Nicole Nashen at the House of Commons Justice Committee, May 9, 2024
Nicole Nashen appeared before the House of Commons Justice Committee hearings on antisemitism on campus today. I’m incredibly proud of her for standing up for Jewish students and all peace-loving young people. Jew-hatred and antisemitism have no place in Canada or anywhere else. Thank you to all who testified today for your courage in speaking up and to Mount Royal M.P. Anthony Housefather for his exemplary leadership. Watch the testimony below:
Nicole was also interviewed today on CBC News and the hearing was covered in this article on CBC.ca.
The students who are speaking up are to be commended for their courage and eloquence in sharing their experiences. Three of them also appeared on CBC Power and Politics this evening. I will post the episode here once it is available.
Lawyer Neil G. Oberman was sensational at the hearing and very supportive of the students. I had the opportunity to interview him this week on the Federation CJA 360 Podcast.
I’m excited to be a guest on Councillor Mike Cohen’s podcast about my political involvement in the City of Côte Saint-Luc and my continued work in Public Safety / volunteer Citizens on Patrol. Have a listen and I hope you get involved in your community too. Your comments are always appreciated.
I am very proud of my Member of Parliament, Anthony Housefather, for speaking out loudly on Israel as well as on vital issues of interest to the English-speaking community. While the Liberal Party of Canada and our Prime Minister are less and less reliable defenders of the rights of English-speaking Quebecers and the interests of Canadian Jews and have not been clear enough and unequivocal in supporting the Jewish community of Canada nor its ally, Israel, Anthony, without a doubt, is increasingly so. He has always been our defender and Israel’s supporter.
Anthony says what he believes and always tries to do the right thing, not necessarily the popular position within the party.
I salute Anthony and thank him for speaking loudly and proudly. He has articulated his position and has garnered much national media attention over the last few months. These cannot be easy days for him but he should know that while he supports his constituents he has our appreciation and respect.
Below is a recent CBC Radio podcast interview with Anthony that is most interesting as well as an op-ed that appeared in the National Post. If you appreciate what he had to say, as I do, I hope you’ll take the time to let him know.
Mendicino and Housefather: Canada must categorically reject claim of genocide against Israel
On an allegation as grave and serious as genocide, Canadians deserve to know, clearly and unambiguously, where their federal government stands.
However, in the South African case before the International Court of Justice where it alleges that Israel has committed genocide in Gaza, Canada has thus far chosen to remain on the sidelines. Instead, various statements — some confusing and contradictory — have been made regarding the government’s position on a subject where the answer is straightforward.
Canada should categorically reject the claim of genocide against Israel. Why? Because it’s the right thing to do.
The charge of genocide against Israel is itself a perversion of justice. In the first place, the reason the international community was driven to create the United Nations Genocide Convention is because six million Jews were murdered during the Holocaust. If there is any nation state that understands the devastating consequences of this most heinous crime on its people, it is Israel.
Under the terms of this convention, genocide requires specific intent. The gross irony in South Africa’s case is that there is indeed overwhelming evidence of intent, except it is on the part of Hamas in its relentless pursuit to obliterate the Jewish people.
Yet, South Africa turns a blind eye to the mountain of proof that overshadows its claim. It glosses over Hamas’s terrorist attack and killing of 1200 people on Oct. 7. It diminishes Hamas’s deliberate use of innocent civilians, hospitals, and refugee camps as shields for its military operations. And it fails to appreciate the depth of irreparable harm caused by the appalling sexual violence Hamas inflicted on women and children.
How can South Africa ignore this evidence, including Hamas’s brazen threats to continue to carry out genocide, while at the same time placing no weight on Israel’s responsibility to protect its people and bona fide efforts to minimize civilian losses in Gaza?
The answer lies in understanding that South Africa’s skewed telling of the conflict is part of a pattern of systemic bias within the international community that demonizes Israel and eschews any accountability for the atrocities committed by Hamas.
As former Attorney General of Canada Irwin Cotler correctly put it in the Post: “These proceedings turn fact and law on their head, inverting reality and effectively undermining international justice and the rules-based international order.”
None of this is to say that we are not concerned with the humanitarian toll in Gaza. The ongoing loss of life demands accountability and justice. Retired Supreme Court judge Rosalie Abella spoke to this compellingly when she argued that Israel’s Supreme Court will no doubt be called on to examine the military’s response, including the steps that it has taken to mitigate the pernicious threat posed by Hamas, whose toxic ideology is used to justify rape, torture, and martyrdom.
