Pursuant to order made Wednesday, March 16, 1994 the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred division on Ways and Means Motion No. 6 concerning the budget.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Alfonso Gagliano Liberal Saint-Léonard, QC

Mr. Speaker, I believe that you will find unanimous consent to apply the result of the vote just taken to the motion which you just announced on the Budget.

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Does the House agree?

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

(The House divided on the motion, which was agreed to on the following division:)

The BudgetGovernment Orders

5:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I declare the motion carried.

It being 6 p.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Warren Allmand Liberal Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC

moved:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should initiate an amendment to the Constitution Act, 1982 to delete section 33 (the notwithstanding clause).

Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate if we could get a little order in the House as it is difficult to speak over the noise.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

5:55 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Colleagues, your colleague wants to have some order and the Chair on his behalf would request order so that he might present his motion.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

March 23rd, 1994 / 5:55 p.m.

Liberal

Warren Allmand Liberal Notre-Dame-De-Grâce, QC

Mr. Speaker, the motion which I have presented asks that the government initiate an amendment to the Constitution Act of 1982 to delete section 33, the notwithstanding clause.

What are we talking about? In 1982 the Parliament of Canada and all the parliaments of the provinces passed the Constitution Act of 1982 which included for the first time in our history an entrenched Charter of Rights and Freedoms. These were such rights as the fundamental freedoms; the freedom of conscience and religion, the freedom of thought, the freedom of belief, opinion and expression, freedom of the press, freedom of peaceful assembly, freedom of association, our democratic rights-that is, the right to take part in elections, the right to run for office, mobility rights, legal rights, very important equality rights. That section said that all Canadians were equal irrespective of their sex, their age, their colour, their religion, their race, their national origin.

In 1982 we entrenched those rights, which meant that those rights could not be taken away by ordinary legislation. Furthermore, those rights prevailed over all other legislation since they were in the Constitution.

If a conflict arose between any other law in Canada and what was in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, then the Charter of Rights and Freedoms prevailed. The only way those rights could be taken away is by an amendment to the Constitution, which is a very complex thing, as we all know as a result of the Charlottetown accord experience.

We took steps to give Canadians these entrenched rights and then at the same time we put in the very same act article 33, the notwithstanding clause, which allowed Parliament and all the legislatures of Canada to take away those very rights by the use of what is called a notwithstanding clause. This means that if a government introduced a bill which said: "Notwithstanding the charter of rights, we legislate as follows", then it would legislate away the right of freedom of the press or freedom of religion or freedom of equality, and so on.

When Prime Minister Trudeau first introduced the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981, the notwithstanding clause was not in it. At that point the Constitution of 1982 was clear, pure, simple and direct without any shenanigans or skulduggery whatsoever.

However, in the negotiations with the provinces, between early 1981 and passage in late 1981, pressure was brought to bear and the notwithstanding clause was accepted.

I always opposed the notwithstanding clause. As a matter of fact I voted for the Constitution Act of 1981 when it was first presented on the first round by Mr. Trudeau as a member of his party and supported it strongly. However, at the end of the process, when we voted again at the end of the year, I was obliged to oppose the package, not because I did not support many things in it but I could not accept the notwithstanding clause and there were a few other clauses that were added that I could not accept.

Why am I so opposed to the notwithstanding clause? I just referred to these rights. These are not marginal rights that we are talking about. These are not supplementary rights. We are talking about basic, universal rights, rights that are recognized around the world. We are talking about rights that are recognized in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights of the United Nations. We are not talking about rights to own property or to build a house on a certain street. We are talking about things like freedom of religion, freedom of conscience, equality between races, equality between people of different religious backgrounds and so on. We are talking about things that are very basic.

As far as I am concerned, rights are rights and they should not be subject to legislative suspension for any reason, not these kinds of rights. They cannot be legislated away.

Some people would argue that no rights are unlimited. That is correct. For example, let us take freedom of speech. The principle of freedom of speech is, without a doubt, unchallengeable, but we cannot abuse it. We have accepted for a long time the crimes of liable and slander which are an abuse of the freedom of speech. We have now in our criminal law provisions against hate literature by which one cannot attack another ethnic or religious group in a demeaning way. It can add up to hate literature. That is an abuse of the freedom of speech.

The Constitution Act of 1982 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provide for that in section 1. The notwithstanding clause is not necessary. Section 1 of the charter states: "that 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".

