Parliamentary Speeches

Mr. Speaker, I have some good news for my colleague. Yesterday, the Prime Minister announced Canada's national food security strategy. This strategy is built on four key pillars: investing in our regional food infrastructure to increase choice and competition, processing more food here in Canada, increasing year-round production of fruits and vegetables, and cutting red tape. That is how we will put more Canadian food on the table and bring down the cost of groceries.

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is well aware that the national food security strategy will lower the cost of groceries. More specifically, we will invest $1 billion to boost food processing here in Canada. Right now, we are sending our agricultural products abroad for processing. Now, we will invest in this sector. That will give Canadians more choice, put more Canadian foods on grocery stores shelves and make groceries a lot more affordable for Canadian families.

Mr. Speaker, stakeholders across Canada are saying that this $3.2-billion strategy on food security will make food affordable for Canadians. There will be four key strategies. We will build local, regional infrastructure so that we have more options and more affordability. We will produce more. We will transform more of our own food here in Canada. We will create more jobs, and we will grow, all year long, fruits and vegetables.

Mr. Speaker, talking about seriousness, Canadians know we are in the middle of a global economic disruption. Our Prime Minister is a serious person. He is working hard. He already cut taxes for 22 million Canadians. He also launched the national school food program, which helps families with affordability. In addition, he proposed to launch very soon a national food security strategy, which will really help families during this time of crisis.

Mr. Speaker, the Mercosur agreement represents 300 million people and a $2.5-trillion economy. It is one of the largest markets in the world. However, we listened to our ranchers. We listened to our producers. We are listening to their concerns about the trade agreement. In fact, the study is going on at committee. We will continue to be there for our farmers because they work hard to put food on our tables.

Mr. Speaker, economic turmoil is making life more expensive for Canadians. That is why we can count on a Prime Minister who understands the gravity of the situation and is taking decisive action. In my constituency, as in my colleague's, many children go to school on an empty stomach. However, thanks to our school food program, school children in my riding and in my colleague's riding will be able to have a lunch. That is how we build a strong Canada, with both our heads and our hearts.

Madam Speaker, as we know, economic turmoil is making life more expensive for Canadians and Quebeckers. In the economic update, we are investing to develop a very important manufacturing sector in Canada. I am talking about the agri-food system. Following the superdeductions we announced in the last budget, we are now announcing a strategic Canada Strong fund that will allow us to invest in our agri-food system to produce more goods here in Canada and lower grocery prices. That is what building Canada is about.

Mr. Speaker, it is very important to state first of all that our farmers across the country are doing great work for Canada's food security, food autonomy and food sovereignty. Yes, reducing the price of gas will really help farmers, but we are not stopping there. We are there to support their innovation with a tax credit, a superdeduction that will help them modernize their facilities. We need to do a lot more here in Canada to process more and grow the sector, and we are there with farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I will start by saying that our canola growers grow the best canola in the world. They are doing tremendous work. Yes, we have a great partnership, a renewed strategic partnership, with China to export canola. In fact, we know that Chinese importers have already secured 650,000 metric tons of Canadian canola, which is 25% of China's total import last year. The door is wide open now, and we will continue to engage in reaching a strong—

Mr. Speaker, I just answered and reassured my colleague that trade is resuming with China. I also want to highlight that the agriculture minister will be in Mexico next week opening even more of the market. We secured a market for meat, and now we want to expand these opportunities. We are not stopping there, because we have the best food in the world. The world wants our food, and we will make that possible.

Mr. Speaker, in this tragic week for our country, my heart is also with the people of Kitigan Zibi. The community is grieving the unimaginable loss of two of its children, a loss that every parent, every family and every member of this strong and deeply caring community feels today. To the people of Kitigan Zibi, I want to say this: They are not alone. We stand with them. We are mourning with them. I want to tell the victims' family and loved ones that our thoughts and prayers are with them as they start down this path of mourning, but also of healing. We walk with them. Meegwetch.