Meanwhile, we do not need to wait for the ICJ to conclude that it is Hamas who deploys these abhorrent tactics, not Israel. It is Hamas who is recognized as a terrorist entity under Canadian law, not Israel. And it is Hamas whose specific intent is to carry out genocide, not Israel.
Our G7 allies in the U.S., U.K., Germany, Italy and France have come off the sidelines and taken a position that Israel is not committing genocide.
It is time for the federal government to do the same and unequivocally state Canada’s opposition to South Africa’s claim. Canadians deserve no less.
Marco Mendicino is the Member of Parliament for Eglinton Lawrence. Anthony Housefather is the Member of Parliament for Mount Royal.
Nicole Nashen, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, MP Anthony Housefather (Oct. 27, 2023)
My daughter, Nicole, met today with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, Mount Royal Member of Parliament Anthony Housefather and Outremont MP Rachel Bendayan.
Nicole spoke about the horrors inflicted upon Israelis like her aunt and uncle who barely survived the murderous Hamas attack at Kibbutz Kfar Azza, about the safety concerns of students on campus and the need for Canada to continue its strong support for the Canadian Jewish community.
Nicole, 23, a McGill Law student, has witnessed the near daily rallies on and around the university campus where protesters have shouted “intifada”, and glorified Hamas’ terrorism.
Nicole told the Montreal Gazette this week that many Jewish students, including herself, have felt “alone and scared” as they read comments by their peers on social media “defending the barbaric attack that Hamas committed” or while witnessing “protests on or around our campuses where our classmates are chanting for another intifada, a violent uprising against Jews and Israelis.”
Posters on campus calling for “intifada until victory” are “truly terrifying” to Jewish students, she said. “I should not have to pass by posters calling for violence against me just to get to the library. These posters were a direct threat to me and other Jewish students on campus, in an environment were we have a right to feel safe.”
Nicole recounted her experiences to Housefather in a student meeting the MP organized this week and reiterated her sentiments to the Prime Minister today in a private meeting with a dozen other Jewish students.
“Mr. Trudeau listened intently to my story and experiences and was visibly moved,” Nicole said. “He spoke about his strong support for Israel’s right to defend itself from Hamas terrorists, within the confines of international law. I was impressed by how knowledgeable he was about the Canadian Jewish experience and Antisemitism, and by how passionate he was in his words of standing with the Jewish community.”
Nicole previously served as President of Hillel Concordia and as a councillor on the Concordia Student Union. She advocated for the CSU to apologize to the Jewish community for years of Antisemitism.
CJAD commentator Tom Mulcair announced this morning that Mount Royal MP Anthony Housefather has been punished by the Prime Minister for taking a strong, principled stand on behalf of the Quebec English-speaking community. The PMO has removed Housefather as Parliamentary Secretary for Public Services and Procurement.
“It’s astonishing,” Mulcair said, of Housefather’s demotion. “He had the strength of character and determination to say ‘no'”, in reference to speaking out against Bill C-13, the amendment to the federal official languages act.
He toiled for years, working hard for the Liberals, Mulcair said of Housefather, in expressing his dismay that, “The English-speaking community should be concerned by what Trudeau has just done.”
This truly is a sad day for the English-speaking community. I cannot think of a better constituency-focused Member of Parliament from Mount Royal. Yes, we previously were represented by a Prime Minister, an Attorney General and a Senator, but Anthony is first and foremost dedicated to the residents of the riding. He has forged exceptional and close relationships with all of the communities that make up the riding and at the same time has carried the Liberal banner high and proud.
Hello, Ottawa? It doesn’t seem as though they have appreciated his efforts as much as his constituents have.
I reached out to see what some others were thinking about this issue.
My friend Robert Presser lives in the riding and is a life-long federal Conservative who I enjoy consulting for a measured opinion on the ‘other’ side. We pretty much see this decision in the same light. Robert said, “Anthony remains a capable Parliamentary Secretary who is being punished for his principled stand against a bad policy that compromises the rights of Quebec’s English minority today, and potentially the rights of others tomorrow.”
Glenn J. Nashen, Mitchell Brownstein, Anthony Housefather, 2017.
“As former a Mayor of Cote Saint-Luc and our Member of Parliament, Anthony has always been an individual of integrity, standing up for principles he believes in,” current Cote Saint-Luc Mayor Mitchell Brownstein wrote to me. “As time goes on he will continue to shine and history will show all Canadians that he is a person to bring forward positive government for all.”
Anthony Housefather is ministerial quality! This is truly a bad decision. He has so much to offer as an intelligent, passionate leader with expertise in many domains. Unfortunately, it seems that Anthony might have to wait for the next leader to recognize his outstanding qualities and potential.
