Rhéal Éloi Fortin
Rivière-du-Nord, Quebec · Bloc Québécois · Canada
“Mr. Speaker, this is not my first time speaking in the House to Bill C‑9 . My position, or the position of the Bloc Québécois, is already well known. Obviously, it will come as no surprise to hear that we have no intention of changing our position.”
“A certain amount of evidence must be provided for each of these offences. However, if it can be established that the offence in question was also committed on grounds of hate, then the sentence may be increased significantly. Unfortunately, I think this is a good thing.”
“Naturally, there are already provisions in the Criminal Code that can handle some of these issues, but Bill C‑9 applies directly to hate by clarifying what needs to be clarified and by doing what I would call a small clean-up of the Criminal Code that was, in some respects, badly needed.”
“However, in this case, I must commend the work of the Minister of Justice , whom I have worked with over the past few months to arrive at this version. It is not perfect, I admit, but it seems to me to be entirely appropriate, given the current situation in our country.”
“We say that the federal government should simply transfer the money and let the provinces manage it as they see fit, particularly given that the provinces have the necessary jurisdiction and expertise in these areas.”
“Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my Conservative colleague. I cannot recall the name of his riding, but thanks to him, I have an attentive audience. I think this is the first time I have been in the middle of a speech and seen everyone rush into the House to listen to it. I thank my colleague.”
The complete record
Every one of 521 lines we hold for Rhéal Éloi Fortin, in date order, each linked to its source. Free to read, in full, without an account. Page 2 of 11.
“Mr. Speaker, here is what I think of his government. I admit that the current Minister of Justice is someone I have a cordial relationship with. I consider him to be effective, and I have a certain amount of confidence in him. However, I do not want anyone to ask me to approve everything the current government has done. It has done a lot more objectionable things than good things, in my opinion, and I say that with all due respect for our colleagues who make up this government. I would be remiss if I did not mention certain aspects of the justice system. It is all well and good to pass laws that we think are effective, but the fact remains that they have to be administered, and that falls under provincial jurisdiction. There is no money in the provinces.”
“Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me as well to work with my colleague. First of all, I want to say how much I appreciate his efforts to speak French. His French is becoming exceptional. I tip my hat to him. I actually think his French is better than my English. To answer the question more specifically, as I said earlier, I think the recruitment of minors is a scourge. I cannot stress this enough. It is cowardly for an adult to ask a minor to commit a crime on their behalf. I have no sympathy for such an adult, and I have no qualms about doubling or even tripling the sentence they would receive. That said, I understand that we are in Parliament. There are 343 of us here, and everyone's opinion must be taken into account. The Minister of Justice has found a middle ground between what I would have wanted and what others might have wanted.”
“Mr. Speaker, I do not want to repeat myself unnecessarily, but my colleague is right to raise this issue. I do not think it would be appropriate to return to mandatory minimum sentences that leave no room for discretion. For one, this would run counter to the ruling the Supreme Court has already handed down on this matter. I have no objection to going back to the Supreme Court several times if necessary, but constantly doing the same thing over and over again in hopes of obtaining a different result seems a bit odd to me. Moreover, I believe that our society is better off with mandatory minimum sentences that allow for exceptions. I disagree with a rigid framework that does not allow for exceptions, as that can lead to injustices.”
“In their rulings, they will have to explain the exceptional circumstances justifying their decision to deviate from the mandatory minimum sentence imposed by Parliament. That reassures me, and I think it should reassure the general public, too. I realize that this does not reflect the wishes expressed by our Conservative colleagues. I respect their position, but I would urge them to be a little more flexible in the criteria we use to assess bills. They will see that this may be the most appropriate solution between having no mandatory minimum sentences and having mandatory minimum sentences that are too restrictive in certain circumstances.”
