Anthony Housefather
Mount Royal, Quebec · Liberal · Canada
“It makes it clear that a person cannot obstruct people from entering or leaving the building, which is what happened that night in March 2024. At the time, I called for this change to the criminal law.”
“However, the police failed to arrest people. They failed to stop what was a demonstration that descended into illegality. They said at the time that they did not have clear enough instructions or clear enough rules related to when a demonstration outside of a community centre, a school, a temple, a church or a synagogue has crossed the li…”
“Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton . [ English ] The combatting hate act has been before this House for nine months. During those nine months, we have had extensive debate in this place, in the other place and at committee. This bill is important.”
“Yes, there was dissent, but the dissent was not on the vast majority of issues, including the intimidation and obstruction offence. However, that has not stopped what the Prime Minister called the “crisis of anti-Semitism” that has overwhelmed the western world, including Canada, where over 70% of religious-based hate offences are against…”
“Mr. Speaker, the organizations that speak for the organized Jewish communities, all of them, support the bill, whether it is CIJA, B'nai Brith, the Friends of Simon Wiesenthal Center, the numerous groups that Mark Sandler has assembled in Toronto or the Canadian Women Against Antisemitism.”
“We also inserted a provision for greater clarity, to make clear that this is not the case, but we should not have had to do that, because it is obvious that this is not the case. People will not be charged because they read, quote or preach the Bible, the Quran, the Torah or any other holy book. This is entirely made up.”
The complete record
Every one of 227 lines we hold for Anthony Housefather, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 5 of 5.
“Nobody is talking about the people in housing or economics doing this factum, so the arguments the Conservatives are using today are beyond belief.”
“When arguments are used before the court to illustrate what those might be, nobody is talking about the Quebec government doing them. They are talking about any government, including the federal government, that could do those things. We are simply saying that there are grounds more than procedural ones for nullifying an exercise of section 33. [ Translation ] Lastly, with respect to the argument that we should not talk about this and that the Government of Canada should not file a factum with the Supreme Court because there are other issues in the country, I would simply like to say that there are obviously other issues in the country. [ English ] The people from the Department of Justice who worked on this factum were not doing things that they should not have been doing with this factum.”
“(1240) [ English ] The third argument is the most important argument the federal government is making in this case. It is that a right cannot be turned off in a way that we cannot turn it back on just as brightly. Just as how, if we turn off a light bulb, it comes back on and shines just as brightly, we cannot take a right under the charter and utterly obliterate it so that when we say we are no longer using the notwithstanding clause, the people affected no longer have the ability to do what they were doing before. That could happen either because of constant successive uses of the notwithstanding clause or because the right is obliterated in a way that is so unreasonable, it will ultimately deprive people of the permanent ability to exercise that right.”
“For example, if we violate freedom of expression under section 2, but we also violate democratic rights under section 3 of the charter democratic rights, we do not have the right to use the notwithstanding clause to violate a right that is other than section 2 or section 7 to 15. [ Translation ] From time to time, a law is challenged under several sections of the charter rather than just one. Obviously, if one wants to invoke the notwithstanding clause, one cannot refer to a section that is not subject to the notwithstanding clause. This is an important argument to ensure that other rights are not affected because someone made a declaration that an act would operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of the charter.”
“[ Translation ] When a government uses the notwithstanding clause pre-emptively claiming that no rights are really being violated, it is not giving the public all of the information. If officials run for re-election, it is important that the public have the opportunity to say whether a government has unreasonably violated the charter. That is one argument before the court. [ English ] Another argument that the federal government is making is that we do not have the right to use the notwithstanding clause to violate a right other than those in section 2 or sections 7 to 15.”
“We cannot say that the Government of Canada should be there when we like its position and that it should not be there when we do not like its position. (1235) I would like to talk about the three arguments that the Government of Canada submitted before the Supreme Court. [ English ] The first argument the government is making is that even if we use the notwithstanding clause, a court has the ability to declare that the law violates the charter, section 2 or sections 7 to 15, in a way that is unreasonable in a free and democratic society. Those are the only charter sections that we can use the notwithstanding clause on. It is important for the residents of that province to know what their government has done.”
“The Attorney General of Canada comes into it because, in his role, he has to make arguments about whether we take the position of the Saskatchewan courts or the position of the Quebec Court of Appeal. That is as it should be. I find it astonishing that the Bloc Québécois is telling us that the Government of Canada should not appear before the Supreme Court of Canada, but that it is not saying anything about the other provinces that have intervened in the case. Is the Bloc of the opinion that it is okay for all of the provinces to intervene on this issue, but not the Government of Canada? The Government of Canada's role is to protect the rights of everyone, including Quebeckers and all minorities in the country.”
