- Member of Parliament
- Liberal
- Lac-Saint-Louis
- Quebec
- Voting Attendance: 67%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $123,581.21
- Government Page
Madam Speaker, that is a good question.
It is something that may not be obvious to those who are watching us today. When our government took office in 2015, we reversed a previous practice. When the previous government knew that a bill might violate the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, it had a member introduce it as a private member's bill so that it would not be scrutinized by the legal experts at the Department of Justice.
We abandoned that practice. As the member must know, every bill introduced in the House must withstand the scrutiny of the charter. Nothing is perfect. It is always possible that a judge may find that the bill is not perfect and decide to strike down a certain aspect of it. Generally speaking, these bills are very carefully scrutinized to ensure that they comply with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I would also like to thank the member for taking part in a panel in front of about 40 students from the Max Bell School of Public Policy this morning. It was wonderful to have her perspective as a westerner, and as a parliamentarian generally.
I would imagine that, when we are dealing with matters of national security in cybersecurity and systems that are key to our well-being, there might be a need in certain cases to be a little more circumspect. I would hope, believe and expect, because every bill that is introduced to the House has to go through a charter analysis, that any such measure the member refers to would pass the test of the charter.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Oct/25/22 11:16:54 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I was here during the leader of the Bloc Québécois's speech. If I am not mistaken, he said or suggested that the Canadian Constitution is some kind of irrelevant foreign beast.
However, the Constitution includes the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which Quebeckers use every day to defend their rights.
Does the member opposite agree that the Constitution and the charter are irrelevant to Quebeckers?
73 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, the member has mixed in the Emergencies Act with this. The Emergencies Act did not suspend the Charter of Rights. This is another falsehood that is being peddled by the opposition.
I do not think one should take charter statements lightly. The member has essentially impugned the professional integrity of the lawyers at the Department of Justice, who are not just parroting government lines; they analyze a bill based on their own professional expertise and knowledge and they produce a charter statement that they feel is accurate. I do not think we should take charter statements lightly.
In terms of Bill C-7, the government was responding to court decisions. I think they are a very credible form of input.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Madam Speaker, I was wondering if the member could tell me how much I have spent on Facebook. I am curious. No, I am just kidding.
Every government bill that is introduced in the House has to be accompanied by a charter statement. That is something our government brought in because we care about charter rights. It was a Liberal government that brought in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The great democrat, Stephen Harper, did not care to do that. I would remind the member that he would introduce bills that could violate the charter as private members' bills to get around the Department of Justice scrutiny.
Does the member not respect the charter statement on Bill C-11, which says the bill passes muster regarding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? If not, is he impugning the professional integrity of the lawyers who drafted that charter statement?
149 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:40:02 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, one of the letters the hon. member read, from one of his constituents, implied very strongly that what we saw for the last three weeks in the streets of Ottawa was a legitimate protest. The leaders of the protest have contended they were just exercising their charter rights.
Does the member agree that this was an illegal protest, which was what prompted the police action? Why is the official opposition not more critical of the leadership of this illegal protest?
82 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:07:34 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would also like to say that I enjoy sitting on the environment committee with my hon. colleague, who is always well prepared for the meetings and holds the government to account.
The act also allows the police in Ottawa to create a no-go zone: to prevent people from across the country from converging on Ottawa on weekends to cause more disruption. This has been attributed as one of the reasons why this operation has been successful.
I must say that the charter still applies, and section 58 of the Emergencies Act required the government to give an explanation for why it was invoking the act. I would suggest that the member read that explanation.
118 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 11:04:49 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I think it is also incumbent upon us to tell our citizens what the Emergencies Act does and what it does not do. First of all, it is not the War Measures Act. I know that some members have tried to make a subtle link to that. Some have been less subtle, but it is not the War Measures Act. Second, the Emergencies Act does not suspend charter rights. Here we go back to charter rights. It is important that we tell citizens that the act is not suspending charter rights.
Third, the act does not give the federal government control of local police. Fourth, it does not take away the right of lawful protest. What does it do? It gives FINTRAC the ability to stop the flow of financial support, much of it coming from other countries, south of the border more specifically. That is an important power. FINTRAC still has to respect the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because the Emergencies Act does not suspend the charter.
I will stop there and add some points through the answers I will give.
185 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/19/22 10:56:02 a.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like my colleague who spoke before me, I would like to thank the members of the Parliamentary Protective Service and the peace officers who have come to Ottawa to deal with this unprecedented situation.
There has been a great deal of misinformation, misconception and misunderstanding around the pandemic and the public health measures that have been necessary, as well as about how these measures stack up against the guarantees in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I have received a great deal of mail, even prior to what we are experiencing today in downtown Ottawa, about mandates and how they violate charter rights.
