SoVote

Rhéal Éloi Fortin

Member of Parliament
Member of Parliament
Bloc Québécois

Rivière-du-Nord
Quebec
Voting Attendance: 68%
Expenses Last Quarter: $105,330.31

Government Page

Context: House Hansard - 137 - Nov/29/22

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Nov/29/22 2:59:54 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the precedent that the father of the Emergencies Act, former minister Perrin Beatty, was concerned about. When he appeared before the committee, he said that once the act has been used for the first time, the temptation will be to use it for other crises. He recalled that he had consciously included the specific criteria that must be met in order to counteract the arbitrariness and abuses that the old War Measures Act allowed for. The Liberals flouted these criteria when they invoked the act. Can the minister tell us what will prevent any future governments from using it arbitrarily to suspend individual freedoms?

109 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 162 - Feb/16/23

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Feb/16/23 12:04:35 p.m.
Watch

Madam Speaker, I want to begin by saying that I agree with my colleague from Jonquière. He is very reasonable. I would add to the list of the problems with this government the fact that it has been unable to issue paycheques properly for years. I have been a member of the House since 2015, and we have been hearing about the Phoenix pay system all this time. I was a lawyer before I became an MP, and I had business clients. If they had not been able to give their employees paycheques, they would have gone bankrupt and been taken to court. I will move on to other topics, but let us just say that this government has not proven it has the competence to manage the affairs of the provinces. I would say that there are two big problems with this NDP motion. First, it does not respect the division of powers set out in the Constitution Act, 1867. We know that health is not a federal but a provincial jurisdiction. The federal government's role, with all due respect to my colleague opposite, is to transfer money to the provinces so they can manage their health care systems. As was mentioned, the federal government has no competence in many areas, certainly including health care. The federal government does not manage any hospitals, clinics or anything else to do with health care. It is dreaming if it thinks it can impose its vision on the provinces. Second, there is the issue of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Supreme Court ruled that, under the charter, the federal government cannot restrict access to private health care in the provinces. I will talk about that in more detail later. When I look at this constitutional problem, I realize that the NDP does not seem to understand that the feds have nothing to do with health. I was thinking about it this morning and thought it felt like a legend. The NDP dreams of a totalitarian federal government that controls everything and of a country where the federal government is all-powerful, like a supreme authority. That is the federal legend and the NDP's dream. Mr. Mario Simard: Is it the myth? Mr. Rhéal Fortin: Madam Speaker, the myth, the legend, that is what we are talking about today. Beyond the legend, there is a constitutional problem, because health is not a federal responsibility, but rather a provincial one. There is also a problem in relation to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects a certain number of rights. It protects privacy in section 7, among other things. This is not the first time a situation of this kind has been brought before the courts. My colleague from Jonquière talked briefly about the Supreme Court of Canada's Chaoulli decision from 2005. The chief justice, Justice McLachlin, supported by Justices Major and Bastarache, agreed with the findings of Justice Deschamps. I quote: [T]he prohibition on private health insurance violates s. 1 of the Quebec Charter and is not justifiable under s. 9.1...The prohibition also violates s. 7 of the Canadian Charter and is not justifiable under s. 1...While the decision about the type of health care system Quebec should adopt falls to the legislature of that province, the resulting legislation, like all laws, must comply with the Canadian Charter. Again, it states that “the type of health care system Quebec should adopt falls to the legislature of that province”. The Supreme Court wrote that over 15 years ago, but the NDP members did not read the Supreme Court decisions, and that is okay. I know they have other things to do, like dreaming up this legend of a totalitarian Canadian government and trying to promote it. That cannot be easy, and I would not want to be in their shoes. I understand why they might be busy. However, it is still important to read the Constitution and the charter at least once, to know what we are talking about and to avoid such huge traps. The New Democrats set this trap for themselves by proposing, on the one hand, that the federal government meddle in provincial and Quebec jurisdictions and, on the other hand, that the federal government completely violate the provisions of the charter. That said, is it a fatal error? Yes, interfering in provincial jurisdictions is a fatal error. I do not think that the federal government has any business meddling in areas under provincial jurisdiction. It can try, but it will end up in court. After a few years, the Supreme Court will say, as it already has, that this cannot be done. The federal government can try if it wants. We shall see. Is the charter question fatal? No, it is not. I must concur. We could contravene the provisions of the charter and say, “Too bad for section 7, we are still going ahead with a measure that would prohibit nurses from accessing private health care.” Even if it violates the charter, it could be done. How would we go about it? It is easy. The charter contains just such a provision. It is section 33, which reads as follows: Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter. The Chaoulli decision dealt with section 7. When I read the charter, I see that it can be overridden. Yes, what the NDP is proposing violates the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That is a major sacrilege, clearly, but section 33 allows for the charter to be overridden. The only problem is that just this week, mere hours ago, the NDP was getting all worked up and crying foul because Quebec had the nerve to use this notwithstanding clause to protect French and secularism in Quebec. Scandalized, our Canadian federal Prime Minister said that he would go to the Supreme Court and ask it to declare that the provinces cannot use the notwithstanding clause that his father gave them many years ago when he had this legislation passed. He said that they should have to go through the courts first and so on. We argued that this did not make much sense since section 33 states, “Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature”. That is what Quebec did, that is what the federal government detests and that is what the NDP finds so outrageous and astounding. However, that is what the NDP will have to do if they want to follow their motion to its logical conclusion. Are they going to follow their motion to its logical conclusion? Perhaps. If they do, we will bring back our motion, which they defeated this week. After all, a person cannot enjoy ice cream one day, be allergic to it the next, and then enjoy it again the day after. It either works or it does not. If they want it to work, I am willing to consider it. There will still be the jurisdictional issue, which remains unresolved, but we could at least resolve the charter aspect. If they want to continue down that path, with that reasoning, we will follow their lead and allow them to apply for a charter exemption. We know that they are entirely within their rights. However, if they persist in saying that we are not allowed to do it, it is hard for me to see how they can logically say to us that they want to contravene the charter and violate the division of powers. Again, this legend exists only in the minds of my esteemed colleagues in the New Democratic Party or, should I say, the New Liberal-Democratic Party. I am not sure what to call it anymore.

1360 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 137 - Nov/29/22

Mr. Rhéal Fortin (Rivière-du-Nord, BQ)

Nov/29/22 2:58:34 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, in a Radio-Canada interview on Sunday about the invocation of the Emergencies Act, the Minister of Public Safety defended himself, stating that the act has some shortcomings and needs to be updated. That was a candid admission that his government knew it had not met the threshold for invoking the act, but did so anyway. In a country governed by the rule of law, the end does not justify the means. Do the Liberals acknowledge and take responsibility for the fact that the precedent they set now authorizes any future government to suspend individual freedoms as it sees fit?

102 words

All Topics

SoVote

Member of Parliament

Rhéal Éloi Fortin