“I have good friends who are judges, both at the Superior Court and at the Court of Quebec, as well as at the provincial courts of the other provinces. They are honest and well-meaning and, like just about everyone here in this chamber, they want the best for society. They work in the fairest, most effective way for everyone. Personally, I am fine with mandatory minimum sentences, but I want to make sure that the judges who preside over our courts can use their common sense in exceptional cases and that they are given the option to deviate from those minimums if they consider the case to be exceptional or if the sentence would be cruel and unusual. Those judges will obviously have to justify their decisions.”
“The judge said in his decision that he regretted the situation and that, in his opinion, it made no sense. Those were not his exact words. I cannot remember what he said exactly. Please excuse my word substitution. The judge said that it was unfortunate, but that the offence carried a minimum sentence so he had no choice. He therefore sentenced the young man to prison. I have no details about what happened next, and I do not mean to overdramatize the issue by citing a rare example. However, in those exceptional cases, can we trust our judges? They are not perfect, but based on my experience as a lawyer before I became a member of Parliament, and from what I have read since, they do a pretty good job.”
“That will send a clear signal that Parliament takes these crimes very seriously, and it will also send that message to the courts, but judges will be allowed to deviate from the mandatory minimums under genuinely exceptional circumstances. People may wonder why, since it can sometimes lead to absurd situations. I recall one case, although I have unfortunately forgotten the details. It was a Quebec case involving a young 18-year-old man who had been accused, for all sorts of reasons, of committing sexual interference with a minor because his girlfriend was 16 or 17 years old, I think. They had been intimate for a few years. Both families were aware of it and accepted the situation. It was all right, but sexual interference with a minor carried a mandatory minimum sentence.”
“Throwing everybody in jail certainly would reduce crime on our streets, but that might not be the kind of society we want to live in. We need to find a middle ground. With all due respect for the opinion of my colleague who spoke just before me, I think that what Bill C‑16 proposes fits somewhere in that middle ground. This was a proposal that originated with the Bloc Québécois. I suggested it to the two people who served as justice minister before the current minister . Each time, they said it sounded reasonable and that something could be done, but nothing ever came of it. Now our idea has shown up in Bill C‑16. The government says it is trying to compromise. The mandatory minimum sentences that our Conservative colleagues believe in so strongly will be reinstated.”
“The same goes for the courts. Not enough judges, court clerks and necessary staff can be hired. Not enough courtrooms can be booked. As a result, trials are often not held within the time limits prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada. Bill C‑16 amends or improves the way time limits are calculated. I do not know if it will work. I remain skeptical but optimistic. If nothing else, I am pleased that our Minister of Justice has decided to address this issue, and I welcome this initiative. (1335) My colleague mentioned a certain aspect of Bill C‑16 a moment ago that is also a recurring issue. I have been an MP since 2015, and I do not remember a single time or year where we did not discuss the issue of mandatory minimum sentences. The Liberals do not want them for anything, whereas the Conservatives want them for everything.”
“All that time, they do not know whether their attacker will get the conviction they want and that the attacker deserves. It harms everyone. It harms society. The costs are astronomical. Holding lengthy trials is not possible. I therefore agree with the Supreme Court regarding what “a reasonable time” means under the charter. In the future, the time frame will be set at 24 months at the Court of Quebec and 30 months at the Superior Court of Quebec. That seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I am satisfied with that. Unfortunately, things being what they are, there is no money. The federal government is not transferring funds to the provinces for health care. Hospitals are overflowing. People are waiting in emergency rooms. The federal government is not transferring funds to the provinces for education. Schools lack specialized services.”
“Personally, I recommended going so far as to provide that an adult who recruits a young person be sentenced to twice the penalty they would have received had they committed the crime themselves. The bill does not go quite that far, but it does provide for penalties for the recruitment of minors under 18. I applaud the minister's initiative. On the issue of reasonable time frames, the Supreme Court Jordan decision caused a number of issues. At the same time, we all agree—in any case, I do—that a trial should be held within a reasonable time frame. If it takes two or three years, I think that is reasonable. If five or 10 years pass and an individual has still not had a trial, that harms that individual, who has been living with the sword of Damocles hanging over their head that whole time. It harms the victims too.”