Former TMR City Councillor and community activist Sydney Margles, Anthony Housefather and me, at a rally against Bill 96, May 2022
Liberal MP Anthony Housefather stands in the House of Commons on May 11, 2023, to vote against Bill C-13 — a “lone courageous and principled stand,” writes Clifford Lincoln. House of Commons
I wrote to Anthony Housefather after the vote on Bill C-13, the new federal language legislation, to thank and congratulate him for his lone courageous and principled stand in the face of overwhelming odds. I pointed out that one vote out of over 300 may not count mathematically, but that its weight as an expression of democratic dissent is all the more exemplary and meaningful. He deserves our gratitude and admiration for his stand.
We all know of incidences in our own lives and in history where lone dissenters were not only decried but at times even punished and jailed for their minority opinions and opposition, but subsequently proven right by the unfolding of events. Indeed, majority opinions and decisions are not inevitably judicious or equitable, and this is why democratic and open societies not only allow dissent, but open the way for redress before our courts of law.
In the case of Bill C-13, Housefather justifiably argues that by importing into this federal statute provisions of Quebec’s Bill 96, which applies the notwithstanding clause to shelter it from court redress and to nullify the application of Charter of Rights guarantees, a serious and negative constitutional precedent is being created. This is the reason why he proposed amendments to remove from Bill C-13 all references to Bill 96. His is far from being a solitary opinion. A number of credible legal minds and constitutional experts have joined minority-community voices in strongly expressing the same cautionary advice.
It defies both logic and understanding that not only the federal government — the central and ultimate trustee and protector of minority rights — but all main federal parties glibly accept the notwithstanding clause being imposed on it by a provincial statute, thereby preventing its citizens from legitimate redress before the courts and the invocation of Charter rights.
Legitimate dissent when it comes to any issue involving language always comes with a heavy price — that of being branded as opposing the promotion of French, and being disloyal to Quebec. This characterization is not only glib and superficial, but unjustified and unfair. I happen to know Housefather and many of the opponents of Bill 96 and Bill C-13. All without exception fully endorse, as I do strongly, the vitality and enhancement of French, while being loyal and contributing citizens of both Quebec and Canada.
The Senate was designed as a chamber of sober second thought, and for this very reason not subjected to electoral constraints and pressures, and thus able to examine House legislation with the utmost openness and impartiality. I earnestly ask our senators to consider judiciously and objectively the arguments of Housefather and of those of us who have expressed strong reservations about the introduction of Bill 96 references into Bill C-13, and its serious constitutional impacts. A straightforward solution would be to pass amendments removing references to Bill 96 from the federal bill, which in no way would detract from its central objectives.
As I pay tribute to Housefather for his stand, I am reminded of another dissenting voice about the introduction of the notwithstanding clause into the Constitution Act of 1982. The late eminent lawyer Morris Manning in his subsequent analysis of this provision wrote these prophetic words 40 years ago: “If our freedom of conscience and religion can be taken away by a law which operates notwithstanding the Charter, if our rights to life and liberty can be taken not in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice, what freedom do we have?”
The notwithstanding clause is a blot on our Constitution, and we should all firmly oppose its casual and unjustified use in any legislation, whether federal or provincial. It should have no place in a democratic and open society that values fundamental rights for all its citizens. This is why I applaud Housefather for standing tall.
Clifford Lincoln resigned from the Quebec cabinet in 1988 over the use of the notwithstanding clause in Bill 178. He later served as a federal MP. He lives in Baie-D’Urfé.
Federal Official Languages Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor dismissed anglo concerns, saying Bills C-13 and 96 were being “conflated” — a term repeated by Lac-Saint-Louis MP Francis Scarpaleggia, notes Robert Libman. PHOTO BY JUSTIN TANG /THE CANADIAN PRESS
Quebec’s English-speaking community suffered one of its most humiliating political put-downs in its history this past week — not in the National Assembly, where you might expect, but in the House of Commons. Our federal Parliament blithely passed Bill C-13, the overhaul of Canada’s Official Languages Act, which contains a dangerous flaw with potential long-term consequences for the rights of Quebec’s anglophone minority.
Not only that, but the bill passed by a margin of 301-1, which exemplifies why so many people are rightfully cynical about politicians and the system.
It bears repeating what I mentioned last week : During the 2015 election, in which Justin Trudeau became prime minister, he promised to loosen oppressive party discipline and allow MPs to represent their constituents in Ottawa, rather than having to represent Ottawa to their constituents.
