I don't want to get into a discussion about what motivated this bill, but, as regards the second criterion, it is clear that there may be a problem there.
It seems to me that the proposed bill goes beyond the interpretation of section 7 of the charter. So the question is whether the committee should get involved in that. Are we supposed to prevent a bill from being debated in the House because there could be a problem of interpretation?
If I'm not mistaken, the problem with respect to section 7 is that the Supreme Court has provided interpretations of section 7. It seems the bill before us does not jibe with the criteria laid out by the Supreme Court as regards the proper interpretation of this section.
If that is the case, it is clear that this bill would benefit from amendments in committee or, if no amendments come forward, there is a good chance it would be defeated. If someone challenges it in court, I think there is a good chance a judge would strike down the legislation. Once again, the guidance provided by the Supreme Court with respect to section 7 is quite clear. This bill does not comply with the Supreme Court's interpretation.
So, that's the problem I have with this bill. I have nothing against the idea of others continuing our work. It's simply that it makes no sense to do that, based on Canadian constitutional case law.
Does the committee have the right to review the case law, other than the actual wording of the Charter? Can we go ahead and look at the jurisprudence?
I would like an answer to that question.