“As for the recruitment of individuals under the age of 18, this is something the Bloc Québécois has called for. I have personally spoken with our Minister of Justice on numerous occasions to address this issue. Criminals affiliated with organized gangs recruit young people knowing that, since they are under 18, it does not matter if they get caught, as they will not have a criminal record. These criminals therefore ask these young people to commit theft or other crimes on their behalf. It is a scourge. These are our young people; we try to keep them on the straight and narrow, to bring them back when they stray. It is truly appalling that there are people who recruit them to commit crimes.”
“With this bill, we will finally be able to properly punish murders classified as femicide, meaning murders that occur alongside controlling and coercive behaviour, violence, human trafficking, hatred or other factors. We are addressing the issue of femicide. The bill also tackles the issue of harassment. Until now, and even today, victims that report harassment must prove that they subjectively feared for their safety. This often forced women or victims of harassment to testify and recount everything they had endured, the effect it had on them, which obviously hindered their recovery. Now, the standard is that the behaviour must be such that it could reasonably lead the victim to believe their safety is in danger. That is good news. I am not going to address every issue, because there are so many.”
“Mr. Speaker, as I was just saying, I would not be prepared to say that Bill C‑16 is a cure-all and that everything will be fine from now on, but I would say that things will certainly be better than they used to be. I am quite pleased with the work that was done on Bill C‑16 before it was referred to committee and when the committee was studying it. This bill improves quite a number of things. First, it provides a legislative response to controlling and coercive behaviour. I believe we have been working on this problem for three Parliaments now. Our efforts have finally resulted in a bill. Since we still have three and a half years to go before the next election, I hope that we will be able to pass it and move on to something else.”
“Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to sit alongside my colleague on the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We do not always see eye to eye, but I believe he does a thorough job and I congratulate him on that. I understand that he disagrees on a number of points relating to Bill C‑16 , but can we agree that Canadian society is better off with Bill C‑16 than without it?”
“Mr. Speaker, no matter what the Liberals may think, the Clarity Act is a tool designed to disregard democracy if the outcome of a vote does not suit the federal government. Its sole purpose is to suppress the will of the people. It is a law that undermines democracy and the right of peoples to self-determination. It also undermines justice by disregarding the Supreme Court's opinion, which holds that the concept of a clear majority is purely qualitative and not tied to a numerical margin of victory. This is blatant authoritarian overreach. Are the Liberals not ashamed to promote this?”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the Bloc Québécois motion that called on the federal government to pay back the $814 million it owes Quebeckers. His colleagues voted against that motion. That seems rather strange to me. If they really want to help Canadians save money and they really want to be fair, then why have they forgotten about Quebeckers? I do not understand. The Conservatives hold some ridings in Quebec. I am shocked at this lack of interest in the plight of Quebeckers. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that.”
“We invested in the transition to green energy, and now we are being told to forget all that and go back to oil. Not only that, Quebeckers are not getting back the $814 million taken from their pockets to compensate other Canadians. What is my colleague's take on that from an economic perspective?”
“Mr. Speaker, I think that my colleague and I are pretty much on the same wavelength when it comes to a number of things. However, as far as decisions by the government are concerned, we saw that the former Liberal government was steering us toward a green transition. There were investments in the auto industry. Then the government announced that it would be scrapping all of that. Instead, it will start subsidizing the oil industry again, which I believe to be counterproductive and expensive for everyone. On top of that, the government decided to reimburse all Canadians for the carbon tax they paid in the previous year, except in Quebec. Quebeckers are owed $814 million that the government refuses to repay. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Quebec is in a rather unusual situation.”
