurisdiction, parliamentary sovereignty has always been subject to the Constitution, including since 1982 when the charter was enacted. This appeal provides an opportunity to reaffirm the balance that is at the heart of our democracy.

The Supreme Court of Canada is the general court of appeal for Canada, and as the highest judicial institution in the land, it will be well served by the Attorney General of Canada's intervention as it reviews the charter guarantees and the use of the notwithstanding clause. Canadians and Quebeckers expect nothing less.

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

Madam Speaker, in her speech, my colleague across the way claimed to want to defend women's rights by attacking the notwithstanding clause. I find that odd because it is well known that Quebec's state secularism law clearly indicates that the equality of men and women is non-negotiable. My colleague wants to indirectly fight against Quebec's state secularism law, which enshrines women's rights.

She also says that she wants to protect workers' rights, even though her own government has intervened countless times to prevent workers from going on strike and exercising their rights. Worst of all, she also cited the Blaikie decision, which was one of the first times the Supreme Court weakened Bill 101 in Quebec. I do not understand.

What she is basically saying is that she wants the Supreme Court to create a constitutional amendment. That is what the federal government is demanding. It wants to the Supreme Court to change the Constitution to further weaken Quebec. What is my colleague ultimately hiding? What Quebec legislation does she want to attack? What other legislation does she not like? How concerned should we be about her work?

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because it gives me a chance to reiterate how important this is.

I am a Quebecker, I am proud to live in a province that supports women's rights, but I have some concerns. I see what is happening in the United States, and I want to ensure that our rights and freedoms, which are set out in the Constitution, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will always be respected.

Obviously, exceptions can always be made in any legislative assembly or provincial law, but I do not want the use of the notwithstanding clause to undermine our fundamental rights and freedoms. These rights must be subject to judicial review, when a decision is made to restrict them.

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

Madam Speaker, no party has divided Canadians more and created more polarization than the Liberal Party of Canada.

Canadians are facing a number of crises that the Liberal government has created: a food crisis, an inflation crisis, a crime crisis and an immigration crisis. We are also facing an unemployment crisis and a youth unemployment crisis at recessionary levels.

Why is the Liberal Prime Minister trying to distract Canadians and trying to create a national unity crisis when Canadians are expecting us to come together to solve the problems the Liberals themselves have created?

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

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to live in a country that is united in its diversity. This government has always been there to protect our Charter of Rights. It is so dear to us, and as I said, generations of Canadians have fought to have it. By protecting the charter, we are protecting our unity. This is more important than ever as we live in a global and changing world. In other parts of the world, rights and freedoms are being eroded, so it is even more important than ever to be united and to defend what is most dear to us, which is our Charter of Rights.