Mr. Speaker, the sudden loss of Franco Nuovo has shaken Quebec as a whole. Like many francophone listeners across Canada, I could count on his voice, his personality and his insights to set the tone for my Sunday mornings. He knew how to create unique moments by making radio a meeting place, a space for dialogue and exploration, but above all, for culture. His passing is an incredible loss for Quebec, which has lost not only one of its warmest voices, but also an extraordinary host, journalist, columnist and, most importantly, a passionate advocate for culture, engagement and the francophone community. For more than five decades, Franco informed, inspired and brought us together. We offer our sincere condolences to his family and loved ones, as well as to all those who loved him and listened to him faithfully. We share their grief.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for raising this important point in the context of the debate this evening. In my view, we do not talk about agriculture very often and yet agriculture is central to our economy, Canadians' lives and food security, as my colleague referred to. A country that does not feed its people is a country with few options, as our Prime Minister said so well. I would add that, today, the issue of food security is more important than ever. I am pleased to rise in the House and have the opportunity to speak to the proposed amendments to the plant breeders' rights regulations. I want to talk about the importance of plant breeders' rights in Canada and how they relate to the long-standing practice of saving seed for replanting. I also want to talk about the ongoing consultations with farmers, which my colleague spoke about earlier. The government remains steadfast in its support of our vibrant agricultural sector, which benefits Canadian farmers and our wider agri-food industry. A direct way we can support this sector is by modernizing our regulations, and the sector all across Canada is asking for that. The proposed amendments are designed to foster innovation in plant breeding and address key challenges such as climate resilience, crop yield and sustainable production. Plant breeders' rights are a vital form of intellectual property protection. They provide an incentive to plant breeders to invest time and money into creating new resilient plants, which we need. We want to help protect plant breeders' rights in the same way we are protecting other inventors and their creations. We know that our hard-working farmers face serious threats from increasingly unpredictable and extreme weather events, as well as other dangers that threaten crops and orchards. Our goal is to support them by reducing crop losses and improving innovation and productivity. We can achieve this by encouraging breeders to develop varieties that are resilient to climate change. That will help Canadian farmers adapt to the effects of climate change, offering options to fight drought, heat and disease, and I have a lot more I want to say. Last year, the CFIA held consultations and then published a “what we heard” report that indicated strong support. The report showed that 90% of the feedback received supported those amendments. The most recent consultation period is coming to an end, and we are now reviewing the new comments we have received, including those presented here by my colleague. This will be completed in the coming weeks. That said, I thank my hon. colleague for his question. We remain fully available to all Canadians who may have concerns about this issue. Consultations are still ongoing.

Mr. Speaker, we recognize the importance of a farmer's privilege, which my colleague referred to, to save and replant seeds. The proposed regulatory amendment would help clarify this concept, and that is what we will do. The proposed changes do not alter the right to save and reuse seeds, such as grains and legumes, which is a long-standing practice. Farmers' privilege would not apply to crops such as hybrids, fruits, vegetables or ornamentals, which in many cases are propagated, or copied, through vegetative reproduction. Indeed, it would be unfair for an orchard owner to grow hundreds of trees from cuttings taken from a single apple tree without compensating the breeder for the years they devoted to developing a new variety, which often takes 15 to 25 years. Nevertheless, our farmers will still have the option of purchasing plants that are not protected.

Mr. Speaker, the rise in food prices is difficult for families, which is why we are helping lower grocery bills through, for example, the national school food program. However, Professor Sylvain Charlebois, the lead author of the recent study that my colleague just quoted, said that obviously what comes back every year is the impact of climate change on prices, and he noted in particular the effect of drought on the price of beef. If the Conservatives want real solutions, they have to start to look at real facts.

Mr. Speaker, our farmers are at the front line of something very difficult and very challenging. They are fighting against tariff disruption of trade and also extreme weather events. That report clearly said that increasingly violent and unpredictable weather patterns are disrupting agricultural production, creating supply challenges and continuing to influence food prices across Canada. The solution is to stand with our farmers.

Mr. Speaker, I fully understand that fertilizer use is very important for our producers to supply the country and the world with really healthy food. We are working with the farmers and the industry to find solutions to a fertilizer made in Canada, because in Canada we grow the best food in the world. We will continue to work with our farmers to ensure their long-term competitiveness and to help protect the environment.

