Debates of Sept. 23rd, 2025

Opposition Motion—Constitutional Powers of Quebec and the Provinces

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I understand what the member is saying, but he made reference to it. It is important that we remember the Standing Orders. I know the member has a lot of experience in the House and knows that.

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

May it please the Chair, I would like to withdraw my papers.

[The Deputy Speaker, Tom Kmiec]

I thank the member for Mirabel for his understanding.

Questions and comments, the hon. member for Bourassa.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I see that my remarks shocked the members on the other side of the House. That was not my intention.

I simply want to say that, while they do not really have the exclusive right to speak on behalf of Quebeckers, neither do we, but we were still elected by Quebeckers who sent us here.

I do, however, want to point out one thing on which we agree. There is at least one. It is that we need to debate. The problem with these laws that my colleague mentioned is that they were imposed and there was no debate. That is what is important in a free society.

My question for my colleague is this. One of my constituents is a single mother with three children who wears a veil and is not allowed to teach. What should I say to her?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would first like to stress one thing. We lost seats in the last election. We lose some, we win some. Sometimes it goes up, sometimes it goes down. This teaches us a lesson in humility. I make this appeal to my colleague.

We in the Bloc Québécois have come here to table a motion from the Quebec National Assembly. When a Liberal member rises on an opposition day and tables in the House a unanimous motion of the National Assembly to debate it, then we will talk. We will talk about the representativeness of the Quebec legislature. As the Speaker said, I have a lot of experience in the House; that is his assessment. However, I have never seen this happen. This appeal to humility applies to everyone.

Furthermore, a law passed is not a law imposed. There is no law that has unanimous support in civil society. There is no law that everyone agrees on. That is why we debate it again, vote on it again and have elections. There will be elections in Quebec in the fall of next year. I encourage my colleague to stand up for his convictions, and that is what I would say to his constituent.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I am sensitive to when the member says the Quebec legislature or parliament passed a motion unanimously. The unanimous passage of motions in provincial legislatures occurs. In Manitoba, unanimous resolutions are passed.

Is the member conceding that if any legislature in the province unanimously passes a motion, it should become national policy?

Do I not represent Manitobans to the same degree as when I was an MLA for just under 20 years? I would argue that I do. We have a national interest and we have provincial interests, and sometimes they might be a little different.

Would the member not agree that we are not in a position, as members of Parliament, to agree with every unanimous motion that passes in every different provincial or territorial legislature?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, our time might be put to better use if we debated these motions. I would like my colleague to table documents in the House. I would like him to table the Hansard for the day that the House recognized the Manitoba nation. I do not know when it took place. This Parliament recognized Quebec as a nation while the member's own government, which has not changed in 10 years, was right here.

Second, when we bring motions here that were unanimously adopted by the National Assembly, our purpose is not for the will of Quebec to become federal policy, rather than “national” policy. Some vocabulary problems exist on both sides of the House. The idea is for Ottawa to step back and let Quebec manage its own affairs, while the federal government does the same.

The question itself shows that the parliamentary secretary has no grasp of Quebec's reality.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I sincerely want to congratulate my friend and colleague on his passionate speech. I would like him to tell us, what exactly are notwithstanding clauses, also known as parliamentary sovereignty clauses?

We know that the Quebec Court of Appeal upheld the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding or parliamentary sovereignty clause in Bill 21. At the Supreme Court, there was the Ford decision. The difference this time is that the Supreme Court is being asked to overturn its clear jurisprudence.

What does my colleague think about that?

[Jean-Denis Garon, Bloc, Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal government may not be MAGA, but I think it is populist. It has a lack of respect for the institutions that have been established, a lack of respect for provincial legislatures, a lack of respect for the law, a lack of respect for the Constitution and a lack of respect for precedents.

I think that needs to change.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, Ottawa talks about national unity when it is convenient, but becomes divisive and paternalistic as soon as Quebec asserts its uniqueness and its choices. When faced with Washington's tariffs or the threat of American annexation, we are called upon to join forces. However, as soon as the external threat is averted, Ottawa turns against Quebec to challenge its democratic choices and undermine its institutions.

Today, it is not just a law that is being targeted, but the very heart of Quebec's democracy. Ottawa is attacking Quebec's secularism law by seeking to restrict and weaken the notwithstanding clause, even render it meaningless. This is not the first time we have debated this issue. In February 2023, the Bloc Québécois tabled a very simple motion: “That the House remind the government that it is solely up to Quebec and the provinces to decide on the use of the notwithstanding clause.” This motion did not ask for approval of Bill 21 or for a decision on secularism. It simply asked for recognition of a fact. However, the Liberals, NDP and Greens voted against it. They refused to acknowledge this reality. That is the whole story, the true story.

