Tim Watchorn
Les Pays-d'en-Haut, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, I rise today to honour the heart and soul of music and theatre in Morin-Heights, and that heart is named Penny Rose. Penny came to us in the sixties and opened Rose's Cantina, one of the first live music venues in our community, where people would come from near and far to be entertained.”
“Mr. Speaker, I have been in the House for about one year, and all I hear from the other side is doom and gloom. I would like to talk about some positive stuff that is happening in our area. I too have a forestry sector in my riding. Forestry is a challenge.”
“It analyzes and identifies projects that will give fast results, supports them and makes it possible to start construction because the longer we wait on a project, the more expensive it becomes. I am pleased to announce that construction on the Au cœur des collines project in Saint‑Calixte will begin this summer.”
“(1005) To illustrate the importance of this legislation, I will give two clear examples of housing projects in my riding, Les Pays-d'en-Haut. The first was built under the old programs, and the second was built using the new tools provided by Build Canada Homes. The first project is called Habitat Morin-Heights.”
“Madam Speaker, I rise this morning to support the bill respecting the establishment of Build Canada Homes. This decisive law will make Build Canada Homes a Crown corporation tasked with building and expanding affordable housing for Canadians. As we all know, Canada is going through a housing crisis.”
“It will also work with non-profit organizations and other key stakeholders in the housing sector to stimulate the construction of affordable housing across Canada. This includes private developers and community organizations. However, Build Canada Homes cannot act alone. The success of its initiatives depends on partnerships.”
The complete record
Every one of 130 lines we hold for Tim Watchorn, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 3 of 3.
“Mr. Speaker, I find it incredible that the Conservatives are getting up today and talking about anything but the motion moved by our colleagues on the other side of the House. I think this is an important issue that they should debate with us, because Canadians' fundamental rights must be respected. I believe that today's debate is more important than the other topics raised by my colleagues on the other side of the House.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think the notwithstanding clause is a necessary part of the charter. However, repeated use of the notwithstanding clause will undermine Canadians' fundamental rights. I think that the debate, as far as the Supreme Court is concerned, is going to centre on how to apply the notwithstanding clause in such a way as to ensure that the fundamental rights set out in the charter are fully protected at all times.”
“Mr. Speaker, that is not the issue here. Bill 21 is not being taken before the Supreme Court. It is solely a question of the use of the notwithstanding clause. I believe that, when it comes to the Constitution, it is important to defend the rights of all Canadians.”
“We are seeing the notwithstanding clause being increasingly invoked by parliaments across the country. We have heard from Canadians who are concerned about the appropriateness of invoking the notwithstanding clause in such a way. Again, our role is to provide helpful observations to the court on the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution, which in this case is the notwithstanding clause. This contribution is intended to enrich the debate, not to single out a province or to challenge its ability to legislate. We respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, including Quebec, but respecting does not mean staying silent. When an issue concerns the interpretation of the charter, it is normal, critical even, for the Government of Canada to make itself heard.”
“The Attorney General of Canada is firmly committed to participating in these important national discussions, which could have repercussions for all Canadians. For that reason, the government will not withdraw from this debate before the Supreme Court. Doing so would be a dereliction of its duty to defend the charter and to help maintain a clear and consistent constitutional framework for the entire country. It is in the interest of the court, the public and the Constitution for the government to contribute to this debate, particularly as it relates to the interpretation of section 33. As it has already stated, this government is very concerned about the increased use of the notwithstanding clause, namely, section 33 of the charter. The first word should not be the last in the dialogue between parliaments and the courts.”
“In so doing, we are making the Government of Canada's voice heard in a debate that directly affects the interpretation and future of the charter. This case is not limited to the immediate issues before the court. It touches on fundamental freedoms and rights, as well as the interpretation and application of the charter. I would like to clarify that the Attorney General of Canada's submissions are not aimed at the Act respecting the laicity of the State. They relate exclusively to the proper interpretation of the charter. The Supreme Court's decision will determine the conditions under which the federal and provincial governments may invoke the notwithstanding clause in the years to come.”
“We have always indicated that, given the nationally important issues that this case raises, we would be there to defend the charter before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is exactly what we are doing today. (1335) To be clear, many questions about how the Constitution is interpreted or applied are at play in this case. Several provinces, in addition to Quebec, as well as some 40 organizations, are already involved in this case, each presenting its own arguments on the issues. To me, that is the clearest indicator that this is a very important debate for our country and our federation. That is why this government signalled its intention to intervene in this case last March and submitted its brief to the Supreme Court on September 17.”
“The Attorney General of Canada has an important role to play in ensuring that minority rights are respected consistently throughout the country. The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly indicated, particularly in the reference to secession, that respect for minorities is one of the underlying principles of the Canadian Constitution. That principle, along with federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, forms the foundation of Canada's constitutional framework. As we know, this government has shown an unwavering commitment to defending the rights of linguistic minorities across Canada. I would now like to illustrate how those principles actually apply to the case at hand today, that which involves the English Montreal School Board and other appellants.”
