Evidence of meeting #39 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was c-300.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Thank you, Mr. Rae.
On Mr. Rae's invitation, then, Mr. Goldring, I guess if that's what you're going to do, please continue.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Thank you very much.
Really, it is of the utmost of importance, because this is the fabric and soul of this country, the written Constitution, and we should take great pride in this Constitution that we have.
I'll begin with the Constitution Act of 1982, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, because it had been referenced in the past as being a descriptor of this right, which, in fact and in reality, it is totally not.
So I'll begin with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms:
Whereas Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God and the rule of law.
Then we go into the guarantee of rights and freedoms:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.
Well, that in itself certainly implies that these are rights and freedoms under the laws of Canada, not under international laws. It would be the laws of Canada.
Fundamental freedoms:
Everybody has the following fundamental freedoms: (a) freedom of conscience and religion.
Well, we know full well that not all people do have those freedoms internationally. For Canadians to subscribe that a Canadian should have that right and freedom in all countries of the planet earth is really being a little bit naive.
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press—
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Well, no. We have an intervention here from a member who's actually ignoring his own government's recognition of the constitutional rights in the case of Mr. Abdulrazik, for one, the Federal Court for second. So he's going on about something that is recognized by the courts, by his own government. I'm thinking that—
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay, Mr. Dewar. On this debate what I'm trying to do is make sure that even if Mr. Goldring is giving us a speech on the Constitution it is--
10:50 a.m.
An hon. member
Relevant?
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
I think that's what he's doing. He's building the foundation that there are certain rights that we appreciate and love here in Canada--
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
--constitutional rights, but do all those same rights apply in countries, as he said, all around the earth?
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
No, they're rights of Canadians, not countries. That's my point. It has been recognized by the Federal Court and it has been recognized by this government--
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Well, no, that is a point of order. If you say that we're going to get into--
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
That's exactly my point. It's that I want to be very, very careful on this, so that I do not miss--and perhaps it can be pointed out during the course of this--where in our Constitution that expression is. I do not find it, so I will be very careful in going through this line by line: “freedom of peaceful assembly” and “freedom of association”.
We also have democratic rights: “Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein”. That clearly does not mean the House of Commons of Great Britain. That means the House of Commons of Canada. We cannot extrapolate this to mean that somehow there is extraterritorial application to this Constitution. It is about Canada.
It states, “No House of Commons and no legislative assembly shall continue for longer than five years from the date fixed for the return of the writs at a general election of its members”.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Well, yes. I was going to make the comment that we may very well, even in the minority government situation that we're existing in here today, have the privilege of extending that to five years, given the participation of the parties opposite. I think it's very appropriate. As a government, we certainly would like to have the continuity of this government so that we can get some real action done and have some continuity to it.
It states, “In time of real or apprehended war, invasion or insurrection, a House of Commons may be continued by Parliament and a legislative assembly may be continued by the legislature beyond five years if such continuation is not opposed by the votes of more than one-third of the members of the House of Commons or the legislative assembly, as the case may be”. That gives us an opening here to continue it, if we have participation here from opposite us.
It states, “There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months”.
Still we have not entered into any referencing here for this extraterritorial protection under the Constitution, so I'll continue and see if we can find it in here.
On mobility rights, it states, “Every citizen of Canada has the right to enter, remain in and leave Canada”. Also, it states, “Every citizen of Canada and every person who has the status of a permanent resident of Canada has the right...to move to and take up residence in any province”. I would add here that perhaps this may be a bit of an oversight on the part of the writers; I would include “or territory”. It states that it can be “to pursue the gaining of a livelihood in any province”. Once again, I would be very open to including the reference to territories, too.
But clearly it's not suggesting that you have the right to move into any other country on planet Earth and move from any other state within those countries.
It states, “The rights specified in subsection (2) are subject to...any laws or practices of general application in force in a province other than those that discriminate among persons primarily on the basis of province”—and I would suggest “or territory”—“of present or previous residence...”. Clearly, these are domestic laws. They are not talking of international laws.
It mentions “...any laws providing for reasonable residency requirements as a qualification for the receipt of publicly provided social services”. So there are some provisos, even here in Canada. It states, “Subsections (2) and (3) do not preclude any law, program or activity that has as its object the amelioration in a province of--”
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Mr. Goldring, excuse me for just one moment, please.
Mr. Patry.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Bernard Patry Liberal Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC
Can I make a motion that we adjourn? It's a filibuster. We can adjourn and that way everyone will go back to some other duty. Can we all agree?
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Kevin Sorenson
Okay. We have a motion to adjourn, which is a non-debatable motion.
All those who are in favour of adjourning this meeting today, signify by raising your hand.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Peter Goldring Conservative Edmonton East, AB
Will I have the opportunity to pick up where I left off at the next meeting?