The Supreme Court has already ruled on this issue. In the 1988 Ford decision, the Court recognized that the National Assembly of Quebec has complete freedom to invoke the notwithstanding clause. It can do so pre-emptively without waiting for legislation to be struck down. Furthermore, the courts cannot rule on the merits, only on the form. The invocation must be clear and explicit. It is written in black and white. The notwithstanding clause belongs to the elected representatives. It is up to Quebec to decide for itself and on its own behalf.

Secularism is not a partisan whim. It is a deep-seated consensus, confirmed since the Bouchard-Taylor commission. All polls indicate that a clear majority of Quebeckers support Bill 21. This legislation was not born out of a sudden impulse, but rather out of a long social debate. It expresses the democratic will of an entire people. It is this choice that Ottawa is seeking to undermine by attacking the very tool that allows us to protect it.

In his September 17 factum to the Supreme Court, the Attorney General of Canada had the nerve to claim that the use of the notwithstanding clause could lead to slavery, arbitrary execution or the banning of newspapers. These are not arguments; they are caricatures. This is what Ottawa thinks of Quebec democracy and its elected officials: that they would degenerate without the oversight of federal judges.

The notwithstanding clause is not an abuse. It is an integral part of the Canadian Constitution. It was even the compromise that allowed the provinces to accept the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms in 1981. In fact, it was Pierre Elliott Trudeau, a Liberal, who had to include it in order to get their agreement. Members will recall that he said that he was not afraid of the notwithstanding clause and that it is the elected representatives of the people who have the last word, not the courts.

This notwithstanding clause works. It allows a parliament duly elected by the people to temporarily exempt a law from the courts. In other words, it puts the decision back in the hands of citizens. If a government abuses it, it will pay the price at the polls. That is the real limit: democracy. Forty years later, these same Liberals are the ones who decided to destroy what they had put in place earlier. The current Prime Minister is following in the destructive footsteps of Justin Trudeau and the centralist Liberal Party.

Let us not forget that, thanks to the notwithstanding clause, Quebec has been able to make progress not only in terms of language and identity, but also in social matters. Here are a few examples. Small claims court, access to justice for all, was made possible by the notwithstanding clause. The Act Respecting Equal Access to Employment in Public Bodies was a step towards greater social justice. The Youth Protection Act, which ensures the protection of children's anonymity, is guaranteed by the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause is not the exception; it is democracy in action.

Make no mistake, this is not just about Quebec. Five provinces, namely Manitoba, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Ontario and British Columbia, will take the same position before the Supreme Court. The Liberal government is attacking not only Bill 21, but also the parliamentary sovereignty of all the provinces.

Above all, secularism is not a Quebec fantasy. France, Belgium, Germany, Austria and Denmark regulate the display of religious symbols in state institutions. The European Court of Human Rights has confirmed this on numerous occasions. In short, when it comes to secularism, Quebec is a normal nation. Canada is the outlier, and it has been so for a long time.

Since 1982, it has always been the same story: repatriation without us, the failures of Meech and Charlottetown, challenges to Bill 101. Today, it is Bill 21, and soon it will be Bill 96. Every time Quebec wants to move forward, Ottawa changes the rules or imposes its judges. Every time, we hit the same wall. We are at a dead end.

The question is simple: Who decides for Quebec? Is it the National Assembly, made up of elected members who derive their legitimacy from the people of Quebec, or the Supreme Court appointed by Ottawa, interpreting a Constitution that we have never ratified? Ottawa chooses its judges while Quebec chooses its elected officials: that is the difference.

As long as we remain strapped in this straitjacket, our collective choices will remain fragile, disputed and precarious. The only normal outcome for a normal nation is national independence, not against Canada, but for Quebec.

Independence is the peaceful expression of a people that wants to decide for itself. Like all nations, as Lucien Bouchard used to say, Quebec is tired of always being told no. If Quebeckers keep being told no, they will eventually say yes, yes to our national destiny.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, throughout the day, I have found that if we want to promote and encourage healthy debate on the issue, we should be looking at it, in a very serious fashion, from the perspective that it is not all about Quebec. The notwithstanding clause is about the Parliament of Canada and any provincial or territorial jurisdiction.