“Mr. Speaker, unfortunately, I do not entirely agree with my colleague. In fact, I have the same concern about budgetary matters. It is true that people are struggling to make ends meet. However, the problem is that cutting gas taxes and increasing oil production are counterproductive. This is simply putting things off. The planet will eventually have to be cleaned up because it will no longer be livable. Many countries around the world have gone green and are powered by electric, wind and solar energy, and yet our Conservative colleagues are calling for a return to oil. Unfortunately, the government seems to agree with them, since gas taxes were recently scrapped. I will therefore ask a question, and I would like my colleague to share his thoughts on this. Is it not counterproductive to boost oil production and cut taxes?”
“Mr. Speaker, there is no place in a democracy for a law that does not respect the will of the people as expressed by a majority of 50% plus one vote. There is no place in a democracy for a law that overturns the will of the people by claiming, after the fact, that the question or the result was not clear enough. There is no place in a democracy for a law that flouts the rules of the ballot box when the outcome is not what the government wanted. We must steer clear of this slippery slope to authoritarianism. Will the Prime Minister finally make up his mind and repeal the undemocratic Clarity Act?”
“Mr. Speaker, not only does the Clarity Act give the federal government some kind of veto over the wording of the question, as though people are too thick to understand the question, but this undemocratic law also calls into question the principle of majority rule in a democracy. The Liberals want clarity. That is fine, let us be clear then. First, the government that initiates a referendum determines the question. That government alone. Second, 50% plus one is a clear majority. Will Ottawa understand these basic democratic principles and repeal its undemocratic Clarity Act?”
“Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has just said is a comment, not a question. I will take note of his comment and say the same to him. I am not going to repeat what I said, but, since he is part of this government, is he capable of persuading his leader, the Prime Minister of Canada, to take action? It is all well and good to talk and announce measures, but is he capable of taking action around benefits for seniors, the media, the EI spring gap and wage subsidies? Wage subsidies were a proposal put forward by the Bloc Québécois during the pandemic six years ago. It worked and we saved businesses. Can we use the tools we have, follow the well-trodden paths that have proven their worth, and help the citizens of Quebec and Canada get through the tariff crisis?”
“I could list many other things, but I think that, even with just these, there is plenty of work to be done. The means and the needs are there. This is something our Prime Minister is capable of doing. The question is, does he have the will to do it?”
“It could fix the EI spring gap. I encourage our Prime Minister to use the skills he says he has, which I do not doubt. After all, he has held several important economic and financial positions over the course of his professional career. I have no doubt of his qualifications, but could he use them for our benefit, since that was why he was elected? Rightly or wrongly, a lot of Canadians and Quebeckers believed that he was the man to help us solve the tariff crisis. A year later, however, we see that not only has he failed to help, but the situation has actually gotten worse. Let us put that aside for a moment and make use of the tools we have. We could cut the oil subsidies, equalize benefits for our seniors, refund Quebeckers the money they are owed, support our media industry and fix the problems with EI.”
“The increase in transfers is 6% per year, which amounts to $14 billion over five years. Earlier I mentioned that $25.7 billion over five years could be recouped just by eliminating the oil subsidies. There are plenty of solutions, and I could list many others. Again, I get the message. I may not be an economist, but I get it. I get the Prime Minister 's message that he cannot solve the tariff crisis on his own and that it was Donald Trump who imposed these tariffs. I get that, I am not dense, but there are other things that are within our control. The oil subsidies are within the government's control. As for the media crisis, the government holds all the cards. The election bribe it sent to western Canada using Quebec's money—now that is serious—was within the government's control. The government could sign cheques.”
“I have seen criticism from commentators and Radio-Canada analysts about other private media outlets. (1730) I have a great deal of respect for Radio-Canada and I certainly would not want to see it disappear, but why not try to bring a little balance to the media landscape? Why not provide a little more support to private media companies or give them fairer opportunities, while maintaining funding for Radio-Canada? Why not fix the issue with old age security? The previous federal government decided to create two classes of seniors. The government increased benefits for seniors 75 and over, but those 65 to 75 were told to manage on their own. Maybe they could receive support. That might not be a bad idea in a period of austerity like the one we are in now. There are other ideas like that. I was speaking earlier about health care.”