Except for one, all Quebec Liberal members of Parliament representing ridings with significant anglophone populations simply turned their backs on their constituents. Only Anthony Housefather of Mount Royal had the moral fortitude to stand up in the House and vote against the bill. Marc Garneau, the former MP of Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount, had already resigned over it.
Housefather, Garneau and many Quebec anglophones support most of C-13. It modernizes the Official Languages Act, which enacts the use of French in federally regulated private businesses like banks and railways. But where it goes too far is in unnecessarily incorporating into federal law Quebec’s Charter of the French Language (Bill 101), as amended by Bill 96 (and shielded by the notwithstanding clause), allowing it to apply in Quebec. In doing so, anglo rights are being put at risk. This change goes against 50 years of equality before the law of Canada’s two official-language communities.
At the very least, to give the appearance that they have the backs of their constituents, these MPs could have shown some moral fibre and raised concerns about incorporating Bill 96 in the law. But no.
Shame on Sameer Zuberi, MP for Pierrefonds—Dollard, which has a large majority of English-speaking voters . Shame on Anju Dhillon (Dorval—Lachine—LaSalle), Peter Schiefke (Vaudreuil—Soulanges) and Minister Marc Miller (Ville-Marie—Le Sud-Ouest—Île-des-Sœurs), all of whom with one-third of their constituents who speak English at home. Shame on Rachel Bendayan (Outremont), Sophie Chatel (Pontiac) and David Lametti of LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, with one-quarter of their constituents who are anglophone.
Extremely disheartening is the position of the MP of the most anglophone riding in Quebec, Francis Scarpaleggia in Lac-Saint-Louis, where 58 per cent speak English at home. He said “Bill C-13 and Bill 96 have been conflated and a narrative has taken root that obscures key facts about this legislation and minority-language guarantees in Canada.” Federal Official Languages Minister Ginette Petitpas Taylor used the same terminology to dismiss anglo concerns, saying Bills C-13 and 96 were being “conflated.” News flash: Bill 101 as modified by Bill 96 is written directly into Bill C-13. That’s precisely the problem!
Petitpas Taylor was called out by Aaron Rand on CJAD for suggesting the French Language Charter is mentioned only once, in the preamble, when in fact it’s referenced in three places. She also repeated that only French is in decline in North America. By saying that, it appears she misses the point. The Official Languages Act was never needed to protect the English language itself, but the rights of the English-language minority community in Quebec.
MPs deserve to be castigated by their constituents for having failed them in their most basic role as their elected representatives.
By not allowing a free vote, Trudeau forced only the brave (Housefather) to stand tall. Some suggest Housefather could pay a price , but I suspect justice will prevail and he will ultimately be rewarded for his courage while the others, who cowered under their seats when the going got tough, will live to regret it.
Robert Libman is an architect and building planning consultant who has served as Equality Party leader and MNA, as mayor of Côte-St-Luc and as a member of the Montreal executive committee. He was a Conservative candidate in the 2015 federal election. twitter.com/robertlibman
Mount Royal Liberal MP Anthony Housefather at his riding office in 2015. PHOTO BY MARIE-FRANCE COALLIER /Montreal Gazette files
One lonely voice said No.
Liberal MP Anthony Housefather turned his back on his own party on Monday by voting against a federal bill that would revamp Canada’s Official Languages Act.
With the backing of the Bloc Québécois, the Conservatives and the New Democrats, the bill breezed through the House of Commons. The final vote: 300 Yes; 1 No.
Now that MPs have adopted Bill C-13, it heads to the Senate. The Trudeau government hopes it will become law by summer.
Housefather’s defiance came after groups representing anglophone Quebecers vehemently objected to Bill C-13, saying it’s a blow to Quebec’s linguistic minority.
“Someone needed to remind the House and Canadians that the fears of Quebec’s English-speaking community were not resolved and a unanimous vote in favour of the bill would have brushed aside those concerns,” Housefather said after the vote.
Housefather was one of several Liberal MPs to resist parts of the bill in recent months. But he was the only one to vote against it.
“I promise that even when it is personally difficult for me, I will always stand up for what I believe in and for those who elected me,” he said, noting thousands of constituents reached out to him.
The Liberal government says Bill C-13 — officially known as An Act for the Substantive Equality of Canada’s Official Languages — is a much-need modernization of federal linguistic legislation.
Among other things, it gives employees a right to work and to be served in French in federally regulated businesses in Quebec, such as banks and transport companies. This responds to a demand from all parties represented in the National Assembly.
Housefather said he supports protecting and promoting French.