The Bloc insists on wanting to make it about Quebec, but I believe it is not about Quebec. There are rights within the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms that concern all Canadians, no matter what region of the nation they might be in. I think that is where we should focus the debate.

Should a province or the federal government be able to use the notwithstanding clause consistently and extend it if it is about to expire, thereby marginalizing the potential effect of Canada's rights and freedoms?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague is on the wrong track.

In my speech, I mentioned that this also has to do with other provinces. Other provinces have used the notwithstanding clause throughout history. I invite him to read the Ford decision, which states that there is no danger in using the notwithstanding clause. I would also remind him that, historically, the notwithstanding clause has been used for more than 100 pieces of legislation. It has been in place for 43 years.

Now, the government is filing a factum, through the Attorney General, as part of a challenge to a Quebec law, Bill 21. That is why we are pushing this issue so hard. The truth that my colleague does not want to say aloud is that the Liberal government is afraid of losing political points by attacking Bill 21 directly. It is going through the back door and using the courts so it can say that it is not the one challenging Bill 21 directly, but rather, it is the Supreme Court judges. We are not stupid enough to fall for that.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to hear my colleague's thoughts on what André Binette, a constitutional lawyer, has written. He points out that the notwithstanding clause first appeared in Canadian law in the Canadian Bill of Rights, a federal statute passed by John Diefenbaker's government in 1960. Yes, he was a defender of individual freedoms but, coming from western Canada, he was also a fervent admirer of British institutions. Parliamentary sovereignty, which emerged from the British Glorious Revolution of 1688, a century before the French Revolution, was for him a legacy of civilization.

What does my hon. colleague and friend think?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his question and for that softball question.

Here is another example. In Diefenbaker's charter, Canada had a notwithstanding clause. That was in the 1960s. He was the one who implemented the charter that included the notwithstanding clause. That was the deal.

Today, the Liberals do not agree with the Quebec model's vision of its language, interculturalism and secularism. They decided to change the rules of the game, to go through the back door, to appoint judges to the Superior Court, to take over the courts and tell them that their legislation is invalid.

We are simply asking them to grow a backbone and to show a little courage. If they want to debate the Constitution, we are prepared to do so, even though we never signed it.

[Abdelhaq Sari, Liberal, Bourassa, QC]

Mr. Speaker, there has been a lot of talk about minority issues. There is a lot of talk about the court and the 125 MNAs in Quebec.

It is also important to note that what is happening now is that this law was imposed on a minority in Quebec, and it is this minority that is turning to the courts.

My question is simple. Do these people have the right to challenge the law in this way and to turn to Canada to challenge this law?

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski—La Matapédia, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I gather that my colleague from Bourassa is openly against the laicity law. I will read him my prepared answer.

Laicity is not a threat to religious minorities; it protects them all equally. The notwithstanding clause is not an aberration; it is a tool provided in the Constitution to enable elected officials, not judges appointed by Ottawa, to rule on matters of societal debate.

The real danger is not laicity. The real danger is a federal government that would prevent Quebec and the provinces from exercising their democratic rights. I would remind my colleague that laicity is a defining feature of the great western democracies. Only in Canada is it not.

I would invite my colleague to listen to my speech again. I named all the countries that embrace the principles of laicity.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Industry]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this debate. I will be sharing my time with the member for Ajax.

I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to this Bloc Québécois motion.

I will talk a bit about my history as a child of the charter. In our caucus, several newly elected members are children of the charter. I believe that is also the case across the way.

I was born to immigrant parents from Egypt and England. They arrived in Newfoundland in 1974 and then settled in New Brunswick. I am the only member of my family who was born in Canada.

I was six years old when the charter was proclaimed. A lot of us on this side of the House were not party to the debates described in this House, but we experienced the effects of it. In particular, in my case and in my family's case, we enjoyed the language protections that were afforded in the Constitution based on previous fights, in particular that of the government of Louis Robichaud, which in the 1960s established the equality of French and English in New Brunswick.

I know that some of my colleagues on this side of the House had this benefit, but being a child of the charter, I had the chance to go to an English-language school, with French-language schools fully protected later through the charter. However, there was an effect that came from the charter being in our lives. One thing that was important, combined with the official languages of New Brunswick, was that in English-language schools, there was a priority on French-language education and French immersion.

Francophone students, Acadian students in particular, had their own schools that were well protected by the charter. Where I lived, it was half anglophone, half francophone. For anglophones, there was an anglophone school, where the French language and the French fact in New Brunswick and in Canada were recognized.

