Mr. Speaker, let me begin by acknowledging the central role of the current Prime Minister in achieving the adoption of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is fair to say that no other minister, including the late Mr. Trudeau, played a more vigorous role.
It is appropriate that the Prime Minister, in turn, has acknowledged the impact of parliament on the charter—not just in the extensive hearings and debate, which he mentioned, but in forcing upon the government amendments respecting the equality of men and women, and aboriginal rights.
The manner in which the patriation and other constitutional changes, including the charter, were achieved, was profoundly divisive. Je me souviens.
The supreme court found that the government broke the constitutional conventions of the country. The imposition of those changes fuelled the sentiment of independence in Quebec. That, too, is part of the legacy of April 17.
The charter was a landmark in our law. For many Canadians it is part of the definition of our country.
It is important to remember that the principles of the charter run much deeper than the law passed in 1982. However imperfectly we have achieved the goal, Canada is a society that has always aimed to respect both the rights of individuals and the reality of our communities. They are unquestionably part of the promise and the aspiration that drew people here from around the world in search of freedom and respect.
The charter reflects that tradition, as did Mr. Diefenbaker's bill of rights before it. The test for us today is to step beyond celebrating anniversaries and ensure that respect for the defining values of Canadian democracy is reflected in our actions.
We should address the tension between the role of parliament in passing laws and the role of the courts in interpreting the charter. The most recent instance is the Sharpe decision in British Columbia.
One way to do that, as we have proposed, is to require parliament, before it passes legislation, to receive independent legal advice on the impact of the charter on that legislation.
Another reform would be to provide that, if a law is struck down by the courts, it should be referred immediately to a parliamentary committee that would recommend what action, if any, parliament should take.
The most significant change in a time when unquestionably the power of the courts is increasing would be to also increase the power of parliament to act independently of the government and to hold the government accountable here in this place.
The rights guaranteed by the charter itself could also be extended to protect the right to privacy and to protect the right to property. These are issues that fell by the wayside in 1982. Parliament should consider them unfinished business.
These would not be easy changes, but neither was it easy to introduce the charter or to amend and improve it 20 years ago. Governments can initiate as well as celebrate. The best way to commemorate the rights and freedoms of Canadians would be to extend them.