“Instead, its goal is to support the court by providing a useful and distinct perspective on the legal matters at hand, based on its constitutional responsibilities and its ability to provide a national and federal perspective on matters before the court. For example, as a national government, Canada has a major interest in ensuring that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is interpreted and applied consistently across the country. As a national government, Canada also has an interest in promoting and protecting national unity, a role grounded in the principle of federalism. Furthermore, as a national government, we have a clear interest in the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, regardless of where they live.”
“This role helps uphold the rule of law, ensures that the government's actions respect the limits set by the Constitution and the charter, and ultimately ensures that the rights and interests of all Canadians are protected. I would like to stress the specific role of an intervener before the Supreme Court. As an intervener, Canada's main objective is to make a significant contribution to resolving complex legal issues that have major consequences for all Canadians. The government's goal is not to advocate for a particular outcome or to take a position on the validity of the disputed provincial law.”
“When the court is seized with constitutional and charter issues, the rules require that notice be given to the Attorney General of Canada and provincial attorneys general. In these circumstances, the federal and provincial attorneys general have the power and every right to intervene. The Attorney General of Canada is frequently called upon to act as an intervener before the Supreme Court. This should come as no surprise. To defend the public interest, the Attorney General must have an opportunity to participate in cases that raise important constitutional issues, ensuring that the constitutionality of laws is fully and properly debated before the courts.”
“Our participation in this appeal is intended to fulfill an important constitutional duty of the federal government: to uphold the rule of law, ensure the integrity of our Constitution, and protect the rights and freedoms we all share as citizens of this country. There is nothing unusual or unexpected about Canada's participation in the appeal filed by the English Montreal School Board. By supporting the Supreme Court in this case, the government is simply doing what it has always done and will always do, which is to defend all Canadians, as is our responsibility and privilege. Before going into detail on the case at hand, I would like to review the institutional framework surrounding the federal government's intervention before the Supreme Court.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Rivière-du-Nord , who is my riding neighbour. To begin with, I want to remind the House that the question raised by this motion is not insignificant. It touches on one of the pillars of our democracy, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which applies to all Canadians. It also raises fundamental concerns related to the interpretation and use of the notwithstanding clause, an exceptional provision of our Constitution. Our presence before the Supreme Court is not intended to reopen old debates. It is not in any way intended to pit Canada against the provinces or to cast doubt on their legislative authority.”
“Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my hon. colleague opposite if he can think of a specific situation where the Conservative Party would use the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively, as the provinces are currently doing.”
“Madam Speaker, I am always happy to rise on behalf of the people of Pays-d'en-Haut. I am a proud Quebecker, and I am also concerned about the growing use of the notwithstanding clause. I would like to ask my hon. colleague to explain how the Attorney General of Canada's intervention could prevent the erosion of rights and freedoms enshrined in the Canadian charter.”
“Mr. Speaker, Canada and Quebec are at a crossroads. International trade has been turned upside down. Supply chains have been disrupted, and new technologies such as artificial intelligence promise to radically transform the way we live and do business. Canadians have given this government a strong mandate to tackle this crisis. The upcoming federal budget will outline the government's plan to build a strong Canadian economy, the strongest in the G7. Can the Minister of Finance inform the House of the next steps in this crucial process?”
“Mr. Chair, I was the mayor of a municipality in my riding, and we were able to build 30 housing units for seniors aged 75 and over, with the collaboration of the Government of Quebec and the Government of Canada. It took us five years, which is a very long time. We even had a housing summit. The findings are clear: People are unable to find housing in our region because it is too expensive. Young people, workers and the less fortunate are unable to find housing. I would like to know if the minister can tell us how important an agency like “build Canada homes” is for meeting the needs of the people of Les Pays-d'en-Haut and all Canadians.”
“Madam Speaker, when I was door knocking in my riding, people spoke to me about the increased cost of living. Can my hon. colleague tell us how the tax cut from 15% to 14% will help people with their everyday purchases?”
“Mr. Speaker, Quebeckers did not pay the carbon tax. They are therefore not entitled to the rebate. The same goes for British Columbia and the territories. It is very clear that they are not entitled to a rebate. I think that our colleague from Winnipeg North said it well. While budgeting for the year, vulnerable people in the rest of Canada were counting on getting this carbon rebate. That is what our government did today.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that the measures being put forward by our government, such as the tax cut, the GST rebate on new homes and the other initiatives that have been mentioned, will give the people of Les Pays‑d'en‑Haut a bit of break when it comes to affordability. I think these flagship measures from our government will pay off.”
“Mr. Speaker, I think it is very important to understand that climate change is very real and that the carbon tax is an important measure to fight climate change. Unfortunately, the debate on the carbon tax for individuals became so toxic that the measure was no longer useful. We abolished it because that is what all Canadians wanted.”