“The main role of the Attorney General of Canada is to ensure that there is no conflict of laws across Canada, that decisions by Canadian courts are not in conflict. That is why this provision is before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court of Canada has to tell us what the law is. Does it correspond to what the courts in Saskatchewan and the Superior Court of Quebec have said, that even if section 33 is invoked, there can be a declaratory judgment, or does it correspond with what was handed down by the Quebec Court of Appeal, which said that a court cannot examine the question of whether a right is being violated in a manner that is unreasonable under section 1 because the notwithstanding clause has been invoked?”
“We chose to have a charter because we felt that certain rights were so important that they needed to be protected, even if the majority did not agree with protecting these minority rights. I also want to highlight section 1 of the Charter. It is not like the Bill of Rights in the United States. We have a limit. It says that legislators can pass laws that infringe on a right if they do so in a reasonable manner in a free and democratic society. When section 33 is invoked, one inherently acknowledges that it is unreasonable in a free and democratic society to limit rights in this manner. The federal document presents three very important arguments. The first is necessary because the Quebec Court of Appeal took a position contrary to that taken by the Saskatchewan courts and the Superior Court of Quebec on the issue of a declaration.”
“This is the first time in 35 years that the notwithstanding clause and the means to use it are being challenged before the Supreme Court of Canada. The Attorney General of Canada must therefore be present in Canada's highest court, the Supreme Court of Canada, to protect the Constitution and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We adopted a charter of rights and freedoms because, as a country, we believed it was important to protect the rights of minorities, even if the majority in the country or in a province does not agree with protecting the rights of minorities. It is important to point out that the notwithstanding clause can be used by the Parliament of Canada or by the provinces, so this is an important debate for us as federal legislators.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my Bloc Québécois colleagues who moved this opposition day motion. I am pleased to speak in the House of Commons as a Quebecker because it is very important to show that Quebeckers have a wide range of opinions on Bill 21 and the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. The Bloc Québécois does not have a monopoly on speaking in the House of Commons on behalf of all Quebeckers. The vast majority of Quebec members in this place are federalist members and sit on this side of the House. I wanted to mention that at the outset. Also, the issue we are debating concerns the federal government's factum before the Supreme Court. This is not a debate on Bill 21. What we are talking about is a provision of Bill 21.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank the leader of the Bloc Québécois for his speech. I must point out that the matter of whether the clause may be used pre-emptively does not even appear in the government's factum. It was not even raised. The Bloc is calling on us to withdraw the factum filed with the Supreme Court, but there is a very important question that needs to be addressed. The Quebec Superior Court and the courts of Saskatchewan have rendered decisions that illustrate a different position from that of the Quebec Court of Appeal with respect to the declaratory power. Will the Bloc leader acknowledge that the Attorney General of Canada must clarify the law for all Canadians?”
“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?”
“Mr. Speaker, my understanding is that the Canada Elections Act requires somebody to swear that they are voting in the last riding that they lived in in Canada, and they have to disclose that address. Would that not be correct, and would that not prevent some of what the hon. member is suggesting might happen?”
“Mr. Speaker, first of all, let me welcome my colleague from Kitchener South—Hespeler to the House. It is always nice to have more doctors in the House. I think they say that often. It is funny that he is talking about prepared talking notes, because I think people watching me will note that I did not use any talking notes whatsoever for my speech, which is actually how I think speeches should be given in the House as much as possible, as with the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent—Akiawenhrahk and the member for Winnipeg North , by the way. I hope the member for Kitchener South—Hespeler follows that going forward.”
“Mr. Speaker, they talk about redistribution, but fail to say that there are several provinces that do not receive equalization payments. Albert and Saskatchewan do not receive any money through this redistribution, while Quebec does. As a Quebecker, I am very pleased to live in a federation where there is a willingness to help one another. I am grateful to the people of Alberta and Saskatchewan who give us this. It is very easy to say that Quebec is the province that receives the least money per capita of all the provinces that receive equalization payments, but there are some provinces that do not receive any and give money instead.”
“Mr. Speaker, my hope is that everybody looking at the challenges we are facing from the United States will come to the rationalization that we need to exploit Canadian energy to its potential. I am going to hope and pray that everyone will look at this as rational actors and will understand that we need to be resilient across our country first so that we are not buying oil from other countries to import to Canada when we have enough oil on our own. It is about understanding that we have to have the ability to access foreign markets, because we need an economy that is resilient regardless of what our American friends do or do not do.”
“It looked at things from the perspective of one province only, even though other provinces and one territory were not part of the initial system. Nobody even considered them when it came to the motion. That is not how we should be looking at things. There has to be some logical coherence. (1640) [ Translation ] For my first speech in this Parliament, I am pleased to reach out to my opposition colleagues and tell them that I look forward to working with them on all our country's major issues and on various matters. We are here to stand together and build a better Canada.”
“[ English ] We can work together to build a stronger Canada, a Canada where Alberta oil can make it to market and can get to tidewater. We can have a Canada where big national projects get built in a fast time frame. We can have a Canada that respects provincial autonomy but understands that there are big national projects and national goals to fulfill. We can have a Canada where we all understand that in a changing world, where we are faced with a lot of challenges, we have to work together as a country. Whether we are Conservatives, Liberals, Bloc members or New Democrats, we have to work together as a country. If I come back to the Bloc motion, it did not look at things, at least originally, from the perspective of the country.”
