Madam Speaker, my presentation tonight emerges from a question that I asked of the Minister of Intergovernmental and Northern Affairs and Internal Trade on September 25, which in turn resulted from a motion I had made at the justice and human rights committee, of which I am proud to be the vice-chair.

The motion asked that the committee study something that I think most Canadians would agree is very much within the purview of justice and human rights and that is the status in Canada of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Members will know that over the summer the new Premier of Ontario decided that he would invoke, as he has said on a routine and repeated way, the notwithstanding clause, section 33, of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. That of course would allow for the suspension of the charter for five years in that province for the first time in the 36 years that we have had the charter in Canada. That overrules therefore freedom of expression, freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, freedom of association and the right to life, liberty and security of the person, which of course was the foundation of a woman's right to choose upheld in the Morgentaler case.

This is a very grave situation. It was not about simply one province saying that it would do so in what most people thought was a rather strange context, on electoral reform in the City of Toronto.

The new Premier of Quebec has also indicated that he would not hesitate to use the notwithstanding clause. He would do so in the context of making sure that people wearing religious symbols would not be able to be in authority and make any decisions. It would therefore prevent public servants like teachers and judges from wearing religious garments like the Muslim hijab or the Jewish kippah when they interact with the public. It perhaps might also apply to large Christian crosses or turbans. We do not know. He would simply use the charter's notwithstanding clause to overrule the rights that Canadians have taken for granted in the 36 years we have had the charter.

My question was: Would the government please have a study at the justice and human rights committee so we could have at that? We could hear from the people who were there at the time, some of whom are still very much alive, like former prime minister Chrétien, Mr. Romanow, Mr. Davis, people who were there to tell us what their intent was. We could hear from experts and human rights-seeking groups that the notwithstanding clause was never intended to be used in the way that these two premiers have chosen to suggest they would use it.

What better place is there than the justice and human rights committee of the House of Commons to convene such a meeting in the interests of Canada? The government has said no. I would like to know why.

Murray Rankin

Transcript

Adjournment Proceedings

Discussions (0)