Some of my other colleagues on this side of the House and I took it upon ourselves to enjoy the fruits of the charter and to see ourselves reflected in this new reality, this new set of values that was being experienced in Canada, a Canada of equal rights where the march for rights continued year after year. We experienced this despite the fights that were happening and despite the very real wounds that were experienced in the fight of 1982 and in the fights previously. A number of us on this side of the House, like my colleague who is going to be speaking, came of age around the same time and perhaps politically came of age around the same time, experiencing this in the eighties.

When we were in our twenties, we saw on television, in demonstrations or in politicians or our own leaders, that the fight was ongoing.

Whether it was the Meech Lake accord or the Charlottetown accord, we experienced decades of constitutional challenges.

I arrived in Quebec in 1993 to study art at McGill University, where a person could take courses in French and answer in English. That was where I took a course with Alain-Gustave Gagnon. We read up on the discoveries of Guy Rocher and his memoirs.

I noticed that the leader of the Bloc Québécois, the member for Beloeil—Chambly, gave a great speech on Mr. Rocher's recent death.

Those of us on this side of the House try to reach across the aisle, and at that time, I was able to get a better understanding of what this constitutional battle was about. There was Bill 101, which resulted in real gains on behalf of Quebecers, and we had the use of the notwithstanding clause, which became a serialized use of it. I remember that in my engagements with this issue, this was a surprising thing to me. As someone who understood the charter in a certain context and that the notwithstanding clause had a certain role, I was surprised that it was being used in this way.

At the same time that the notwithstanding clause was being used by the Government of Quebec—a provincial Liberal government at that—the charter continued to evolve.

The use of section 1 became one of the ways in which we could achieve a balance between parliamentary supremacy and the protection of rights. Despite the use of section 1, there was an evolution toward more and more rights protection, and there was an evolution toward the understanding of minority rights protections in particular. The equality rights under section 7, as we discovered through the charter's interpretation in a variety of courts, were about a slow expansion of rights to recognized groups that had not been previously explicitly enumerated in section 7.

I noticed that the expansion of rights at the time of this legal interpretation often followed protests and social movements that started in Quebec.

The social movements in Quebec were a key part of the way in which our understanding of the rights grew under section 7 of the Constitution. I am thinking of collective bargaining rights, gender and sexual rights, and all rights under some of the other freedoms that we understand, particularly under section 7 and under section 2. Those fights were led by Quebec social movements. Again, when we had this understanding of the charter, notwithstanding the very important historical basis on which the Bloc has raised its concerns about the original implementation of the charter, we had this dialogue among different groups in Canada that allowed us to discover and see the emergence of rights. This is something that is in a very strict space of constitutional interpretation, which the member for Québec Centre explained very well.

Where are we now? We are in a situation in which we have a constitutional issue that is before the Supreme Court, with lots of interest. There are 13 appellants, I understand, and more than 60 interveners. We have the use of the notwithstanding clause in a more aggressive fashion in a number of provinces, including pre-emptively. It does not necessarily take a lot for some members of this House, on this side of the aisle anyway, to rise to attend a protest, but the use of the notwithstanding clause on Bill 124 in Ontario, which put a severe limit on collective bargaining rights, led me to the lawn of Queen's Park to say that this was wrong. The progress we are making with respect to the rights that are guaranteed under the charter faces a risk under the serial use of the notwithstanding clause.

I will be opposing this motion because I believe that, on this side of the House, we are the party of the charter. We are the party that is for standing for Canada. If the shoe were on the other foot and the Government of Canada passed a law that tried to limit some of the rights that were felt to be in existence in Quebec, if this Parliament threatened to or used the notwithstanding clause in that process, I would hope the Government of Quebec would indeed present its litigation and not withdraw its memo as is being asked of us by the Bloc. I believe that this party on this side stands in the interest of continuing to advance rights. That is why I will be opposing this motion.

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette—Manawan, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to sincerely congratulate the hon. parliamentary secretary on his speech, much of which was delivered in French. I think that is a first for him in the House, so I applaud and congratulate him. I have the pleasure of serving with him on the Standing Committee on Industry and Technology, where we are doing very constructive work, at least from my perspective, so far.

I really enjoyed hearing his life story, the journey that led him to take a stand on the topic of today's debate. I find that very interesting. However, I would like to hear his reaction to the comments made by the late Benoît Pelletier, who was a constitutional law professor in Ottawa and a Liberal member of the Quebec National Assembly. He justified the importance of the notwithstanding clause by saying that it “allows...legislatures to have the final say on various social and political issues on some occasions, rather than leaving it to the judiciary.”