Bill 96, passed by the Legault government last year, further restricts the use of English in Quebec in a bid to boost the French language.
Housefather said the bill should not have referred “to a Quebec bill that uses the notwithstanding clause preemptively and which is almost universally opposed by a minority community that the Official Languages Act is designed to protect.”
References to Bill 96 in a federal bill is a de facto endorsement of the preemptive use of the notwithstanding clause, critics say.
Last year, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau described as “wrong and inappropriate” Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s plan to preemptively use the notwithstanding clause.
Housefather represents Mount Royal riding, which takes in Côte-St-Luc, Hampstead, Town of Mount Royal, and part of Côte-des-Neiges.
Two other Liberal MPs with many non-francophone constituents previously criticized the bill — Saint-Laurent MP Emmanuella Lambropoulos and Saint-Léonard–Saint-Michel MP Patricia Lattanzio.
But on Monday they fell in line and voted with their party.
Another Montreal Liberal MP who had expressed reservations — Marc Garneau — quit politics in March.
A June 19 byelection to fill the former minister’s riding — Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount — will be the first test of whether anglophone voters will punish the Liberals over C-13.
Quebec anglophones have long massively supported the federal Liberals.
Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Westmount has a large English-speaking community and is considered a safe Liberal seat, with Garneau winning almost 54 per cent of the vote in 2021.
Mount-Royal MP Anthony Housefather showed significant courage and loyalty to his constituents in defying the Liberal whip and voting against Bill C-13, an odious piece of legislation that will have a serious and harmful impact to Quebec’s English-speaking communities. While Housefather was the sole dissenting vote in Parliament on C-13, he stood shoulder to shoulder with hundreds of thousands of voters. Many Quebecers were angered by their own weak-kneed MPs who could not muster the strength to stand up in defiance of their Liberal Party, a party displaying values that are anything but liberal.
C-13, a federal bill, references Bill 96 and by extension Bill 101, both, Quebec’s language legislation. It removes decades of symmetry in defining and balancing the needs of Canada’s linguistic minorities. Sadly, it speaks to shoring up votes in Quebec at the expense of the principles of Canada’s Official Languages Act, to protect and sustain English and French, from coast to coast.
Housefather should be commended for doing what he, and undoubtedly a large majority of those he represents, believes is the right thing. He stands proudly and defiantly for his principles and values and for that he has my respect and admiration.
Mount Royal Member of Parliament Anthony Housefather has been the most outspoken MP against the proposed Bill C-13 that would dramatically overhaul Canada’s Official Languages Act. While many aspects of the proposed legislation is beneficial to minority linguistic communities, Housefather suggests, it is highly problematic for English-speakers in Quebec.
In this episode of The Corner Booth Podcast, Anthony joins Aaron Rand, Bill Brownstein and Lesley Chesterman in explaining his position and the draft law:
Anthony also spoke out on CJAD’s Elias Makos Show:
Anthony is an excellent communicator and goes to great lengths to keep his constituents informed and involved. Have a listen.
He has stated that he will vote against C-13 when the vote is called. Let’s hope that more Liberal MPs will adhere to liberal values in protecting linguistic minorities, across Canada, and right here in Quebec.
The Trudeau government’s language legislation, Bill C-13, is a welcome step forward in many respects. It will bring improvements to the Official Languages Act (concerning enforcement, for example) and will enhance the rights of francophones to work and be served in their own language. At the same time, however, English-speaking Quebecers have reasons for concern about certain aspects of the bill, currently before a Commons committee. Those concerns, elaborated by the Quebec Community Groups Network among others, have been courageously brought forward in Ottawa by several Montreal Liberal MPs. It is deeply disheartening, not to mention insulting, to see these elected officials being pilloried as liars, fear-mongers and/or clowns by some other MPs and certain media commentators.
Anthony Housefather, Marc Garneau, Emmanuella Lambropoulos and the other MPs who have spoken up do not deserve such treatment. Those heaping scorn upon them are also heaping scorn on the concerns of English-speaking Quebecers.
The main focus of the MPs’ interventions has been the inclusion in the bill of references to Quebec’s Charter of the French Language. As recently amended by Bill 96, Quebec’s language law is now protected from an array of legal challenges because of the pre-emptive incorporation in the law of the notwithstanding clauses in both the Canadian and Quebec rights charters. What will the legal ramifications be of mentioning this Quebec law in a federal one, a highly unusual move? Housefather, a lawyer, raised important questions, including about whether this could undermine the legal position of the federal government in arguing, in future court cases, against the notwithstanding clause’s pre-emptive use.