Mr. Speaker, this new government is committed to reducing red tape across government, especially with our agencies, such as CFIA and PMRA. In committee, we just finished a study on how to effectively reduce red tape across the sector to support our producers and farmers to increase their productivity. On this side of the House, we work with our farmers and our agencies to find concrete solutions to help productivity.

Mr. Speaker, today, during this week of remembrance and action on violence against women, I would like to congratulate and express my full support for L'EntourElle, an essential organization in my riding. I would like to thank Gisèle, Ashley, Christie, Ollisha, Cassey and Chantal, and everyone who works with and supports their vital work. They are making a difference in the riding through their courage, determination and professionalism. They provide hope to all women survivors and victims of domestic violence. Today, we honour them and support everything they do. We stand with these dedicated women; they have my thanks.

Madam Speaker, I want my colleague to know that we are working with all provinces and all sectors. We have a mission. Our government was elected to build a strong economy, a sustainable economy and a future for our children. The proof that our approach is working is that we learned today that our productivity is increasing. That is very good news. Our policies are working. I urge my colleagues to join us and vote in favour of our measures.

Madam Speaker, we need our forestry workers in rural areas. We need our Canadian softwood lumber, which is a source of pride in Canada. In my riding, I have proud forestry companies. This week, we announced important measures to support the industry. We know that things are not easy, but when times get tough, we support each other. That is exactly what we are doing in the forestry industry. We will resolve the dispute with the United States, but in the meantime, we are pulling together.

Mr. Speaker, we all want the best solution to drive down the price of food, and that is why we are working on real facts. My colleague mentioned the agriculture committee. Let me quote the VP of Costco and other grocers, who said, when asked what drives the price of food, that the first item is the commodity itself. With a bad crop, the price goes up; with a good crop, the price goes down. It has nothing to do with any policy. We want solutions. To drive down the price of food, we have to support our farmers with climate resilience.

Mr. Speaker, we are looking for solutions to lower the price of food. Real solutions are based on real facts. Last week, the vice-president of Costco appeared before the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food. He said that climate change is the cause of food inflation. When the harvest is good, prices are lower. When the harvest is not good because of climate change, food gets expensive. Our government is working on real solutions.

Mr. Speaker, every Canadian deserves an affordable life and opportunities. Costco's CEO was at the agriculture committee yesterday with other grocers. On the cost of food and the factors that influence the cost of food, guess what they said. They all agreed that the main factor was weather conditions, like the droughts we have experienced recently, as well as commodity conditions and currency. To be a responsible government—

Mr. Speaker, I rise to pay tribute to Private Basil Alias Odjick of Maniwaki, son of William Odjick and Catherine Riel. He served with courage and dignity during the Second World War, giving his life in service to Canada on August 28, 1944, during the Battle of Normandy. His name is commemorated in the Second World War Book of Remembrance, alongside that of his brother, Private Robert Simon Odjick, who also made the ultimate sacrifice while serving the Royal Regiment of Canada. Today, let us honour the sacrifice and bravery of the Odjick family and of all soldiers from Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi who served and who continue to serve for peace and freedom.

Mr. Speaker, canola farmers produce the best canola in the world. We know China has imposed unfair tariffs on canola. We are working on it. The Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture are currently in Asia diversifying our trade, but also resolving disputes, and Pakistan has now opened its doors to our canola. In the meantime, we will be there for our farmers with programs to support them during this difficult time.

Mr. Speaker, one thing we can be proud of is our canola producers, because they produce the best canola in the world. China is imposing completely unjustified tariffs on our producers. Yes, the Prime Minister and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food are in Asia right now. They are there to explore new markets for our producers. They will also try to resolve this trade dispute. That is not all. In the meantime, we are here to support our producers by developing a Canadian biofuel market. We are also supporting them by—

Mr. Speaker, this Women's History Month, I would like to recognize the outstanding contribution of Rosaleen Dickson, a trailblazer in Pontiac—Kitigan Zibi. In 1942, together with her husband, David, she acquired The Equity, the community newspaper of Shawville, which has long served as the voice of our community. Rosaleen went on to serve as its editor-in-chief for more than 30 years. A passionate, dedicated journalist, Rosaleen gave a voice to those who had none but whose stories deserved to be told. Rosaleen Dickson embodies the strength, independence and passion that characterize the women who built our country, just like the women of Pontiac who continue to inspire us with their strength and leadership. I thank Rosaleen.