“For example, in just two months out of that five‑year period, the government could repay the $814 million owed to Quebeckers because the federal government decided to hand out an election bribe last year by channelling that money to citizens in western Canada. Quebec has been left high and dry. That $814 million could be paid back. It would help. Why not reform employment insurance and address the infamous spring gap that we have been talking about fixing year after year? I have been here since 2015, and I have been hearing about the spring gap since 2015. Let us take this opportunity to fix it. It would help Quebec and Canadian workers get through the tariff crisis. There are many more ideas like that. Our regional media outlets, and even our national media outlets, are not being subsidized.”
“The idea of $25.7 billion is a bit abstract, but it is basically $25,700 million, cash. That is $5,140 million a year or $428.33 million a month. I can break it down even further than that. It is $99 million a week. The government would have access to an extra $99 million every week for five years. We could afford plenty of support programs for our businesses. We could support our workers as well as our softwood lumber, aluminum and steel industries. We would be able to support everyone who needs support. Unfortunately, it seems that this government does not have the political will to do it. We should recoup that $25.7 billion and put it to use.”
“My colleagues from Jonquière and Saint‑Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton just noted that the federal government always invests to save businesses elsewhere in Canada but very rarely in Quebec. What if the government cut the oil subsidies? That is a commitment we made. Members will recall that Canada signed the Paris Agreement. It made environmental commitments. It is clear, as every observer and auditor has confirmed year after year, that Canada is not meeting its targets, it is not on track to meet its targets, and it is not making any changes to make that happen. Let us try to live up to our commitments. Let us eliminate the oil subsidies. That would help the government meet its Paris targets and save $25.7 billion over five years that it could use to support the energy transition. This money could also be used for other programs.”
“Let us come back to the problem of agreements with the United States. I understand that the Prime Minister of Canada cannot decide to remove the tariffs. The American President is the one who imposed them. However, when the Prime Minister took office, he made promises and commitments in that regard. He told us that he would put an end to the tariffs within months, which did not happen. As my colleague pointed out, the tariffs have even increased. That is a sign of failure. If the government cannot keep its word and deliver what it promised last year, should it not find other ways to at least cushion the blow for Quebeckers and Canadians? Yes, that would cost money, but we have talked about a number of things. All of that can be funded relatively easily.”
“Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to my colleague from Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot—Acton 's speech on this motion, which was entirely relevant and appropriate under the circumstances. The situation that the Bloc Québécois is speaking out against is one that is long-standing and extremely problematic. The government is always playing catch-up. That is what is happening with health care. In the beginning, the federal government was covering 50% of health care costs. Now it is covering less than 20% of those costs, and it takes everything we have got to try to get it to cover 6% of the annual cost increases. The federal government is not there yet. It does not want to. The federal government does not want to put money into health care, even though Quebec and the provinces are asking it to.”
“However, our Prime Minister , who knows a lot about economics and finance, does not seem to want to follow that path. I do not understand why. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on that. Does he not think that we should rely on what has already been done rather than trying to reinvent the wheel and possibly falling flat on our faces?”
“Mr. Speaker, my colleague from Lévis—Lotbinière was right in saying that it is easy to see that the member for Mirabel used to be a university professor. He has a knack for putting things simply. I, on the other hand, am even simpler than that. I am not exactly an expert when it comes to economics and finance. When I am not an expert in a particular field, I tend to stay on the path forged by others who know more about the subject than I do. I remember the recent pandemic we experienced about five or six years ago. At the Bloc Québécois's suggestion, the House passed a wage subsidy. My colleague talked about it in his speech and others have also talked about it. It worked and it helped to save businesses. That is the well-beaten path that I would tend to follow since I do not know much about this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech. Does she believe that building Canada strong and the “nationalism” advocated by the Prime Minister includes respect for provincial jurisdictions? Is a strong Canada not necessarily a Canada that respects the jurisdictions of the various provinces? In this regard, can we count on the current government to consult the provinces, to really consult them, take their opinions into account, and create programs that respect the jurisdictions and priorities of each province and Quebec?”