A second objection is to the fact that Bill C-13 departs from the established practice of symmetry in federal official languages policy. In addition to amending the Official Languages Act, the bill would create The Use of French in Federally Regulated Private Businesses Act that among other things would give francophones in certain areas outside Quebec the right to work and be served in their language without according reciprocal rights to English-speaking Quebecers.
English-speaking Quebecers are accustomed to having their concerns ignored or rejected by Quebec City, but now it’s the federal government, supposedly committed to upholding linguistic duality, treating us as a second-class minority.
At least, however, the federal government still recognizes English-speaking Quebecers as a linguistic minority, unlike those commentators and politicians who see francophones as the only minority and English-speakers as part of the continental majority. That disconnect is a big part of why our concerns are discounted, even while our schools close for lack of enrolment and the space for English in Quebec is made smaller and smaller.
Meanwhile, those standing up for the English-speaking community are being unfairly portrayed as fighting against the protection of French. Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is being baited to rein them in, something he declined to do while at the same time promising to go ahead with the legislation. However, its passage will face further hurdles. Conservative senator Judith Seidman of Quebec has served notice that she will resist any attempt to rush the legislation through the upper chamber.
There are many ways to protect and promote French that are not at the expense of Quebec’s English-speaking minority. Language need not be a zero-sum game. It’s deeply sad that some people insist on seeing it that way.
After a two-year hiatus the 41st Côte Saint-Luc Golf Classic will take place at Meadowbrook Golf Club. CSL council and the CSL Men’s Club will collaborate on the event, with Councillors Mike Cohen and Dida Berku joined by Mannie Young as co-chairs. I will be joined by former councillor Sam Goldbloom as this year’s honourees.
This is a fun and friendly competition. That’s good news for me as I’m not a golfer. In fact, the only time ever ever golfed was several years ago at this same Golf Classic, with my father instructing me on every hole.
As you may know, I served on city council for more than 25 years, and even served as mayor for a short while. I was a key player in the area of public safety, having launched the Volunteer Citizens on Patrol (VCOPs) and championed the volunteer Emergency Medical Services and everything public safety oriented including the first municipal bike helmet bylaw in Canada . I was outspoken on bilingualism and National Unity and worked closely with my friends and colleagues Anthony Housefather, Mitchell Brownstein and the late Ruth Kovac on demerging from Montreal and regaining our City of CSL. My good friend Sam was a councillor for 12 years and co-chaired the Golf Classic on many occasions.
Some of the proceeds will go to the Parks and Recreation Bursary Fund. These donations help disadvantaged families and families with children who have special needs in CSL who cannot afford to register their children in seasonal programs and activities.
I’m proud to still be involved with vCOP and to promote public safety in Cote Saint-Luc and the wider community. As well, I offer my advice to Councillor Mike Cohen as part of his District Advisory Committee.
I’m quite honoured!
Councillor Mike Cohen, Glenn J. Nashen, Sam Goldbloom, Councillor Dida Berku and Mannie Young at Meadowbrook Golf Course
Mount Royal MP Anthony Housefather has drafted an excellent piece that was published this week in The Gazette and Le Devoir which he co-signed with fellow Liberal MPs Marc Garneau (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Westmount), Patricia Lattanzio (Saint-Leonard-Saint-Michel) and Francis Scarpaleggia (Lac-Saint-Louis).
Before the Bill was adopted, Anthony spoke with Elias Makos on CJAD about his concerns. You can hear the interview here. He also spoke on Power and Politics with Vassy Kapelos. You can watch the interview here.
In the op-ed Anthony raised the issue of the violations of the Constitution which require the courts and National Assembly of Quebec to treat English and French equally. He also raised the issue of the preemptive and omnibus use of the notwithstanding clause and the importance of having this inappropriate use of the clause addressed by the courts.
Federal Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, David Lametti, confirmed that the government will intervene in the Court case related to Bill 21 when it reaches the Supreme Court. Minister Lametti also indicated that we would consider intervening in other cases involving Bill 96 and will carefully monitor the implementation of the law. He voiced his own discomfort with many provisions of the law related to access to services in health care, justice, and other matters. He pointed to the concerns of the English-speaking minority, indigenous Canadians and new immigrants.
“For those who were waiting for the government to speak to Bill 96 in a clear way this has now occurred and led to Premier Legault demanding the federal government stay out of it,” Housefather said, assuring that, “our government will not back away from defending the rights of minority language communities, including English speaking Quebecers.”
