- Member of Parliament
- Minister of Justice
Attorney General of Canada
- Liberal
- Parkdale—High Park
- Ontario
- Voting Attendance: 64%
- Expenses Last Quarter: $120,537.19
- Government Page
- May/30/24 3:00:43 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, just to be clear, the bill that the Bloc Québécois tabled today proposes using the notwithstanding clause under section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The opposition leader opened the floodgates last month when he stated that he would use the notwithstanding clause to trample on the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the charter.
Now we see another federal party deciding that the charter is optional. Nevertheless, our government will always protect the rights and freedoms guaranteed under the charter.
90 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:58:01 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, in that regard I have serious doubts about that, based on the voting pattern that I have seen thus far and the actions that I have observed thus far from the Leader of the Opposition in terms of interactions with the LGBTQ community and willingness to stand up for the rights of the LGBTQ community. I do not see that demonstrated by his actions thus far, and I think that is quite amplified by the fact that I also have not seen him criticize invocations of the notwithstanding clause that are already occurring in provinces in this country against that very same community. I will judge him by his actions, and his actions leave a lot to be desired.
121 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 10:54:06 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his contribution to this evening's discussion and reflect on a couple of things.
What I personally found most troubling, as somebody who sat on the Emergencies Act parliamentary committee after the declaration, is that we know about extreme far-right movements. We know about what happened at the Coutts, Alberta border crossing, and we know about the group that was found there and about the weapons cache. That group was Diagolon; weapons and ammunition were found there, and that resulted in charges being laid of conspiracy to commit murder against the RCMP.
That is the exact same group that the Leader of the Opposition was engaging with intentionally just a few weeks ago on the east coast of this country, and I think it really begs a lot of questions about whether someone stands for and with law enforcement or whether they stand with the people who have been charged with potentially doing harm to law enforcement.
The second point is that I have also heard assertions that we are misinterpreting what the member for Carleton said about the notwithstanding clause and in fact, if he used it, that it would only be in a restricted manner.
First of all, I do not necessarily believe that, given the voting and track record of the Leader of the Opposition in terms of restrictions on women's rights, including women's rights to choose and recent voting patterns about women's access to free contraception. Second, I would say that the proof in writing is already on the wall, as in other instances where Conservative or right-leaning leaders of provincial governments around this country have either invoked or threatened to invoke the notwithstanding clause in areas that do not relate to criminal justice law.
I think about the usage by Scott Moe with respect to the LGBTQ community or about the threatened usage by Danielle Smith against trans kids. I did not hear a peep from the Leader of the Opposition about the inappropriateness of such an invocation of the notwithstanding clause, which really leads me to question, and I hope Canadians watching right now at this late hour are questioning, how much further it would go if it was invoked for the first time ever by a federal leader, should the member for Carleton assume the mantle of leadership in this country, and how many other rights would be subjugated.
These are really pressing concerns, and they should not be partisan, because they are about fundamental things like our basic rights and freedoms in this country. The member for Vancouver Granville put it quite clearly when he talked about how we do not get to do a grocery-style selection of which rights we are going to defend and which freedoms we are not going to defend. It is an entire package. It is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is important to stand up for all of the rights therein, even at times when it might not be popular, because ultimately those rights protect vulnerable people and vulnerable minorities from a potential tyranny of the majority. That is not the kind of Canada I want to live in. That is not the kind of Canada most Canadians want to live in.
What Canadians identify with, independent of their political stripe and independent of their voting patterns, are certain hallmarks about what defines us as Canadians, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of those key defining documents. That is why I stand behind it. That is why I always will stand behind it. My colleagues stand with me in that regard. I wish the official opposition would as well.
625 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 9:15:03 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Chair, I want to make two clarifications. The study on the Canadian Victims Bill of Rights generated a report from the committee on December 7 of last year. In addition, what the member for Kamloops—Thompson—Cariboo was asking was quite troubling, because the notion that a sitting attorney general would appear in live court during the middle of a criminal proceeding would, in my view, raise a very significant concern about undue influence and possibly efforts to influence the outcome of a proceeding. That would be entirely untoward and inappropriate.