It is incumbent upon all of us to tell our constituents, which is what I have been doing, that the mandates and public health restrictions that are now being loosened and eliminated did not violate charter rights. If they had violated charter rights, court cases would have been brought, judges would have made decisions and mandates would have been struck down. That is just a fact of our democracy.
As a matter of fact, in Newfoundland, at the very beginning of the pandemic, there was a very serious public health restriction that barred anyone from entering Newfoundland unless they had some kind of medical document. That case was brought to the court, and the court found that public health measure was not a violation of charter rights. It is very important, and it is incumbent on us, as elected members of Parliament, to reassure Canadians that their charter rights have not been violated. Yes, these measures have imposed constraints, but the constraints are not necessarily a violation of charter rights.
Some will say in response that they do not want to talk about the courts because they are part of the government, or they are stacked with liberal-minded judges. Once we get to the point where there is no agreement on the structure of our democracy, and how it operates and functions, then it is impossible to have constructive conversations. Every law that is tabled in the House is accompanied by a charter statement. While orders in council do not require a formal charter statement, they are vetted for charter consistency.
It is also important to remind Canadians that what we have been seeing in front of Parliament and at many border crossings across the country is not peaceful, lawful protest. We have to remind Canadians that these have been unlawful protests that have surpassed what can reasonably be considered legitimate protest based on constitutionally protected rights and freedoms.
The so-called “freedom convoy” has not been without negative consequence, especially for the people of Ottawa. Businesses have been closed in downtown Ottawa, and workers who need to feed their families have not been able to work for three weeks. Their income has been stopped. As well, Canadians suffered income interruptions because of the blockage of supply chains at the border. These people have felt the very real consequences of these illegal blockades.
I will go back to talk about the people of Ottawa, and will quote from an article that appeared recently in The Globe and Mail about the mental health impacts of the blockade here in Ottawa on the citizens of this city. It says, “Experts worry that the stress could have long-lasting effects on the health of residents who have also been navigating life during a pandemic.” Then the article goes on to quote Ivy Bourgeault, professor in the school of sociological and anthropological studies at the University of Ottawa, who stated, “I don’t think, as a resident, that one can look at one’s environment in the same way again. That when there are other protests, this will be a trigger.” She went on to say, “Uncertainty and no control just causes enormous amounts of stress, and that is in addition to the chronic stressors that people have been dealing with in relation to the pandemic.” I could go on.
I would also like to speak about the economic impacts. I mentioned these before, in a question to one of the hon. members who was speaking. The point I was trying to make was that if someone wanted to undermine the security of a nation, especially a trading nation that imports most of its products from a neighbouring nation such as the United States, they would block the points of entry. It would harm that nation. They would block the Ambassador Bridge. They would block crossings in Manitoba and Alberta. They would block 12 additional points of entry. Of course, they would also breach the confines of the CBSA plaza in Fort Erie, resulting in a lockdown of the office to prevent additional protesters from gaining entry. That is what someone would do if they wanted to undermine the security of this country.
I have watched the reaction from the official opposition, and I do not want to be partisan because this is not a partisan issue. I have watched the reasoning and messaging coming from the official opposition for a couple of weeks. The first notion that the official opposition tried to float was that if the Prime Minister would sit down and have a cup of coffee with anti-democratic organizers, then everyone would go home happy. I do not believe that a so-called law and order party really believes in that notion.
Then, the official opposition had been giving credence to the notion that the police are directed by the federal government. If the protest is still there, it is the fault of the federal government because it controls the forces of law and order. Many people believe that. Many people have written to me, asking why we cannot do anything about this. I remind them that in a constitutional democracy, governments, whether municipal, provincial or federal, do not direct the police.
When the government finally did something by invoking the Emergencies Act, the official opposition recoiled in shocked surprise. They asked how we could possibly think of doing that, after telling the government that it was not doing anything. There is plenty of contradiction in the messaging coming out of the other side, but I would like to leave that aside for a moment.
Another point that has been raised is that this could have been handled normally using normal laws, but we saw for three weeks that the Ottawa police were overwhelmed. They could not do anything, and we saw that. That is a historical record. For three weeks, the Ottawa police could not get this situation under control. That was not the federal police. That was not the provincial police. That was the Ottawa police.
What did the Emergencies Act allow? It allowed the Ottawa police to be supported by police forces from, I think, seven other municipalities. What did the Emergencies Act allow? It meant that these police officers could join and help the Ottawa police in clearing out this blockade that is in front of the Parliament buildings, and they did not have to deputize each individual officer in some kind of bureaucratic process—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
1201 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