Sidney Margles, MP Anthony Housefather and Glenn J. Nashen at the anti Bill 96 Rally in Place du Canada on May 26, 2022
Anthony Housefather, a Liberal MP from Montreal, says Canada will need to follow suit if the U.S. bill becomes law.
The Canadian Press | James McCarten | Mar 16, 2022
WASHINGTON — A giddy Democratic senator, clapping his hands and dancing with delight in the shadow of a sun-drenched U.S. Capitol, isn’t something one sees every day — especially in response to a Republican initiative.
But the prospect of doing away with the annoying, and arguably deadly, ritual of changing the clocks twice a year just seems to bring out the spirit of bipartisanship in some people, even when it’s in such short supply.
“We’re walking on sunshine,” a visibly thrilled Massachusetts Sen. Ed Markey said in a video posted to his Twitter account Tuesday after the Senate unanimously approved legislation that would make daylight time permanent across the U.S.
It’s still a long way from becoming law; the House of Representatives still needs to pass it before President Joe Biden can sign off, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi has not yet said whether such a vote will take place.
But the rare show of unity in the Senate chamber, as well as the sorely needed dose of water-cooler whimsy that the subject of daylight time always generates, combined Tuesday to capture the imaginations of lawmakers on both sides of the aisle, as well as a few north of the border as well.
“What we’ve got here is an issue that has tremendous popular support, because everybody deals with it twice a year, and no one can understand why we still do it,” said Jeremy Roberts, a Conservative member of the Ontario legislature who has advocated for years for permanent daylight time.
“But on the flip side, it has a whole bunch of actual academic support behind it as well. Between the two of those, I think that’s why it keeps generating such a buzz.”
Two years ago, Roberts spearheaded a new Ontario law that would see the province adopt daylight time permanently, provided New York state and the Quebec government both did the same. If the U.S. bill becomes law, that would take care of New York; Quebec Premier Francois Legault has publicly suggested he’s not opposed.
Multiple studies, including a 1999 effort by researchers at Stanford University and the Johns Hopkins University Sleep Disorders Center, have found links between changing the clocks and traffic accidents, heart attacks, workplace injuries and seasonal depression.
“Just this past weekend, we all went through that biannual ritual of changing the clock back and forth and the disruption that comes with it,” Republican Sen. Marco Rubio of Florida told the chamber after his bill, the Sunshine Protection Act, was passed by unanimous consent.
“One has to ask themselves after a while: Why do we keep doing it? Why are we doing this?”
Built into Rubio’s bill is a one-year delay, meaning if it became law, the U.S. would face one more year of falling back and springing forward before doing away with the practice permanently in 2023. That’s to allow companies and industries with long timelines to have a chance to adjust, he said.
Rubio acknowledged in his speech that while it “is not the most important issue confronting America,” it’s one that generates a lot of bipartisan agreement, which is why he’s confident it will both pass the House and receive the president’s signature.
Indeed, it’s one of those issues that is at once frivolous and serious for anyone familiar with the ritual.
“I was trying to think of a joke; I couldn’t think of one,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki said Wednesday when asked whether Biden has taken a position on either side of the clock. “We obviously work closely with Congress on all legislation they consider, but I don’t have a specific position from the administration at this point in time.”
Gamely, she added of the president: “He is more of an evening person.”
Not everyone is chuckling, however: Mississippi Republican Sen. Roger Wicker told Politico that while he decided not to stand in the way, he’s concerned about the impact of an extra hour of morning darkness.
“There’s kids in Minnesota and Nebraska and Montana that are going to catch the school bus in the pitch dark, and I worry about that,” Wicker said. “We’ll see. I hope it works out wonderfully.”
British Columbia, too, went so far as to pass its own law in 2019, codifying the abolishment of standard time as soon as the U.S. makes it official.
“For B.C. families who have just had to cope with the disruptions of changing the clocks, the U.S. Senate bill brings us another step toward ending the time changes in our province for good,” the office of B.C. Premier John Horgan said in a statement Tuesday.
The province introduced and passed its own legislation after a whopping 93 per cent of people surveyed by the province expressed support for the idea, so long as they kept their clocks synchronized with Washington, Oregon and California.
“While the bill still requires congressional approval before it can go to President Biden to sign, we’re well positioned in B.C. to do away with the time changes once and for all and move to permanent (daylight time).”
Most of the rest of Canada — Saskatchewan hasn’t changed its clocks in more than 100 years, with the exception of Lloydminster, which straddles the boundary with Alberta — will likely have no choice but to follow suit, said Liberal MP Anthony Housefather.