I would like to hear the hon. parliamentary secretary's thoughts on that.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the member for Joliette's comments.

I think my opinion is consistent with the notice and factum that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada submitted. We need to know what constitutes reasonable limits for the notwithstanding clause.

The notwithstanding clause is in the charter. It is in the Constitution. I think the appropriate question is, what are the appropriate limits of this? Let us take the understanding of the charter and the Constitution as a living tree.

I do not know how translatable this is, but, if we imagine the Constitution as a living tree, I think daily use of the notwithstanding clause in a way that could jeopardize the collective rights people fought for—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, John Nater]

I have to interrupt the hon. member to go to the next question.

The hon. member for Elgin—St. Thomas—London South.

[Andrew Lawton, Conservative, Elgin—St. Thomas—London South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the thoughtful engagement of my hon. colleague opposite with respect to this issue. However, I have to point out a glaring question. I have spoken to thousands and thousands of constituents, and not one single person has raised this issue as being their top priority.

The number of people who have said they are fed up with the way that crime has run rampant after the last 10 years of Liberal government is astronomical, as are the numbers of people who say they cannot afford the cost of groceries and they want the government to get serious about that and people who talk about the need to get serious about immigration and to rein in what has become a reckless and dangerous approach to public policy.

Therefore, I wonder why the Liberal government members have decided to engage in this distraction, engaging in division and generating a national unity crisis bordering on a constitutional crisis instead of tackling the issues Canadians are truly seeking them to act on.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, when one stands for rights, one has to stand for them when it is unpopular. One has to stand for rights when no one else is looking. It may be the case that the residents of the hon. member's riding are not plugged into this issue, and that may be the case for the residents of most of the ridings on this side of the aisle as well.

The question is, are we going to be defending those rights? The question is, would this use of the notwithstanding clause be normalised in a way that is concerning? On this side of the House, we have some concerns with that.

[Marianne Dandurand, Liberal, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, my colleague was interrupted as he was explaining the difference between using the notwithstanding clause and using it pre-emptively. I would like to give him time to finish that thought.

[Karim Bardeesy, Liberal, Taiaiako'n—Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Mr. Speaker, that is exactly how it is used on a daily basis. We have seen this in all democracies.

When we try to limit rights in a way that stops being exceptional, that is when real concerns about what is happening to democracy are likely.

[Jennifer McKelvie, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Housing and Infrastructure]

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in response to a motion calling on the government to fully withdraw from litigation involving Bill 21.

In effect, the motion would have the House agree that the Government of Canada, the government of all Canadians from coast to coast to coast, should not participate in one of the single most important constitutional appeals in recent memory before our Supreme Court. This appeal certainly concerns Quebec legislation directly, but the legal issues it raises, and which the Attorney General of Canada has addressed, are of overarching interest and concern the role of the importance of the charter in our modern system of governance.

At issue at the Supreme Court is what it means when section 33 of the charter is used by Parliament or a provincial legislature. Section 33 of the charter, which is known as the notwithstanding clause, has never been used at the federal level.

Today, I want to speak further about some of the less well-understood ways that governing under the charter supports good governance and better policies and laws. I do this to highlight the thoughtful and considered practices that may be at risk if the use of section 33 is allowed to become more routine and less taboo. The main point I want to make today is that the charter imposes an essential discipline on government policy development and law-making,a discipline that would be lost if resorting to section 33 were to become normalized. Let me explain.

The charter is part of the Constitution, and the Constitution is the supreme law of the land. This means that every law and action of the government must be consistent with the charter. Within a country founded upon principles that include the rule of law, governments must take to heart the need to ensure that the actions they take and the laws they propose respect the charter.

Undoubtedly, governments prior to 1982 were mindful of the values fundamental to a free and democratic Canada, which were ultimately entrenched in the rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter, but after 1982, respecting those values became a matter of constitutional imperative. To be clear, respecting rights and freedoms does not mean never limiting them. The rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter are not absolute. The charter expressly provides for limits in its all-important section 1, which guarantees the rights and freedoms, subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What are these reasonable limits that can be imposed on Canadian rights and freedoms? In essence, the standard boils down to a deceptively simple set of questions. Is the government's objective sufficiently important to justify limiting a right? Is the limit a rational way to achieve that objective? In trying to achieve that objective, does the law use the option that causes the least harm to the right being limited? Finally, if the answer to each of these questions is yes, is the overall harm to the exercise or enjoyment of the right worth it when weighted against the benefits of the rights-limiting measure? If so, then in Canada, we can consider such a limit to be reasonable, and, assuming that a government is well-armed with supporting evidence, logic and reason, demonstrably justifiable as well.