We have had our liable and slander laws for many years, but if they were to be challenged as contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the spokespersons for the government could argue that these were exceptions that were reasonable in a free and democratic society. In other words, one should not be able to tell lies that will hurt the reputation of other people.

The difference with article 1 of the charter is that it is the court which decides whether the law being challenged is an exception to the charter or not and it is not a politically elected Parliament or legislature that decides. To me that is very important.

What does it really mean when we have a notwithstanding clause in our Constitution and in our Charter of Rights and Freedoms? It means that our minorities really have no protection vis-à-vis the majority. It means that the minorities are subject to the rule of the majority. The notwithstanding clause becomes a contradiction to the very reason for the charter in the first place.

Those of us who argued in favour of the charter, including Prime Minister Trudeau, said that we must have a charter entrenched in our Constitution to protect minorities of different kinds against the rule of majorities in cases where fear often is demonstrated, where all of a sudden in certain situations people want to trample over the rights of the minorities. He said that we could not leave that to ordinary legislation, that we must recognize basic principles and put them beyond the rule of the majority. However if a notwithstanding clause is included that is contradicting what is being done in the first place. You are giving with one hand and then taking away with the other.

To me that is hypocrisy. You really do not have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms if a legislature can pass a law using the notwithstanding clause, using the words "notwithstanding the rights and freedoms we are legislating as follows". You really do not have protection and that is what was supposed to be done in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. However you are giving with one hand and taking away with the other. It becomes a farce. It can even become mob rule. That is, the mob, the majority when they want to act, they act regardless of the basic rights of the minorities in society.

I had the privilege of being educated at law school by Frank R. Scott, one of the great Canadian professors of law and one of the great civil rights lawyers in our entire history. He was able to challenge two laws Quebec Premier Duplessis passed in the post-war period.

One was a law to ban the Jehovah Witnesses. Frank Scott with others was able to have that law overturned. We did not have the Charter of Rights and Freedoms in those days. However because he was a very imaginative lawyer he was able to do it by referring to other parts of the Constitution.

Then Premier Duplessis passed a law called the padlock act. It allowed him to put locks on the doors of anybody suspected of being a Communist. I have no sympathy for Communists. The point is if it can be done for the Communists, it can be done for the Reform Party, the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party or any other party if you do not like them and you are allowed to pass a law banning a political party. Again, Frank Scott was able to win without the charter.

However I put this to the House. If there had been a charter with the notwithstanding clause and Frank Scott had won in the Supreme Court of Canada, Mr. Duplessis would simply go back to his legislature and say: "Notwithstanding the Supreme Court of Canada, notwithstanding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we are once again going to ban the Jehovah Witnesses. We are once again going to ban a political party".

When it was introduced and agreed to by my own party and our own government, it was said we were agreeing to it to get the package through. It was said that it would never be used and if it was going to be used, it would be rare.

It has been used several times. It has been used in Saskatchewan; it has been used in Quebec to override the Supreme Court of Canada and to override other rulings of the court with respect to the charter.

I ask Quebecers in particular to consider that if the legislature of Quebec can do it for language in that province, then another province can do it for language as well. If it can be done for language, it can be done for religion. If it can be done for religion, it can be done for equality between the races.

Once you agree to do it, then one day you cannot say to the guy in the next province or to this Parliament that it should not be done for that when you have done it yourself. You cannot pick and choose on this kind of thing.

Imagine what the situation would have been if the United States had a notwithstanding clause. I know it took a long time but it was finally in 1954 in the famous Brown case that the discrimination laws against blacks in the United States were finally struck down. They were laws that were enforced in several of the southern states that said that blacks must sit in the back of the bus, that said that blacks had to sit in a certain part of a cinema, that said that blacks could not go into certain parks, that they could not live in certain districts, that they could not go to certain schools.

It was the constitution of the United States. It took a long while in American history but finally they won in 1954 by gathering together the funds necessary to challenge those laws. They won in the Supreme Court of the United States in that very famous case, the Brown case.

Can members imagine if they had a notwithstanding clause in the American constitution and Mississippi, Alabama, Georgia or any of those states could simply say that despite the Supreme Court of the United States, too bad, they are going to legislate exactly what they had in the first place. The constitution of the United States would not mean anything. That would be ridiculous. It is ridiculous in most countries. The notwithstanding clause was accepted as a political compromise and it was unfortunate and wrong.

During the discussions on the Charlottetown accord there was discussion as to whether the committee of which I was a member, the Beaudoin-Dobbie committee-it was Castonguay at one point-should make recommendations against the notwithstanding clause.

