Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the minister's remarks. He kept implying that to use the notwithstanding clause was a negative and somehow dirty thing.
Coming from Saskatchewan where in the days of constitutional negotiations and so forth with Pierre Trudeau, my understanding was that the NDP premier of Saskatchewan, Mr. Alan Blakeney, was one of the people who pushed for this for various reasons. One of the reasons may have been the health care ruling we saw from the Supreme Court where three of the justices referred to the national charter of rights and four of the justices referred to the Quebec charter of rights. However, listening to the minister speak, he continued to imply that using the notwithstanding clause was a bad thing.
The Prime Minister himself has said that under certain circumstances he would use the notwithstanding clause and that with the ruling of the Supreme Court it may be necessary to use the notwithstanding clause to protect a one tier public medicare system.
Does the minister disagree with the Prime Minister because the Prime Minister has backed the use of the notwithstanding clause in certain circumstances? Does he criticize the province of Quebec which has repeatedly, for language legislation, used the notwithstanding clause? Other provinces have, including my home province of Saskatchewan for one piece. Does he disagree with all those uses and criticize every use of the notwithstanding clause including the protection of medicare?
If we are to be consistent, we must be either completely opposed to the notwithstanding clause or we must actually think that it is a part of the charter of rights, which it is, and a part of our Constitution. We should embrace the entirety of the charter of rights and not merely pick and choose different parts.
So, my question again, which is it? Is he completely opposed to the notwithstanding clause or is he opposed to his own leader's position on it?