Mr. Speaker, I have no information that would back up the government's statement that it is perfect and that it will adopt only legislation that is constitutionally compliant and respects the Charter of Rights and Freedom.
However, if I simply take that premise and apply good faith to it, governments can adopt legislation that does adhere to our constitution and to our Charter of Rights and Freedom but we all know that the legislation must be interpreted and applied. At times a legislation that is perfectly constitutional and in fact charter proof, is not applied properly. There is a bias on the part possibly of the agent charged with applying it. An example of that is Baker v. Canada, Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, 1999 2 SCR 817, which reads:
Many decisions affecting people in Canada are made by government officials who exercise considerable discretion. This judgment encourages the consideration of human rights values in such determinations.
This case was a challenge by a Jamaican born women who had worked illegally in Canada as a domestic worker for a number of years. She had four children born in Canada and after the birth of her fourth child she suffered postpartum psychosis and was diagnosed as a paranoid schizophrenic. She received treatment at a mental health facility for one year and then applied for landed immigrant status on humanitarian and compassionate grounds.
The agent who had the responsibility of examining her application and determining whether or not to approve it, denied her application and ordered her deported. The immigration officer noted:
She will...be a tremendous strain on our social welfare systems for...the rest of her life.
The Supreme Court stated that it was deciding the case in light of the duty of fairness and the principles of natural justice which govern public officials in their everyday dealings with the public. In reviewing the fairness of the decision making process, the court found that the immigration official showed an impermissible bias against single mothers and women with a psychiatric history. That goes to show why the court challenges program is required.