When potential impacts on charter rights and freedoms are identified in the policy development process, governments need to carefully evaluate whether any limits on rights and freedoms are reasonable and can be demonstrably justified in Canada's free and democratic society. As I outlined, this requires asking a series of questions that ultimately go to the reasonableness of what is being considered.

Let us take the first question of whether the government's objective in proposing a new law is sufficiently important to justify limiting a right or freedom. This can prevent governments from proposing trivial or merely symbolic laws that would limit rights and freedoms.

The second question asks whether the proposed way of achieving the government's objective is rational, or in other words, if it is the right tool for the job. This prevents reliance on, for example, common sense that may not be well-founded or well-informed. Saying, for example, that public safety will be enhanced by doing a particular thing does not make it so, especially if the weight of evidence demonstrates that it is not the case. If we are being honest, the evidence-based solutions to some problems are counterintuitive, and governing with an attitude of respect for charter rights and freedoms helps us to realize this and come up with better, more effective approaches.

The third question asks whether there is another effective way to achieve important objectives while doing less harm to a right or freedom. Satisfying this standard means doing the homework on the different options available to advance a goal and choosing the reasonable one that does the least harm to Canada's fundamental values and Canadians' whose rights and freedoms may be limited.

Finally, the last question asks whether the benefits of a proposed law in furthering an important objective outweigh the harms to the exercise and enjoyment of the right or freedom. This is the ultimate cost-benefit assessment, and it is a fundamental one. This element of the section 1 standard prevents laws with marginal benefits that have real impact on Canadians' rights and freedoms. It does not tolerate laws that are dismissive of the rights and freedoms of people who may be unpopular, such as those charged with or being punished for a crime, or laws that fail to properly value the negative effects on members of a minority group who have limited political power and weak or fleeting public sympathy.

I think everyone can agree that the questions the charter requires us to ask when considering a new law are good and proper ones. These questions and the answers to them are posed and assessed through the policy development process, from the initial discussion within a department of options to highlight a problem, through to cabinet's consideration of the options, to the drafting of a bill and finally, in the most important step of Parliament, to debating and enacting a bill.

Weak answers to any of these questions should raise alarm bells and lead to heightened scrutiny and a consideration of alternatives. Having good answers to the questions that the charter requires us all to ask leads to more thoughtful and considered policy and to better laws for all people in Canada. The absence of good answers and the weakness of arguments and evidence leads to poorly developed law, and when that happens, the government should be held accountable for its choices.

However, if section 33 is in play and the Charter of Rights and Freedom does not need to be respected, a government will, for example, be able to say without consequence that a law pursues a purpose that it really does not. A government will be able to assert that a law will have benefits, without any evidence to support that assertion. A government can ignore more rights-respecting approaches to law-making, and a government can discount the interests of a minority group or non-popular group that poses no threat to it at the ballot box. This is what we have to worry about if the use of section 33 becomes normalized in Canada.

Instead of thoughtfully considered, well-reasoned, logical and evidence-based laws that limit rights and freedoms and that are subject to strong checks and balances in the form of judicial review, as is happening before the courts, the use of section 33 does away with this disciplined approach to law-making. The use of section 33 can amount to a raw assertion of power over the rights and freedoms of people in Canada that is directly opposed to the way in which federal governance has worked for over 40 years.

Despite Canada's being one of the best countries in the world in which to live, we are far from perfect. We have made grievous mistakes in the past. Biases, blind spots and prejudices are inherent in human beings and in the institutions we create and operate. This is as true of governments and Parliaments as it is of any other institution in Canada.

These all-too-human tendencies allowed us to think at one time that it was right, good and in the public interest to do several horrible things, including impose a head tax on Chinese immigrants; force generations of indigenous children into residential schools; in 1939, turn away Jewish refugees from Germany on the MS St. Louis; and intern Japanese Canadians during and after the Second World War. As a nation, we have come to regret these decisions, and we have apologized for them. The discipline that the charter imposes on government decision-making and law-making helps to avoid tragedies like these ever happening again in Canada.

What new decisions will we come to regret in the future? If the use of section 33 becomes normalized, we may have more regrets. For the sake of all Canadians, we should not find out. We should all commit to governing while respecting all rights and freedoms guaranteed in the charter. We should commit to resisting the temptation to resort to the unnecessary and extraordinary powers of section 33.