“I could go on at length about this, but I would not be adding anything substantial. We will agree on Bill C-225, but that does not preclude us from doing more to prevent crime through education and better rehabilitation in our penitentiaries, so that when people are released from prison after one year, five years, or twenty years, they come out different from who they were when they went in.”
“However, that is not enough. We need to invest. Quebec has no money left, the roads are in bad shape, and people wait 24 to 48 hours in emergency rooms. There are little to no specialized services left in schools. This is not working anymore. People are overtaxed. In many cases, more than half of a person's salary goes to the government. Where does that money go? I think the federal government should transfer funds to the provinces to help them address these issues. There needs to be more rehabilitation programs in prisons. There needs to be more educational initiatives for youth in schools. We need to find a way to rebuild a society that respects every individual and establish a legal framework that enables and promotes this respect and mutual awareness among all members of society.”
“Given that my wife was a teacher for her entire career, I can say that the situation is definitely not getting any better, despite everyone's efforts. Violence in schools is on the rise. I am not a sociologist, and for reasons I do not understand, unfortunately, people are obeying the established rules less and less, and they are disrespecting one another more and more. We cannot ignore the problem and we should all be extremely concerned about this. We may not be the ones teaching in our schools, but we create the legislative framework in which society as a whole operates. These punitive measures, which involve imprisoning people and refusing to release them until a certain period has elapsed, probably have some deterrent effect on people who have not yet been charged but who are watching to see what kind of laws we pass.”
“It proposes harsher sentences and consequences for such crimes in the hope that society as a whole will become more aware of how serious the situation is. There is also the hope that this may prevent more cases of domestic violence like this one. Does it work? I do not know. So far, the results have not been very encouraging. As I said earlier, cases of domestic violence are on the rise in Quebec, across Canada and just about everywhere. I think we need to pass Bill C-225 and Bill C-16 and support the fight against these crimes through tougher penalties. However, I also think we need to invest more in rehabilitating inmates and educating young people to prevent this from continuing to happen. Education programs are already being provided to young people in schools. The goal is to try to prevent violence.”
“Although it may only affect a few close individuals, I believe it is an issue for society as a whole. As parliamentarians, this is primarily our responsibility, since it is up to us to establish a legal framework, or a body of laws, that will ensure these kinds of harmful situations are prevented. Would locking someone up for the rest of their life when they are violent with their partner solve the problem? It probably would, but that is not what we want. We believe in lofty principles such as the presumption of innocence and people's rights and freedoms. They are enshrined in our charters, both in Quebec City and in Ottawa, and we must maintain them. However, we must also work to ensure that this does not happen again. Bill C-225 proposes criminal measures.”
“We can pass as many laws as we want in the House, but we can never prevent somebody somewhere from becoming violent and committing regrettable acts of violence without even thinking about it, without even making a conscious decision. In my riding, last fall, Gabie Renaud was murdered. Her murder caused a lot of outrage, not only in my riding but across Quebec, Canada and the U.S. as well. The accused was an individual who had previously been convicted several times for domestic violence. I believe he had been convicted over a dozen times. I do not have the exact numbers but it was multiple convictions. He served his time in jail and was released. He paid his debt to society, as they say. He got out of jail, found a new spouse, abused her and then murdered her. (1110) It is appalling.”
“That is why we need to be continually reviewing the legislation that applies to certain situations, even though we may have done so a while back. All types of violence are on the rise in Quebec, Canada and throughout the world. We now have to deal with extremist groups that have resources that they never used to have and that are spreading around the world and throughout our society. There is also domestic violence, another form of violence that may seem insignificant because each case involves fewer people. Domestic violence usually involves two individuals, the violent individual and the victim of their violence. However, it also affects the couple's children, their whole families and society as a whole, which must find a way to address this issue. Education is needed to bring about change.”