With respect to the question presented by the member for Niagara, what is troubling about even floating the idea of invocation of the notwithstanding clause is that it presents a spectre where the charter and the rights and freedoms contained therein are an inconvenience that needs to be overcome. The fact that they would be cavalierly overcome by a man who is the leader of the official opposition, who would purportedly claim the role of prime minister one day, is very troubling. It would set a precedent, as it has never been done in the history of this country. It would also demonstrate a real disregard for the important interests that Canadians have in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms itself.
Why do I say that? It is because the charter protects fundamental things, such as the free expressive rights that we have been talking about in the context of the online safety bill, which are protected under section 2B; freedom of religion, which is so preciously at stake right now when we are dealing with so much troubling anti-Semitism; the ability to peacefully assemble, which is protected under section 2 of the charter; and our rights to equality and our rights to basic presumptions of innocence.
If the Leader of the Opposition would so cavalierly use the notwithstanding clause to trump basic presumptions about innocence, it raises a lot of questions for Canadians, including those who are watching right now: In what other ways would he use it? Section 7 protects a woman's right to have an abortion in this country. Section 15 protects such things as equality rights in terms of gay marriage. Would he use it in those regards? I do not know the answer to these questions. However, as Minister of Justice and as guardian of the Constitution and the rights and freedoms contained therein, I am very troubled.
Our position as a government, our position as a party, is clear. We created the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and we stand by it; that means every right and freedom contained therein. Canadians need to know what we stand for and what the official opposition stands for.
457 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 7:29:36 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are the party that invented the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We created it and passed it into law.
We are the party that will always stand by the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that includes all charter rights and freedoms. We do not selectively choose some of them. We will defend every Canadian's rights under the charter, and not cavalierly invoke the notwithstanding clause.
70 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
Mr. Speaker, I find this line of questioning quite fascinating, given that the main charter issue that is at issue in Bill C-63 deals with very sensitive issues about the protection of freedom of speech, which is protected under section 2(b).
What I will do is always maintain my oath under the Constitution to uphold the Constitution and people's charter rights. This individual works under a leader who has brandished the idea of using the notwithstanding clause to deprive people of their charter rights. Section 2(b) is subject to the notwithstanding clause.
If we are talking about who is actually committed to protecting people's freedoms, including freedom of speech, people on that side of the House should be looking at themselves in the mirror.
129 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/23/24 3:11:03 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, the charter protects our right to free expression. It protects our right to worship whom we choose. It protects our right to equality. It protects our right to be presumed innocent.
If we stand for freedom, we do not get to cherry-pick which rights and freedoms we defend, but that is exactly what the Leader of the Opposition has said he would do. He has openly declared that he would use the notwithstanding clause to trample on these very charter rights. No federal leader has ever done this in Canadian history.
Our government enacted the charter, our government stands by the charter, and we will always defend the charter rights and freedoms of every Canadian.
118 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- May/22/24 5:29:49 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I am very proud, as I am advancing the rights of women and the rights of diabetics in Canada.
I am a bit concerned about the member for Peace River—Westlock. About two short days after the member's leader cavalierly indicated that he would be invoking the notwithstanding clause to trample Canadians' charter rights, the member for Peace River—Westlock stood up and called for ending abortions, protecting the preborn and overturning the Morgentaler decision.
That demonstrates quite clearly who is on the side of protecting women's rights and women's reproductive rights in this chamber.
102 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/16/24 2:42:14 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, we are firmly committed to participating in these important national discussions that have a major impact on all Canadians, discussions about issues affecting our Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Quebec Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms.
As we have said many times, we have serious concerns about the pre-emptive usage of the notwithstanding clause in section 33 of the charter. The first word should not be the last word in the dialogue between the legislative assemblies and the courts.
86 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:41:39 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and I have said, we are firmly committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression and religion and the right to equality.
We have also said on a number of occasions that we have serious concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. If this case goes to the Supreme Court, our government will be there to intervene.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:40:17 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister and I have already said, our government is committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression and religion and the right to equality.
We have also said on a number of occasions that our government has clearly expressed serious concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause. If this case goes to the Supreme Court, our government will intervene.
82 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Feb/29/24 2:39:09 p.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that our government is firmly committed to defending the rights and freedoms protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, including the right to freedom of expression and religion and the right to equality.
Our government has clearly expressed serious concerns about the pre-emptive use of the notwithstanding clause on a number of occasions as well. If this case goes to the Supreme Court, we will be there to intervene.
81 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
