Mr. Speaker, I will share my time. I have a few very brief comments to make.
I recognize the motion put forward by my hon. friend from Notre-Dame-de-Grâce and accept the fact that it is a basic contradiction to speak against the motion. If article 33 is to be used to take away rights or freedoms, chances are that it will be used to take away rights and freedoms from where they are probably needed the most. There is a basic contradiction in speaking against the motion, which is what I intend to do this evening. I do so despite the fact that I am appreciative that it really is a conundrum when the Charter of Rights and Freedoms has an override provision on perhaps the most personal aspects of the charter.
Under the Constitution Act, 1982, as was pointed out by my hon. friend from Quebec, when the Constitution came back to Canada it did not have unanimous support of all provinces. It also changed the fundamental values in the way our country relates, the way we relate as citizens one to another. We no longer have common law. The legislatures are not longer paramount in Canada; it is the Supreme Court. We found ourselves as a nation reacting to interpretations of the way we relate one to another by virtue of how the Supreme Court interprets a particular law.
The net result is that we have become a nation of entitlement rather than of responsibilities. I keep suggesting that perhaps we
could immeasurably improve the Charter of Rights and Freedoms if we were to change it to the charter of rights, freedoms and responsibilities, because there is no such thing as a right or a freedom without a corresponding responsibility.
Bringing in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms with the Constitution Act has fundamentally changed the way we relate to each other as citizens and to our governments. The notwithstanding clause gives elected parliaments the opportunity to override the court which is unelected and appointed.
Perhaps there would be some way we could evolve to some sort of compromise so that we could have the best of both worlds. I do not know what that compromise would be, but I know the people of Canada, at least in my opinion, would far rather have a country where elected bodies in our nation were paramount to appointed judicial bodies.
For that reason I would vote against the bill and I would speak against the notion of striking the notwithstanding clause, keeping in mind that when invoked the notwithstanding clause must be redone every five years.