“As I was saying, what we are studying right now is Bill C‑225. As for Bill C‑16, we will very likely complete the clause-by-clause consideration on Wednesday, at which point we will finally be able to begin third reading of the bill, which also addresses the issue of coercive and controlling behaviour. It is a major problem. I am obviously not the only one who thinks that this is a major problem. Our society is continuously undergoing major changes. That has always been the case and likely always will be. Certain behaviours that may have been acceptable 50 or 75 years ago, or even in the last century, are no longer acceptable, and I am sure some behaviours that we think are acceptable today no longer will be in 50 or 100 years.”
“Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak to Bill C‑225 for the second time in this Parliament. However, this topic is nothing new. I had already spoken to this bill a few times. In 2020 and 2021, our colleague from Victoria and members for several other ridings had already introduced similar bills, and the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights is currently completing its study of the government's Bill C‑16 , which deals in part with the same issue. Bill C‑225 is, I believe, the fifth bill dealing with the same issue. The reason for that is not that we are doing a bad job and need start over all the time, but that bills die on the Order Paper when Parliaments end. When we start over, we often like to wear both a belt and suspenders, as we say back home. We want so badly for something to work out that we often give it two or three tries.”
“Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a bill that seeks to ensure that the federal government honours the treaties it has signed. I wonder if we should apply this concept to more federal government matters. The first thing that springs to mind is the famous notwithstanding clause in the Constitution that was adopted by Pierre Elliott Trudeau's government, because the current government seems intent on challenging it. It seems to me that having a commissioner to ensure that the federal government honours its commitments under both the Constitution and international treaties could be a good idea. I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on this.”
“Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was interesting, important and relevant, as usual. I also note that there seems to be a fundamental problem with this bill. We should not need to make legislation to tell the government to do its job, to monitor it and to make sure it is doing it. At the same time, I see that the commissioner will have no teeth. There will be no penalties. Does my colleague think there might be a link between these two ideas? A government that needs to have legislation to monitor what it is doing might be a tad uncomfortable with the idea of giving teeth to its watchdog. That could become troublesome. Is there a link between these two ideas?”
“Mr. Speaker, the government may not have the power, but we know the federal government's position on the notwithstanding clause. There is no misunderstanding. In fact, the government has spent at least $2 million fighting something in the Supreme Court over which it supposedly has no power. The government wants to limit Quebec's ability to pre-emptively use the notwithstanding clause. What it is doing is exactly why it had to apologize to the Premier of Quebec. Rather than saying one thing and doing the opposite, will the government commit to refusing to limit Quebec's power to use this clause in any way?”
“Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice texted an apology to the Premier of Quebec for his comments about wanting to limit the use of the notwithstanding clause. However, that is exactly what he is doing with his Supreme Court challenge of Bill 21. His brief and his oral arguments make it clear that Ottawa wants to limit the use of the notwithstanding clause by restricting its pre-emptive use. Now that the minister has apologized, will he formally commit to never allowing limits on the notwithstanding clause, including for pre-emptive use?”
“I would love to see this bill come into force this spring, or as soon as possible. As I said, I never had the pleasure of meeting David, but I would like to close by wishing him all the best. I congratulate my friend on his bill.”
“There may indeed be some amendments. That said, I am pleased to see that all members of the House are on board with this idea, without division or partisanship, which is unfortunately often unhealthy. It is not because of ill will, but rather because we are often bound by the constraints of party platforms and campaign promises. That is the nature of the beast. We are here because we were elected on different platforms, and we need to stand up for our ideas. However, there are instances like this one where the principles we uphold allow us to find common ground on a specific issue. That is the case here. I wonder whether we are dealing with a bill that could be one of the few opportunities we have to proceed by unanimous consent, or whether we could even fast-track it.”