Madam Speaker, as I rise in the House today, I want to convey just how important the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is to me and to my identity as a Quebecker and a Canadian. I will also explain why it must be protected. Like so many women before me, my mother and my grandmother fought for equality before the law. To give a little background, my grandmother owned several newsstands in Montreal. She was an entrepreneur. She had employees. However, the law at the time prohibited her from having a bank account. It had to be in her husband's name. She also did not have the right to vote. Considering what is happening south of the border these days, it is more important than ever to protect the rights and freedoms enshrined in our Constitution and in the charter. Legislatures must not be allowed to limit these rights without any oversight or without a court being able to examine exactly whether the limits are justified. It was Simone de Beauvoir who said that it only takes a political, economic or religious crisis for women's rights to be called into question. She also said that we must remain vigilant throughout our lives. That is exactly what I am doing today. I rise in the House to defend the rights and freedoms that my grandmother and generations of women in Quebec gained at great cost. I rise to support our government and to prevent cracks from forming in the protection and guarantees afforded to us by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I am talking about women's rights, of course, but also the rights of minorities and workers, as my colleague previously mentioned. I take the floor today to support the important role played by the Attorney General of Canada when he appears, through counsel, before the highest court in the country, the Supreme Court of Canada, to provide his legal viewpoint on constitutional questions, including the protection of our hard-won rights and the definition of the limits of section 33 of the charter, the notwithstanding clause, that we were just now discussing. The constitutional limits set out in section 33 prevent the notwithstanding clause from being used to amend or abolish the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter. Indeed, unfettered use with no limitations of any kind would be the same as saying that our rights and freedoms can be reduced to nothing. The courts have the responsibility of ensuring that the use of a notwithstanding clause is limited, respected, and exceptional. Our constitutional democracy is based on balance. I am going to keep coming back to this concept of balance. This essential balance lies at the heart of our democracy. Parliament and the provincial governments have broad latitude to enact laws in the public interest within their respective jurisdictions, but that latitude is not absolute, and in a way that is the matter under debate here. The principle of parliamentary sovereignty has always been framed within the Canadian constitution, which includes a charter of rights and freedoms. The notwithstanding clause cannot override the jurisdiction of a court to find that rights and freedoms have been unreasonably limited within the meaning of section 1 of the charter. It is important to remember that our country is governed by the rule of law and that the Constitution is the supreme law of Canada. In our federal system, it is the Constitution that confers legislative powers on Parliament and the provincial governments. As the Supreme Court has said, the Constitution binds all governments. Their sole claim to exercising legitimate authority is grounded in the powers conferred under the Constitution and cannot come from any another source. In our system, federal, provincial and territorial governments strive to co-operate for the greater good of all the people they represent and their communities, whether provincial, territorial or local. Disputes may arise from time to time as to whether one level of government or another has overstepped the bounds of its constitutional authority. The courts are there to rule on these disputes according to legal principles. Our courts appreciate efforts to promote co-operation between the different levels of government, and of course, to preserve provincial autonomy, which is important to mention because it is a feature of our federal system. As the Supreme Court has observed, the desire to protect provincial autonomy reflects both a commitment to accommodate diversity within a country by granting significant powers to provincial governments and a broader constitutional goal of maintaining a balance between unity and diversity. There is unity in diversity. I believe that this value is at the heart of our democracy and our country. It is also at the heart of the charter. There is also a constant need for balance between other constitutional principles and values. Parliamentary sovereignty has to be balanced against the protection of minorities, as enshrined in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The Canadian Constitution has always reflected a commitment to respect minorities, as historically evidenced by provisions in the Constitution Act, 1867, and the Manitoba Act, 1870, relating to linguistic rights and denominational schools. When the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms came into force, additional protections, including fundamental rights and freedoms, legal rights, the right to equality, and a broader range of language rights were entrenched in the Constitution. The Attorney General of Canada played a key role both before and after the charter came into force to ensure these principles, such as parliamentary sovereignty, were balanced within the overall framework of the Constitution, including the protection of minority rights and fundamental protections in the charter. For instance, the Attorney General appeared before the Supreme Court in Attorney General of Quebec v. Blaikie et al. and the 1979 case Attorney General of Manitoba v. Forest on the subject of the constitutional right to use French and English in