44th Parl. 1st Sess.
February 9, 2023 10:00AM
- Feb/9/23 10:38:11 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to share my time with my hon. colleague, the member for Lac-Saint-Louis.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a fundamental constitutional document. It protects the rights and freedoms of everyone in Canada, including Quebeckers. This document is one of the cornerstones of our society. Since it was adopted in 1982, it has demonstrated its flexibility and ability to adapt.
Our charter has inspired many other countries—
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 11:44:41 a.m.
- Watch
That is indeed a good example, Mr. Speaker. I remember that somewhat unfortunate episode involving Toronto city council where the misuse of the notwithstanding clause undermined the rights of Torontonians to have adequate or proper representation by what they considered a suitable number of city councillors. Was that what the provincial representatives intended when, in 1982, they called for a notwithstanding clause to be able to occasionally be exempted from the application of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? I do not believe this was their intent.
It is fine, in my opinion, to have this discussion today on the conditions for its use. Is there a real and urgent need? Is it for the greater good or is it being abused to erode fundamental rights?
Let us have this discussion. We should not be afraid to have it.
139 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:02:30 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the only thing I can say to that is there is an internal contradiction in the argument that was made when the member said that Quebec's recognition as a nation and Quebec's rights are enshrined. They are in this country, and they are recognized by virtually everyone in this chamber. I am not sure how the reference to the need for a notwithstanding clause has anything to do with the rights that are already recognized and enshrined when it comes to Quebec.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:28:01 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I have a very simple question for the member,
When it comes to using the notwithstanding clause, where would he draw the line? What rights are fair game for violating and what rights would be off-limits?
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:30:08 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I would like a bit more clarification from the member. My colleague asked a question about which legal rights he thought would be okay to undermine compared to others. Is there a list of which ones are really bad and which ones are not as bad?
48 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:33:54 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I am glad to speak this afternoon. I will be sharing my time with the member for Aurora—Oak Ridges—Richmond Hill.
Let me acknowledge at the outset that we are gathered here on the traditional unceded lands of the Algonquin people.
Before I go into the speech, I have some important reflections on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is a document that has entrenched into Canadian law such fundamental rights and freedoms as I think people around the world aspire to achieve. Over the years, this has been a guiding document in my life. I think it has been a guiding document for many in this country. While it is not perfect, it has offered a very important path towards the recognition of international human rights and the universality of human rights. Of course, we can date this back to the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that was signed right at the end of World War II, as well as the former Canadian Bill of Rights and other international covenants and documents Canada is party to.
On a personal level, my family came to Canada 40 years ago this year. We fled an armed conflict in Sri Lanka where the rights of minorities were suppressed, and suppressed at will, oftentimes with reinforcement by law. Around this House, this country and my riding, millions of Canadians can trace their history to difficulties because governments chose to suppress their rights because of who they are.
In fact, in Canada we can see a number of occasions of this. The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke talked about the experience of the LGBTQI community, and of course the member for Winnipeg Centre has often spoken about the disparity between indigenous and non-indigenous Canadians.
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has set a benchmark for us to follow in many ways. While it is important that we were able to get this agreement in 1982 with the provinces with the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause, this clause was always meant to be used sparingly by governments.
Our charter is also a source of inspiration for the many countries that have built some of their constitutional documents in a similar way. In short, as a Canadian, I am proud that 40 years ago we decided, as a society, to have such an instrument.
Section 33 of the charter, which is commonly known as the notwithstanding clause, made it possible to reach a political compromise between the different entities making up Canada when the charter was adopted. This section authorizes Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain provisions of the charter, namely those protecting fundamental freedoms, legal guarantees and equality rights.
460 words
All Topics
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:44:39 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. He is a passionate man who, in my opinion, respects the rights and freedoms of individuals and peoples. I have two questions for him.
First, am I to understand from his speech that he supports the Constitution Act, 1982, except for section 33?
Second, does he believe that the same reasoning should apply to all peoples of the world; in other words, that all peoples, including in Sri Lanka, where he is from, should be free to decide on certain laws, but only on the condition that they abide by certain dictates of the United Kingdom, for example?
107 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 12:45:35 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, we have an international human rights instrument that defines fundamental rights and freedoms. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a reflection of that in many ways, and in some ways it has gone much further than international norms.
I think it is important that we all abide by a basic set of values; sections 7 to 15 of the charter are critical components of the protection of rights for individuals. As a result, I think that any derogation of that should be thoughtful, should not be pre-emptive and should be able to withstand the test of the court. Therefore, it is important that, while section 33 is in the 1982 Constitution, it should not be used lightly.
122 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:49:09 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to share one of my concerns. In the debate today, we do not spend much time talking about human rights. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is about human rights, and the notwithstanding clause is about avoiding respecting human rights and avoiding doing the hard work that would be necessary. I wonder if he would reflect a bit more on the importance of human rights in this debate today.
76 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:49:33 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, that was my point toward the end and I appreciate the question, because today Doug Ford trampled on union rights. Tomorrow, who knows what he or another premier will try to trample on. Today, the collective movement and public pressure prevented Doug Ford from moving forward, but we do not know if that will be the case tomorrow.
The whole point of protecting those rights is to protect the rights of minorities. If we put people in a position where it becomes normalized to use this tool in order to strip people of their rights, the problem is going to be much greater than what we are seeing has happened to organized labour in Ontario.
117 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:50:27 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, my question for the member opposite is this. He seems to be very offended by the violation of charter rights and freedoms by all kinds of other levels of government. What would he say about his own government and the continual attacks on freedom of expression, freedom of religion, mobility rights and the like?
56 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 1:51:21 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Kingston and the Islands for talking about rights. I have been deeply offended, worried and frightened for this country because the premier of Ontario flings around like corn flakes the idea that he is going to grab the notwithstanding clause to stomp on the rights of teachers and workers. I really want to encourage all of us in this place, without regard to partisanship, to stand up for the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in this country.
85 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 3:53:44 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, I appreciate my colleague and good friend from the fisheries committee. Does she agree that the use of the notwithstanding clause to suspend rights should not be taken lightly and should only be used in exceptional circumstances?
39 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:08:52 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, like the minister, I am very worried about the increasing use of the notwithstanding clause, and my focus will be on human rights.
In 2000, in Alberta, Ralph Klein tried to use the notwithstanding clause to take away the rights of the SOGI community to same-sex marriage. He was not successful because the Supreme Court was able to speak to that.
I wonder if the minister could talk a bit about some of the risks posed to individual human rights if people like Danielle Smith were given this tool to use more frequently.
96 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:26:49 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, a lot of my colleague's discussion today focused on human rights, which, of course, is very important to me. I do wonder why the government has not taken the opportunity to push for human rights for people around the world.
The people of Afghanistan have been waiting for a very long time for the government to do a humanitarian carve-out. It has been promising this for 18 months. If Liberals really do believe in human rights, why are they not pushing for that?
87 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/9/23 4:28:43 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, it is very clear the hon. member has not read it, or she would know that the carbon tax has nothing to do with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
32 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
