Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to start by saying that I agree entirely with Ms. Dabrusin. The preamble of the motion takes a position that I don't agree with. I think it's a flawed interpretation of the removal of clause 3 of the bill. I also believe, as Ms. Dabrusin said, that the bill will continue to be amended, so for us to stop at each point in the bill, which may not reflect the bill at the end, to ask for updated charter statements is illogical.
Furthermore, and more importantly, let me direct you to the Department of Justice website as to what the rules are with respect to charter statements.
These charter statements, which were put into effect by our government, the Liberal government, basically originally included charter statements only for justice bills. Then, on December 13, 2019, through amendments to the Department of Justice Act, we created a new duty on the Minister of Justice to ensure that a charter statement is tabled in Parliament for every government bill. The charter statements are a transparency measure intended to inform parliamentary and public debate on a bill and help increase awareness and understanding of the charter.
The website explicitly states:
Charter Statements are intended to provide information to the public and Parliamentarians. Although a bill may change over the course of its passage through Parliament, Charter Statements reflect the bill at [the] time of introduction and are not updated.
Let me repeat that. Charter statements reflect the bill at the time of introduction and are not updated. It goes on to say, “Charter Statements are not legal opinions on the constitutionality of a bill.”
For a multiplicity of reasons, then, Mr. Chairman, I am against this motion: number one, that the legislation does not contemplate ever updating a charter statement, and it is explicitly stated that charter statements “reflect the bill at time of introduction and are not updated”; and second, because we are in the middle of a clause-by-clause debate on the bill, and if it were to be updated at any point for whatever reason, if that were permissible, it would make sense to do so only at the end of debate on the bill, once all the amendments had been adopted and one knew what the legislation would look like.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.