the statutes, legislatures and courts of Quebec and Manitoba. The Attorney General also intervened the matter of the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards in 1984 and has done so in many other cases since then to assist the Supreme Court in interpreting the right to education in the minority language. This right is now enshrined in section 23 of the charter and in its application in several provinces. As the chief justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, the late Jules Deschênes, noted when granting intervener status to the Attorney General of Canada in the Quebec Association of Protestant School Boards case in 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a constitutional instrument that applies everywhere in the country, and the Attorney General of Canada naturally has an interest in ensuring the sound administration of the charter throughout the entire country. The Constitution provides a stable and balanced legal framework for democratic governance and the protection of all of our fundamental rights and freedoms. Parliament and the provincial legislatures are sovereign in their respective areas of jurisdiction, as conferred on them by the Constitution and insofar as they do not contravene other provisions. Since 1982, the charter has formed an integral part of the Constitution and it guarantees the rights and freedoms set out therein, subject, of course, to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. It is true that, in the compromise reached with the provinces to finalize the patriation of the constitution in November 1981, the notwithstanding clause was added. It allows Parliament or a provincial legislature to enact, on an exceptional basis, legislation that applies notwithstanding certain rights. It was said that section 33, the notwithstanding clause, would preserve a modicum of parliamentary sovereignty in exceptional circumstances. However, the balance inherent in the constitutional framework would be disrupted if the exception were to become the rule, so that instead of upholding the central idea of the charter, which is a sort of solemn Magna Carta intended to constitutionally protect and guarantee the fundamental rights and freedoms of Canadians, the provincial legislatures systematically invoked the notwithstanding clause as a means of completely circumventing the charter and denying the courts any possibility of speaking to the matter. This would not respect the underlying structure of our Constitution and the primary objective of having a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms enshrined in our Constitution. The notwithstanding clause, found at the end of the charter, would reduce the rights and freedoms guaranteed by the charter to nothing, to a mere legal fiction. The growing temptation to use the notwithstanding clause in an attempt to prevent judicial review of the legislative action in light of the charter's guarantees threatens our fundamental rights and values, and it threatens the balance between parliamentary sovereignty and other constitutional principles, such as the separation of the executive, legislative and judicial branches. The fundamental principle of the separation of powers gives us a strong and independent judicial branch and underscores the legitimate role of the courts in the interpretation and application of the provisions of the Constitution, including the charter. The House has a long tradition of abiding by the inherent constitutional convention of sub judice by refraining from debating legal matters that are before the courts. As the Supreme Court noted in Canada v. Vaid in 2005, “[i]t is a wise principle that the courts and Parliament strive to respect each other's role in the conduct of public affairs.” Parliament refrains from commenting on matters before the courts under the sub judice rule, and the courts refrain from interfering with the workings of Parliament or a provincial legislature. In the case of the appeal launched by the English Montreal School Board and other parties, the factum of the Attorney General of Canada in his role as an intervener does not challenge the validity of the Act respecting the laicity of the State. In light of the increasing use of the notwithstanding clause, meaning section 33 of the Charter, the Attorney General invites the Supreme Court to clarify the constitutional limits of this power. This is very important for the rights and freedoms of all Quebeckers and all Canadians. At its core, this argument is based on the principle that the Canadian Constitution strikes a delicate balance between legislative authority and our fundamental rights. Although Parliament and the provincial legislatures have broad discretionary power to pass legislation in their respective areas of jurisdiction, parliamentary sovereignty has always been subject to the Constitution, including since 1982 when the charter was enacted. This appeal provides an opportunity to reaffirm the balance that is at the heart of our democracy. The Supreme Court of Canada is the general court of appeal for Canada, and as the highest judicial institution in the land, it will be well served by the Attorney General of Canada's intervention as it reviews the charter guarantees and the use of the notwithstanding clause. Canadians and Quebeckers expect nothing less.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question, because it gives me a chance to reiterate how important this is. I am a Quebecker, I am proud to live in a province that supports women's rights, but I have some concerns. I see what is happening in the United States, and I want to ensure that our rights and freedoms, which are set out in the Constitution, in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, will always be respected. Obviously, exceptions can always be made in any legislative assembly or provincial law, but I do not want the use of the notwithstanding clause to undermine our fundamental rights and freedoms. These rights must be subject to judicial review, when a decision is made to restrict them.