“Mr. Speaker, after listening to the debates in the House, it seems a bit ironic to hear the Bloc Québécois say that eliminating the carbon tax is an election ploy. In Quebec, people received zero dollars in carbon tax rebates because they were not participating in the carbon tax program, yet they still elected twice as many Liberal MPs as Bloc MPs. I think Quebeckers get it.”
“The federal government has respected Quebec's jurisdiction over cap and trade and has worked with Quebec on environmental issues and carbon pricing. (1330) However, the other side of this mutually beneficial relationship was simply that Quebeckers did not pay the federal carbon tax as a consumption tax. It makes no sense for refund cheques to be sent to Quebec households, since they were exempt from the system in the first place. Quebeckers want all of the parties in this House to unite, rather than focus on motions that sow discord. They have asked us to put aside our partisan differences and stand up for Quebec industries, Quebec workers and a strong Quebec economy as part of a strong and united Canadian economy.”
“That is why the final Canada carbon rebate was issued as a transitional measure after the elimination of the consumer fuel tax. The payment was not a new benefit. It was the final instalment of a rebate for costs associated with the federal fuel tax. Quebec did not pay the federal carbon tax, so it did not receive the federal rebate. That makes perfect sense. This situation is not unique to Quebec. The carbon rebate system did not apply in British Columbia or the territories either. People in those provinces and territories were also not entitled to the rebate. This seems to me to be a relatively simple and straightforward premise. I have a lot of respect for my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, especially when it comes to environmental issues. However, motions like this one seek to sow division where there is none.”
“The rebates that applied to the federal carbon tax, which has now been cancelled, were sent to Canadians living in provinces that were part of the existing plan. Canadians in those provinces would have budgeted for that rebate, and the government decided to make things easier for them. It is important to understand how carbon pricing works. It does not apply in provinces like Quebec that have their own carbon pricing system. In provinces where the federal system applied, all proceeds from consumer carbon pricing were returned to the province in which they has been collected. In those provinces, Canadians paid the fuel tax up until a few weeks before the final rebate was sent out. They rightfully expected to receive the final carbon tax rebate in April.”
“Its ties with California through the Western Climate Initiative show that provinces can take the initiative on innovative cross-border climate solutions. The government will always support provinces that take ambitious, innovative and responsible action to fight climate change, as Quebec did. That is why I find the Bloc Québécois motion a bit ironic. On this side of the House, we respect and appreciate the provinces and territories that have implemented their own climate policies and are aligned with our shared goal of fighting climate change. The existing system is a recognition of Quebec's unique leadership on this issue and its jurisdiction. The Bloc will surely agree with that.”
“We also know that protecting the environment and economic growth are important priorities for Quebeckers. Instead of seeing those noble objectives as mutually exclusive, Quebeckers have long understood that they go hand in hand. Quebec has in fact long been a leader in fighting climate change. In 2013, Quebec established its own cap-and-trade system in order to set a price on carbon pollution. Quebec controls the design of the system and all of its revenues, which is why Canada's carbon rebate never applied in Quebec and why Quebec never expected to receive a carbon rebate. Quebec's leadership in establishing a cap-and-trade system not only predates the federal carbon pricing, it also served as a model for other jurisdictions in North America.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in today's debate and to reiterate our government's plan outlining oru immediate priorities to make life affordable for all Canadians, including Quebeckers. I want to thank the voters of Les Pays-d'en-Haut for placing their trust in me. As a member from Quebec, I think it is important for some of my colleagues from another political party to remember that Quebeckers elected 44 Liberal members to the House of Commons. This is a historic accomplishment because it is the highest number of Liberals elected to the House since 1980 and, I should point out, it is twice the number of Bloc Québécois members elected to the House. Quebeckers have quite simply given this government a strong mandate to fight unjustified tariffs, build a strong economy and make life more affordable.”
“Mr. Speaker, in my first speech in the House, I would like to talk about the wonderful history of Les Pays-d'en-Haut. I stand before the House as the first member of Parliament in the history of that riding, which makes me very proud. I have this incredible privilege thanks to the hard work of my wife Julie, my children Emma and William, my entire team of volunteers and the people of this beautiful riding. Les Pays-d'en-Haut is a riding made up of mountains, lakes and trails that I pledge to defend and promote. I would be remiss if I did not mention the people of Morin-Heights, who put their trust in me as mayor for the past 16 years. I am certain that my involvement in politics will result in the defence of all of the constituents of the riding of Les Pays-d'en-Haut.”
“Mr. Speaker, since this is the first time I am rising in the House, I would like to thank the people of Les Pays-d'en-Haut for sending me to the House of Commons. It is an honour to represent them. My colleague emphasized the importance of supporting municipalities with infrastructure. I am a civil engineer. I was the mayor of the municipality of Morin Heights for 16 years. I am very familiar with infrastructure issues. I would like the member for Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation to tell us more about how the government will help municipalities get the funding needed to carry out these projects.”