We debated it at great length and finally we left it aside, much to my dismay, on the grounds that while the notwithstanding clause is not correct in principle there was no chance we could get the provinces to agree, therefore we should not waste our time pursuing something that we could not get agreement on. I say that was unfortunate.

There are other people who will argue that the last word must always be with the political people, the elected people. I can remember an NDP premier of Saskatchewan, Allan Blakeney, whom I respect for other things. He took that point of view.

Legislatures and Parliaments in this country are not unlimited. The Constitution Act of 1867 puts limits on us in many respects. There are limits on catholic schools and protestant schools. There are limits on what one can legislate in the provinces and what one can legislate at the federal level.

There are limits with respect to what one can do regarding the monarchy in the country. One cannot legislate in any respect whatever one wants. There have always been limitations. What the charter did was extend those limitations and say that certain rights belong to people and political bodies cannot take them away.

The argument that political bodies should be completely free to do whatever they want or what they think right at any time is not right in principle and it is not acceptable even from a legal point of view.

I want to remind the House that in 1986 at a large national convention after we lost in a devastating way the election of 1984, the Liberal Party passed a resolution by well over 80 per cent of the delegates attending in 1986 in Ottawa, saying exactly what I have in my motion today, that we should take steps to get rid of the notwithstanding clause.

As a matter of fact, the then leader of our party, the Right Hon. John Turner, presented the same motion that I am presenting today. It was in his name until he retired. I have taken up the motion although I have always supported the same point of view.

I am saying that if we are going to have a Charter of Rights and Freedoms on such basic rights as I have described-I would not say the same thing about marginal rights which are important or other types of rights-and that we have in this charter, they should never be subject to suspension.

If one agrees to suspension in one case, then one leaves oneself open a little while down the road to the suspension of other rights whether they be religious rights or language rights or rights to express one's opinions, freely to write what one wants, to form a trade union, or to form a political party.

I ask this House to take this motion seriously. This is not a piece of legislation in itself. It is a motion that will express the view of this Parliament.

During the discussion right up to the Charlottetown accord some people said that we could not get rid of the notwithstanding clause altogether but that maybe we could get agreement on its limitation, maybe we could take it off the equality rights section, perhaps we could take it off the fundamental freedoms section but leave it on the political rights, in other words restrict its ambit of application.

That was one solution proposed. Others said that maybe we could reduce the number of years for which the notwithstanding legislation is valid. As members know, right now when you pass a bill under the notwithstanding clause it is only good for five years and you must do it all over again. They said let us reduce that to three years, two years or whatever.

Then others said maybe we should introduce a two-thirds requirement for its use. If you are going to suspend basic rights in the Constitution with the notwithstanding clause you should at least have to have two-thirds, three-quarters, not the ordinary 51 per cent majority.

If it was impossible to get rid of the clause altogether I would certainly accept those kind of compromises. I think they would go some distance in reducing the concern that the many minorities in this country have.

Let me say this is a country of minorities. You look at the House we have today, we come from many parts of the world, we come from many linguistic backgrounds, many racial backgrounds, many religious backgrounds. It is not as it was in 1867 when we were basically catholics, protestants, we were all white

and we were either had French or British background. Today we are of many many backgrounds. We are all minorities.

I think we would do ourselves well to declare ourselves on this. It is not to pass a law but it would show where this new Parliament stands on basic rights and freedoms and we would be saying loud and clear that these rights are our rights forever and a day and they cannot be suspended by any simple majority of a Parliament of Canada or a legislature of a province.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:20 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to motion M-239, introduced by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, which requests withdrawal of section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of 1982, the notwithstanding clause, also known in Quebec as the "clause nonobstant".

Need I recall that the legislation we are discussing, the 1982 Canadian Charter, was passed by the Imperial Parliament in Westminster, after a debate in this House where the majority of Quebecers-there were a few exceptions-supported the request made to the Imperial Parliament?

In fact, there was more opposition to the Constitution Act, 1982, in the Imperial Parliament in Westminster than in this House. Westminster ratified this legislation, despite two memoranda by the Government of Quebec which vigorously objected to the process and also despite a resolution supported by both parties then represented in the Quebec National Assembly, the Parti québécois and the Liberal Party of Quebec, with only six members voting against the resolution.

What we have now is legislation that may have its merits but is fundamentally flawed in terms of the process that was imposed on us to adopt it. The government amended Canada's Constitution and removed Quebec's right to legislate on language matters, a right guaranteed by section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, by what was always defined as a pact between the two founding peoples. What a fallacy, Mr. Speaker!