Madam Speaker, I am very proud to live in a country that is united in its diversity. This government has always been there to protect our Charter of Rights. It is so dear to us, and as I said, generations of Canadians have fought to have it. By protecting the charter, we are protecting our unity. This is more important than ever as we live in a global and changing world. In other parts of the world, rights and freedoms are being eroded, so it is even more important than ever to be united and to defend what is most dear to us, which is our Charter of Rights.

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question. It is important for the Attorney General to intervene. Unfortunately, we are seeing more and more legislatures invoking the notwithstanding clause to limit our fundamental rights and freedoms. Perhaps it is justified, but it is up to the court to decide. The Attorney General's intervention will prevent a serious breach of our rights, prevent the exception regarding the notwithstanding clause from becoming the rule and ensure that our rights and freedoms continue to be protected.

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to hear my colleague reaffirm that the situation is worrisome. Again, as Simone de Beauvoir said, we must always remain vigilant. We must never take our rights for granted. Right now, our rights are protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is important not to create a back door that could be used to circumvent the protections and guarantees provided by the charter. That is the risk governments run when they pass laws using the notwithstanding clause to avoid judicial scrutiny, which would determine if those rights are being unjustifiably curtailed. We can agree on that. However, the way to do that is to protect the charter and set limits and guidelines in case someone tries to ignore the rights and freedoms enshrined in the charter.

Madam Speaker, we agree that Canadians are more united than ever in facing up to the impact of Donald Trump's tariffs on our economy. We have seen their enthusiasm for buying Canadian, their support for our businesses and organizations and their support for the Prime Minister. It is very important that we stand united behind him, because we are facing historic economic challenges. As Simone de Beauvoir also said, when there is an economic crisis, women's rights are put in jeopardy. It is very important that we unite behind the charter.

Mr. Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. There has been a lot of talk about the rights enshrined in the Charter and the importance of protecting them. In order to protect them, is it necessary to determine that, when a legislature invokes the notwithstanding clause, it must do so only under exceptional circumstances and in compliance with certain guidelines? Is it necessary to have a judicial review on this important matter? Otherwise, do we not run the risk of having the exception become the rule? In other words, the legislatures may no longer be required to comply with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Mr. Speaker, I like the quotation my colleague referenced: “The price of liberty is eternal vigilance.” I am listening carefully. That is precisely why I am rising to ask him a question. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms protects a number of rights, including women's rights. We are in the Parliament of Canada. If a future Canadian government were to decide to limit these rights by invoking the notwithstanding clause, does my colleague think that there would be circumstances in which the judiciary might review this and set limits on these rights?

Mr. Speaker, my colleague and I are two of 44 proud Liberal MPs representing Quebec, which is twice as many as the Bloc Québécois. We are very proud to stand in the House during this very important debate. Earlier, my colleague mentioned the importance of our citizens asking us, their MPs, to protect them against the erosion of their fundamental rights and freedoms. How will our government's intervention before the Supreme Court succeed in fulfilling this very clear mandate to protect the rights of all Canadians, including Quebeckers?

Mr. Speaker, the Bloc Québécois is currently claiming that all governments—whether federal, provincial or territorial—can invoke the notwithstanding clause at any time and limit any of the rights protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If a new federal government decided to invoke the notwithstanding clause to limit one of the rights protected by the Charter, including women's right to equality, would my colleague 100% agree that there should be no limits and no judicial review?