Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to the motion moved by the member for Rivière-du-Nord, who is my riding neighbour.
To begin with, I want to remind the House that the question raised by this motion is not insignificant. It touches on one of the pillars of our democracy, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which applies to all Canadians. It also raises fundamental concerns related to the interpretation and use of the notwithstanding clause, an exceptional provision of our Constitution.
Our presence before the Supreme Court is not intended to reopen old debates. It is not in any way intended to pit Canada against the provinces or to cast doubt on their legislative authority. Our participation in this appeal is intended to fulfill an important constitutional duty of the federal government: to uphold the rule of law, ensure the integrity of our Constitution, and protect the rights and freedoms we all share as citizens of this country.
There is nothing unusual or unexpected about Canada's participation in the appeal filed by the English Montreal School Board. By supporting the Supreme Court in this case, the government is simply doing what it has always done and will always do, which is to defend all Canadians, as is our responsibility and privilege.
Before going into detail on the case at hand, I would like to review the institutional framework surrounding the federal government's intervention before the Supreme Court. When the court is seized with constitutional and charter issues, the rules require that notice be given to the Attorney General of Canada and provincial attorneys general. In these circumstances, the federal and provincial attorneys general have the power and every right to intervene.
The Attorney General of Canada is frequently called upon to act as an intervener before the Supreme Court. This should come as no surprise. To defend the public interest, the Attorney General must have an opportunity to participate in cases that raise important constitutional issues, ensuring that the constitutionality of laws is fully and properly debated before the courts.
This role helps uphold the rule of law, ensures that the government's actions respect the limits set by the Constitution and the charter, and ultimately ensures that the rights and interests of all Canadians are protected.
I would like to stress the specific role of an intervener before the Supreme Court. As an intervener, Canada's main objective is to make a significant contribution to resolving complex legal issues that have major consequences for all Canadians. The government's goal is not to advocate for a particular outcome or to take a position on the validity of the disputed provincial law. Instead, its goal is to support the court by providing a useful and distinct perspective on the legal matters at hand, based on its constitutional responsibilities and its ability to provide a national and federal perspective on matters before the court.
For example, as a national government, Canada has a major interest in ensuring that the Constitution, the supreme law of the land, is interpreted and applied consistently across the country. As a national government, Canada also has an interest in promoting and protecting national unity, a role grounded in the principle of federalism.
Furthermore, as a national government, we have a clear interest in the rights and freedoms of all Canadians, regardless of where they live. The Attorney General of Canada has an important role to play in ensuring that minority rights are respected consistently throughout the country.
The Supreme Court of Canada has clearly indicated, particularly in the reference to secession, that respect for minorities is one of the underlying principles of the Canadian Constitution. That principle, along with federalism, democracy, constitutionalism and the rule of law, forms the foundation of Canada's constitutional framework.
As we know, this government has shown an unwavering commitment to defending the rights of linguistic minorities across Canada.
I would now like to illustrate how those principles actually apply to the case at hand today, that which involves the English Montreal School Board and other appellants. We have always indicated that, given the nationally important issues that this case raises, we would be there to defend the charter before the Supreme Court of Canada. That is exactly what we are doing today.
To be clear, many questions about how the Constitution is interpreted or applied are at play in this case. Several provinces, in addition to Quebec, as well as some 40 organizations, are already involved in this case, each presenting its own arguments on the issues. To me, that is the clearest indicator that this is a very important debate for our country and our federation.
That is why this government signalled its intention to intervene in this case last March and submitted its brief to the Supreme Court on September 17. In so doing, we are making the Government of Canada's voice heard in a debate that directly affects the interpretation and future of the charter.
This case is not limited to the immediate issues before the court. It touches on fundamental freedoms and rights, as well as the interpretation and application of the charter. I would like to clarify that the Attorney General of Canada's submissions are not aimed at the Act respecting the laicity of the State. They relate exclusively to the proper interpretation of the charter. The Supreme Court's decision will determine the conditions under which the federal and provincial governments may invoke the notwithstanding clause in the years to come.
The Attorney General of Canada is firmly committed to participating in these important national discussions, which could have repercussions for all Canadians. For that reason, the government will not withdraw from this debate before the Supreme Court. Doing so would be a dereliction of its duty to defend the charter and to help maintain a clear and consistent constitutional framework for the entire country.
It is in the interest of the court, the public and the Constitution for the government to contribute to this debate, particularly as it relates to the interpretation of section 33. As it has already stated, this government is very concerned about the increased use of the notwithstanding clause, namely, section 33 of the charter. The first word should not be the last in the dialogue between parliaments and the courts.
We are seeing the notwithstanding clause being increasingly invoked by parliaments across the country. We have heard from Canadians who are concerned about the appropriateness of invoking the notwithstanding clause in such a way. Again, our role is to provide helpful observations to the court on the interpretation of a provision of the Constitution, which in this case is the notwithstanding clause.
This contribution is intended to enrich the debate, not to single out a province or to challenge its ability to legislate. We respect the jurisdictions of the provinces, including Quebec, but respecting does not mean staying silent. When an issue concerns the interpretation of the charter, it is normal, critical even, for the Government of Canada to make itself heard.