Section 23 of the Constitution Act, 1982, ratified in London and amended in a Parliament on the other side of the Atlantic, amended section 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867, by restricting the powers of the Quebec National Assembly with respect to language in Quebec, and in many respects it was this section that caused so much trouble. How ironic that we should have to go to London to amend the Canadian Constitution and to incorporate in the constitutional amending formula provisions that, if they had existed in 1982, would have made it impossible to amend section 23 with respect to the powers of Quebec.

They asked London to do the dirty work, so that would be the end of it. This is a strange interpretation of democracy. And with all due respect for the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, who referred to decisions by the courts in Quebec and especially to Mr. Duplessis, I think we should not forget that in this trilogy of judgments made in the fifties, in Saumur versus the City of Quebec, the Switsman case and the Roncareli case, the Supreme Court of Canada came down on the side of those who defended civil rights and quashed the laws passed by the Legislative Assembly and Legislature of Quebec which restricted individual rights and freedoms. The rights of the Jehovah's Witnesses were recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada. The padlock act, passed by the Legislative Assembly and Legislature of Quebec, was declared null and void.

But where was the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in 1970, when this House passed the War Measures Act which provided for arrests without a warrant and arbitrary detention of Canadian citizens? Government by decree, that is exactly what they did in 1970, and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce voted in favour of this odious piece of legislation, which was last used in World War I. Was he there to defend the rights of Quebecers, when 500 were jailed without a warrant and could be detained for up to six months without trial? In most cases they received no compensation, or very little. Some people lost their jobs, their families and the love and respect of their friends. Where was the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce then? Perhaps he should tell us someday.

However, I understand some of the frustrations of the hon. member which are probably connected with Bill 178, passed by the Quebec National Assembly and proposed by the Liberal Premier of Quebec, Mr. Bourassa, which created two language categories in Quebec, one language which could be posted inside and another outside. There is nothing wrong with being able to post signs in one's own language. Bill 178 was highly questionable because it seemed to make English a language that had to be used furtively. And that should certainly not be the case.

Getting back to the crux of the matter, since these precautions were taken, section 33, the famous notwithstanding clause, allows us to interpret the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It allows parliamentarians to interpret the Charter and, depending on the circumstances, to ask themselves this: Should we or can we distance ourselves from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

At the federal level, the decision to do so is made by the houses of the federal parliament, while at the provincial level, it is made by the members of the legislatures. The decision is only valid for five years. It is a serious matter which must be studied each time and the decision that is reached is valid for a period of five years, which enables the legislator to have the final word. However, when it comes to justifying the use of the notwithstanding clause to the Canadian and provincial electorates, the

burden will fall to federal and provincial members of Parliament. And there may indeed be circumstances where the application of the notwithstanding clause is justifiable. For example, it may be justified in the case of political party funding where the sky is virtually the limit when it comes to contributions.

Perhaps a notwithstanding clause will be referred to this Parliament, thereby making it possible to adjust today's reality to the deeply felt wishes of Canadian and Quebec society. Perhaps. There are cases. In any event, when there is a charter of rights or constitutional provision, such as the constitutional amendments to the constitution of the United States, there is no notwithstanding clause. The U.S. constitution does not contain one and the legislator is bound by his own constitutional provisions which must be upheld.

The offshoot of this, however, is that if the legislator cannot do the job, the courts will do it. The courts take on the task, from time to time, of defining that which, in their opinion, is acceptable at a given point in time, based on how a society evolves. Over the decades and even the centuries now, the Supreme Court of the United States has not been shy about interpreting differently various provisions of the amendments to the American Constitution that guarantee certain rights associated with certain fundamental freedoms.

I much prefer to have this discretionary power exercised by elected officials as in our country who must go before their constituents at least every five years, rather than by unelected judges who cannot be removed and are not accountable to anyone, since this is basically a political act. If we want to take politics out of Parliament and put it in the courts, the proposal of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce should be accepted. If political debates should go on in our stately courtrooms, let us adopt the motion presented by the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce, but if we want political issues to be settled here in the House of Commons or in the Quebec National Assembly or in the provincial legislatures, please do not pass a motion like this one.

Passing Motion No. 239 would be compounding the wrong done to us Quebecers in 1982, which came on top of the insult we had to put up with in October 1970, let me remind the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce in closing.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Excuse me. I wonder if the hon. member has not completed his remarks, perhaps he could have unanimous consent to do so. Has the hon. member for Bellechasse finished?