“I think that was a very good step. I think all the steps the government has taken by lowering income taxes on Canadians, building one national economy where free trade applies across the country within federal jurisdiction and asking the provinces to do the same, allowing for big national projects to be built, and allowing our energy and resources to go to market are bringing the government to the centre, which I think most Canadians want. [ Translation ] I think there is a willingness to work with the other political parties joining us in the centre to govern the country and make Canada's economy the best in the G7. We now have a real opportunity to do things differently than in the last Parliament, when we were always fighting and squabbling.”
“Saying that the model used by the other provinces should also apply to Quebec, when Quebec has its own model, is completely contradictory to the general position of the Bloc Québécois, which wants absolute autonomy for Quebec. [ English ] I am happy that the new government removed the carbon tax as one of its first acts, the federal backstop, leaving the flexibility for each province to handle that the way it wants to handle it. That does not mean we are not going to invest in the economy. It does not mean we are not going to invest in clean technology. It does not mean we are not investing in the environment. However, there also has to be a general consensus on what happens. I am also very pleased that the government, at the same time, announced the removal of the capital gains inclusion rate changes, which I had not agreed with.”
“It would, in the end, actually take monies away from Quebec, not give monies to Quebec. I do not understand the logic of the Bloc Québécois, which is insisting that, in this one particular case, we have to allot all of the monies equally by province, when that is not the opinion of the Bloc Québécois when it comes to many, many other programs. [ Translation ] I also find it a bit odd that the Bloc Québécois thinks it is wrong that Quebec decided to have its own program. We respect Quebec's autonomy. Quebec has its own program and British Columbia has its own program. The rest of the country had a different program. I would have thought that the Bloc Québécois would be very happy that flexible federalism allows Quebec to have its own program.”
“Bloc members are looking at it only from the perspective of what more or what less they can get for one province. That is not the way the federal system works. In the federal system, there are equalization payments paid to provinces. Quebec is the biggest federal beneficiary of equalization payments. An hon. member: From Alberta. Anthony Housefather: Mr. Speaker, they come from Alberta and other provinces; that is correct. When we look at federal programs, we see that federal programs' monies do not always flow equally to every single province. They flow directly to different things in different programs. We would imagine, in the end, that the country is made better as a whole by all the programs we have. The idea that we would take each and every program and allot the amount equally by province would, in the end, actually hurt Quebec.”
“The federal government chose, in those provinces that were not part of the federal system, to give the monies back through a consumer pricing model. That was what happened in the month of April. Earlier today, the Conservative Party looked at the motion and said that it is not coherent, because British Columbia was also not part of the federal system. (1635) [ Translation ] However, the Bloc Québécois's original motion only called for the money to be returned to Quebec, leaving out British Columbia, and the Bloc Québécois rejected the Conservative Party's amendment. For the sake of consistency, the Bloc Québécois ended up adding its own amendment to say that British Columbia should also get a rebate. [ English ] That is not the perspective that the Bloc normally brings to the House.”
“[ English ] The original plan to pay the carbon rebate in the month of April to all Canadians in the eight provinces who were already receiving the carbon rebate makes logical, coherent sense. The rebate had historically gone only to those provinces that were subject to the federal backstop on the carbon pricing. Quebec, British Columbia and the Northwest Territories had their own systems and were excluded. That was the choice of Quebec, the Northwest Territories and British Columbia, to be exempt from the federal system by putting their own system in place. That also allowed those provinces to decide where the monies went that came in from the revenues generated by their own carbon pricing system. They went to provincial programs in Quebec and British Columbia. That allowed the province the flexibility to choose where the money went.”
“Mr. Speaker, congratulations on your appointment to the role of Deputy Speaker of the House. I will be sharing my time with the member for Compton—Stanstead . I am very proud to be in the House with this new member because there are now 44 of us members from Quebec on the Liberal side. With the 11 members from Quebec on the Conservative side, there are 55 members who are able to be both proud Quebeckers and proud Canadians and to build this country together with our counterparts across the country. Regarding the Bloc Québécois motion, we can see that there is an inconsistency that could have been fixed simply by adopting the Conservative Party's amendment, which the Bloc Québécois initially rejected but is now putting forward itself. Let me explain.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to welcome the member for Toronto—St. Paul's to the House. She is a true ally of the Jewish community. In terms of what she said in her speech, just in the last 10 days, two Jews were killed in Washington, D.C., while leaving an American Jewish Committee event. We had the incident this weekend where people who were marching for the release of the hostages were attacked brutally in Colorado. In the member's riding at Casa Loma and in my riding at the Chevra Kadisha, we had demonstrators demonstrating outside Jewish community events. What steps does the hon. member hope to take to help our community feel more safe in Canada?”