Sophie Chatel
Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for my colleague. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced Canada's national food security strategy. This strategy is built on four key pillars: investing in our regional food infrastructure to increase choice and competition, processing more food here in Canada, increasing year-round production of fruits…”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that the national food security strategy will lower the cost of groceries. More specifically, we will invest $1 billion to boost food processing here in Canada. Right now, we are sending our agricultural products abroad for processing. Now, we will invest in this sector.”
“Mr. Speaker, stakeholders across Canada are saying that this $3.2-billion strategy on food security will make food affordable for Canadians. There will be four key strategies. We will build local, regional infrastructure so that we have more options and more affordability. We will produce more.”
“Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to travel all over Quebec last summer and to meet with farmers in my colleague's region. I can say one thing. Farmers are very happy with the national food security strategy. One way to make food more affordable for Canadian families is to do more processing here in Canada.”
“Mr. Speaker, talking about seriousness, Canadians know we are in the middle of a global economic disruption. Our Prime Minister is a serious person. He is working hard. He already cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. He also launched the national school food program, which helps families with affordability.”
“Mr. Speaker, the Mercosur agreement represents 300 million people and a $2.5-trillion economy. It is one of the largest markets in the world. However, we listened to our ranchers. We listened to our producers. We are listening to their concerns about the trade agreement. In fact, the study is going on at committee.”
The complete record
Every one of 82 lines we hold for Sophie Chatel, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 2.
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1100) 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 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1055) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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. (1050) 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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“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.”
“Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister and our government are working really hard to resolve these unfair tariffs from China on our canola producers, our pork producers and our pea producers. We are not waiting for that to be resolved. We are proposing to double the advance payments program for canola farmers. We have added $75 million to the AgriMarketing program. We have also opened the market for biofuel. We will stand up—”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague is absolutely right. Farming, the entire agricultural sector, is a pillar of our economy. It accounts for one in nine jobs. To support our farmers who are facing completely unjustified tariffs from China, we have doubled advance payments, added $75 million to the agrimarketing program and, on top of that, opened up the biofuel sector. We will never turn our backs on our farmers, the folks who put food on our tables.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that is an important aspect. Those risk management programs are so important and so vital. These are programs that are shared federally and provincially. There will be another round of discussions with the premiers and with the territories. The second round of the partnership, the strategic partnership, will be discussed. There is improvement that needs to be done on both those programs, but they are fundamental because these programs ensure that, despite climate change and extreme weather events, and despite the turbulence of the market, our farmers have income, have stability and can manage the risk. They are fundamental, and they have to fit the need. I did not have a chance to talk about the AgriMarketing program, but that is also a very good and important one.”
“The advance payment has been doubled from $250 to $500 for this year so that it really helps the farmers weather this storm. I also want to talk about the AgriStability program. AgriStability is a very important program to help farmers diversify their portfolio as well as their exports.”
“[ English ] I had the great honour in my career to be a tax treaty negotiator, but when we negotiated with China, it was under Stephen Harper's government. It is not easy, and we have to set the path. Our Prime Minister is very engaged with officials, with diplomats and with the premiers, with his parliamentary secretary and with the minister, and the channel is always open for discussion when the conditions are right. For sure, the China-Canada relationship is so important that, of course, the Prime Minister has a lot of occasions to meet in these international negotiations. To support producers navigating significant risks, we have doubled the advance payment to help our farmers to manage those risks. I want to talk about the canola sector in particular.”
“It is one of the most important industries in terms of GDP and employment. That is what makes it essential. Earlier, we were talking about the climate challenges our farmers are facing. We are fortunate to have the sustainable Canadian agricultural partnership with the provinces and territories, which invests $3.5 billion in key programs to help our farmers manage risk. They have access to risk management programs that provide protection against loss of income. My colleague mentioned drought, which is exactly the kind of thing these programs are designed for. These are key programs to which the federal government contributes 60%. These programs do not just address climate change. They also address trade turmoil, like the turbulence we are experiencing right now, which is not easy to navigate. China's tariffs are completely unwarranted.”
“Mr. Speaker, we do not talk enough in the House about the agriculture and agri-food sector, and I am so thankful the member raised this important issue. Our farmers and I echo what the member said. It is very important. They are at the end of the season. Some have experienced drought, extreme weather events, smoke and fires. It is a difficult time for farmers. They are resilient and great, and I think we should talk more about the success we have as a country in our food security thanks to the hard work they do. [ Translation ] As I was saying, we should talk about the agriculture industry a lot more because it is essential. It feeds not only Canadians, but the world at large with its exports. The agriculture and agri-food industry is Canada's largest manufacturing industry.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for her very important speech. In the Outaouais, we have had similar situations where one of the indigenous communities in my riding had to be evacuated. I would like to thank everyone at Indigenous Services Canada for their support. Can the minister elaborate on what steps the department is taking to support indigenous communities affected by the wildfires in Manitoba? I would particularly like to hear more about the cultural support and temporary housing provided to indigenous communities.”
“Mr. Speaker, I know that my colleague is a great advocate for rural areas and especially rural health care. We are at a time when it is no longer possible to die or be born in our community because we have to go to urban centres to receive health care. The situation in rural Canada is dire. I would like to hear my colleague explain what the issues are and what he thinks the solution could be for rural health care.”
“Mr. Speaker, in these difficult economic times, the Canadian dental care plan provides real support to seniors and families in my riding. Since the end of May, this program has been available to all Canadians earning less than $90,000 per year. My question is for the Minister of Health. What is the status of the program's rollout for all Canadians, and what efforts are being made to make it accessible?”