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

I think that this is a debate about the kind of society we want which could go on for years, Mr. Speaker. If you wish, give the floor to the hon. member for Chambly, who could use up my speaking time.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

I would ask hon. members if there is unanimous consent to give the hon. member five minutes to complete his remarks? Do hon. members agree? I know that it is a very important subject. Can the hon. member for Bellechasse have more time to complete his remarks?

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Bloc

François Langlois Bloc Bellechasse, QC

To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to give the floor for the rest of my time to the hon. member for Chambly.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The hon. member's time has expired. Members who follow the member who presented this motion have ten minutes each.

I think that two other members wish to speak. No, four members want to talk on this. Can we share the time, perhaps seven or eight minutes each?

I now give the floor to the hon. member for Edmonton Southwest.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:30 p.m.

Reform

Ian McClelland Reform Edmonton Southwest, AB

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.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

The Acting Speaker

Before I recognize the hon. member for Chambly, I would like to inform the House that there is enough time remaining for two members to speak for 10 minutes apiece.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Bloc

Ghislain Lebel Bloc Chambly, QC

Mr. Speaker, I am truly outraged by the motion of the hon. member for Notre-Dame-De-Grâce.

A brief overview of the events of 1982 will make it clear to him that Quebec has always been opposed to the unilateral patriation of the Constitution and to the passage of laws overseas by a foreign country for the purpose of muzzling Quebec and taking away from it the only powers it had left as far as language was concerned.

In the National Assembly, Quebecers in both parties opposed these measures. Now, twelve years later, is the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce trying to hammer the final nail into the coffin of the French language in Quebec? I have to say that this is not very far from the truth.

Quebec will never agree to the removal of such measures as the notwithstanding clause. All the more so because at the present time, the provisions of Quebec's education laws are being extended. Five laws are currently being debated in the National Assembly and the notwithstanding clause will be continued because it reflects the very essence of Quebecers and their existence in Quebec. If the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce has not yet understood this after 25 or 30 years in politics, then I wonder what he is doing here.

Mr. Speaker, this is not a negotiable issue as far as we are concerned. Nor will it ever be. I do not need 10 minutes to tell you that it will never fly in Quebec. If we have to, we will fight you on this tooth and nail.

Constitution Act, 1982Private Members' Business

6:35 p.m.

Reform

Mike Scott Reform Skeena, BC

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak on the motion before us. I must say I have listened with a great deal of interest to some of the arguments presented by my friend in the Reform caucus, members of the Official Opposition and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce who moved the motion. I agree with the member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce that the notwithstanding clause in the Constitution is a fundamental and, some might say, fatal flaw which emasculates the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The override clause is contradictory to the idea of inalienable rights. On the one hand the charter says that the people of Canada have inalienable rights. On the other hand they can be taken away by legislation when the government chooses. That is a fundamental contradiction. It actually puts us in a position where we do not have a final set of inalienable rights that cannot be taken away from us at the whim of government.

I want to talk about some of the ramifications of this point and then talk about some other flaws in the charter. As I said earlier, the government can suspend specific rights granted in the charter at its whim. Governments are usually elected with only a plurality of the vote and very seldom by a majority. Even when they are elected with a majority, the majority is giving them that endorsement on election day for a variety of reasons but often not specifically so that they have the legislative authority to take away fundamental rights.

I could use my home province of British Columbia as an example. In the last election its government was elected with 38 per cent of the popular vote. Now it is in a position to use legislative power to suspend charter rights in British Columbia if it so chooses, even though it were only elected with 38 per cent of the popular vote. At this point its popularity has gone down, not up. As we sit here today the Government of British Columbia probably enjoys less than 25 per cent support among the people.

Again I say this is a fundamental flaw in the charter. It gives a government which enjoys very low popular support the ability to override fundamental rights in the charter. I consider that to be anti-democratic. It is very anti-democratic at its very roots. I therefore concur that the override provision in the charter is not in the interests of the people.

The mover of the motion has gone. I wanted to ask him some questions. The way the process evolved that brought us the charter was flawed in itself. That is the reason we have problems with the charter. The framers of the charter never consulted in a meaningful way with the people. There was no opportunity for Canadians to come out and express their opinion on the charter. Whether they agreed with it or disagreed with it or whether they

wanted changes, it was framed by a group of elite politicians in a power brokering deal between the federal government and the provinces with very little if any opportunity for the people to put forward their points of view.