“If adopted by the House, this will apply across the U.S. and Canada needs to be in step,” Housefather tweeted. “The federal government needs to work with the provinces and co-ordinate this across the country.”
Rubio’s rhetoric in the chamber Tuesday made it clear what he thinks of the practice.
“If we can get this passed, we don’t have to keep doing this stupidity anymore,” he said. “Pardon the pun, but this is an idea whose time has come.”
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 16, 2022.
In my opinion:
I’m very pleased that my MP, Anthony Housefather, is speaking out on this issue. I’ve discussed this with him for years and he is taking positive steps to get rid of the menacing changing of the clocks.
Fatemeh Anvari has started a national conversation.
The school teacher in Chelsea, Que., removed from her classroom this month because of her hijab, has put a face to Bill 21, the Quebec law that prevents those wearing religious symbols from holding certain public-sector jobs.
The law is popular in Quebec, where Premier François Legault defended it again Monday as reasonable and important to ensure secularism and the appearance of neutrality.
“People can teach if they take off their religious symbol while they teach, and when they are in the streets, at home, they can wear a religious symbol,” Legault told reporters.
The shocked parents of students at Chelsea Elementary School want to use their outrage to cast a light on Bill 21’s injustice.
But a Quebec Liberal MP hopes Anvari’s case prompts broader thinking. Anthony Housefather wants a national discussion on the use of the notwithstanding clause, and how to prevent the majority from using its position to curb the rights of minorities.
Anvari lost her ability to teach because Legault pre-emptively used the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ notwithstanding clause, section 33, giving the Quebec government the ability to trample on fundamental rights and shield its action from the courts. (It is doing so again with language Bill 96.)
“I’m not naïve about it,” the Mount Royal MP told me. Amending the Constitution to add parameters around the clause or eliminate it completely requires the approval of at least seven provinces representing 50 per cent of the Canadian population. The only other direct option would be Ottawa’s power of disallowance, last used to invalidate provincial law in 1943.
But Housefather thinks a conference with legal scholars or a committee of the House of Commons could explore:
1) whether the notwithstanding clause should be enacted through a simple majority vote;
2) whether the override clause should be able to override fundamental freedoms, such as conscience, religion, expression, and association, found in section 2 of the Charter;
3) whether the notwithstanding clause should be used pre-emptively.
He argues pre-emptive use wasn’t what the framers had in mind, back in 1981, when the override clause was inserted into the Charter to break an impasse between some premiers and Ottawa.
According to the Library of Parliament, Allan Blakeney, the then premier of Saskatchewan, referred to the measure as one that would allow Parliament and the legislatures to “override a court decision.” Roy McMurtry, the attorney general of Ontario, wrote that the notwithstanding clause would be used “in the unlikely event of a decision of the courts that is clearly contrary to the public interest.”
Housefather hopes the conversation can move beyond one focused on Quebec.
“Bill 21 is a Quebec issue, but the notwithstanding clause and the ability of any legislature to override fundamental rights is not a Quebec issue. It’s a national issue.”
Ontario Premier Doug Ford used the notwithstanding clause this June to reintroduce a third-party election spending bill that had been struck down by the court. He previously threatened to use the clause if the court prevented him from interfering in the municipal election by changing the size of Toronto’s city council. Alberta Premier Jason Kenney has mused about invoking section 33, and, last year, New Brunswick MLAs voted to remove the notwithstanding clause from a bill imposing mandatory vaccination for children in schools and daycares.
At the heart of the matter is getting the Supreme Court to review a 1988 decision that very broadly interpreted the clause. Back then, the court was ruling on a case from the early 80s. “The Charter was sort of wet behind the ears,” said Robert Leckey, the dean of law at McGill University, “and so the idea that the court got it right in 1988 in a way that would last for ages, doesn’t make sense to me.”
The top court has changed its mind on collective bargaining and more recently medically-assisted dying. Ottawa could step in with a reference to the Supreme Court, though Leckey believes a more strategic approach would be intervening at the Quebec Court of Appeal.
His big concern is that the notwithstanding clause becomes normalized, that Canadians stop being shocked by its use, and that, consequently, there are few political costs to invoking it. That would be truly dangerous, he said.
So if a national conversation can help discuss legitimate and illegitimate uses, Leckey’s for it.
“A lot of people have a sense that you shouldn’t use (the override clause) to authorize torture, but there is nothing on the face of section 33 or the Supreme Court’s judgment that would tell us that you shouldn’t use the notwithstanding clause to legalize torture,” he said.
“So there probably are some implicit norms around it that we haven’t done a very good job yet of fleshing out.”
Nashen Notes 
Recent Comments