Please log in with your Liberal ID.
Your Liberal Extranet credentials can be used.
Have an Extranet Account?Login here!.
One step! Just fill these fields in.
Your password was changed successfully.
Please check your email for a link to finish the account creation process.
You must click that link to be able to comment.
The website was not able to match you to your membership.
If you have just filled in your renewal or membership application form please wait 2-5 business days while your Provincial-Territorial Association processes your application.
If after waiting 5 business days you are still having troubles or you are a current member, please fill out this form and we will assist you shortly.
Thank you for activating your account. We have automatically logged you in.
Sorry, this activation link does not work. Your account may already be activated. Please try to login or contact email@example.com for assistance.>
Please log in with your Liberal ID.
Your Liberal Extranet credentials can be used.
By minimizing the charter, the government minimizes the values enshrined therein
IRWIN COTLER, The Gazette
Thirty-three years ago, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms officially became part of Canada’s constitution, a landmark event later referred to by former Chief Justice Antonio Lamer as a “revolution in law comparable to the discovery of Pasteur in science.”
Under the charter, Canada moved from being a parliamentary democracy to a constitutional one, Canadian courts moved from being the arbiters of legal federalism – whether a matter is of federal or provincial jurisdiction – to being guardians of our constitutional rights, and Canadians became constitutionally empowered to act upon those rights and assert them as a matter of law.
In the words of former Supreme Court Justice Claire L’Heureux-Dubé, the charter “stretched the cords of liberty,” particularly in the area of equality law.
Yet, at the very time when we should be celebrating this momentous, transformative document, which came into effect April 17, 1982, we have had yet another reminder of the current government’s utter disdain for it.
Indeed, earlier this week, the Supreme Court struck down part of the Conservatives’ so-called “tough on crime” agenda, ruling that, for example, mandatory minimum sentences of three years’ imprisonment for offences such as improper storage of a firearm could constitute cruel and unusual punishment. This should come as no surprise to the government, which was warned about the charter implications of this law when it was first introduced in 2007.
On its own, this case might be viewed as a simple difference of opinion on a question of constitutional interpretation. However, the Conservative government’s approach in this matter is, by now, part of a regrettable pattern: ignore the requirement to vet legislation so that it comports with the charter, enact constitutionally suspect legislation or policy in defiance of the charter, impugn those who raise charter concerns, and spend taxpayer dollars fighting a losing legal battle all the way to the Supreme Court.
Such was the case last year when the court ruled unanimously against the government’s attempt to retroactively eliminate the possibility of early parole for offenders who had already been sentenced. Justice Richard Wagner wrote that this was “one of the clearest cases of retrospective double punishment,” and thus a blatant charter violation.
Likewise, in 2011, the court unanimously ruled that, by refusing to renew the permit of a safe injection site in Vancouver, the government was violating charter guarantees to life, liberty and security of the person. According to Chief Justice Beverley McLachlin, the refusal threatened the health and lives of Canadians with drug addictions, and “contravened the principles of fundamental justice.”
Indeed, the courts have found that Conservative law and policy have violated charter rights in matters as varied as the refusal to repatriate a Canadian wrongfully imprisoned in Sudan; the mandatory imposition of the victim surcharge – a supplementary fee paid at sentencing – on impoverished offenders; and the denial of health care to refugee claimants.
In the latter case, Federal Court Justice Anne Mactavish made particular reference to the impact of that denial on claimants’ children, saying that it could “potentially jeopardize the health, the safety and indeed the very lives of these innocent and vulnerable children in a manner that shocks the conscience and outrages Canadian standards of decency.”
Moreover, many other government measures are currently being challenged on charter grounds in lower courts. For example, in a case in B.C., the government stands accused of using solitary confinement in federal prisons in a way that discriminates against aboriginal inmates and the mentally ill, and that violates international standards prohibiting prolonged isolation.
While solitary confinement is supposed to be used as a last resort, figures I obtained from the government in response to written questions indicate that over 20 per cent of prisoners spend time in solitary, and Correctional Investigator Howard Sapers has found that solitary confinement is now “a default population management strategy.”
The government declined to answer my questions about the length of isolation periods, or about the physical and mental health impacts of solitary confinement. It did, however, respond with an unqualified “no” to questions from my colleague, Liberal Public Safety Critic Wayne Easter, about whether it had received any analysis or advice on the constitutionality of its approach.
Ultimately, beyond the unnecessary expense and strain on judicial resources that result from knowingly implementing constitutionally problematic measures, the trouble with treating the charter as an obstacle to be overcome – or a triviality to be ignored – is the very content of the charter itself. The rights and freedoms it guarantees are an expression of Canada’s fundamental values, and a safeguard against discrimination, inequality and the marginalization of the vulnerable. By minimizing the charter, the government minimizes the values enshrined therein.
What is more, the government’s responsibility to take charter considerations into account when drafting legislation is not only a moral one – it is, in fact, a legal requirement. Section 4.1 of the Department of Justice Act obliges the justice minister to examine all government bills “in order to ascertain whether any of the provisions thereof are inconsistent with the purposes and provisions” of the charter, and to “report any such inconsistency to the House of Commons at the first convenient opportunity.” That no Conservative minister has ever tabled such a report – despite repeated warnings of potential unconstitutionality from the opposition and legal experts, and despite repeated confirmation from the courts that such warnings were well-founded – suggests that the government treats this law and the charter with equal defiance.
In fact, a justice department official has come forward claiming that, according to government policy, no report of charter inconsistency is deemed necessary as long as a bill has at least a 5-percent chance of being upheld. I have, therefore, introduced a private member’s bill that would shift the responsibility for the prospective examination of charter compliance from the Minister to House of Commons officials.
It is deeply regrettable, however, that such a bill is necessary. The charter was a parliamentary initiative – not a usurpation of Parliament, as is sometimes alleged – that came to fruition 33 years ago. All the more reason for Parliamentarians of all political stripes to treat it and the values it represents with respect.
Irwin Cotler is the Liberal MP for Mount Royal, former justice minister and attorney general of Canada, and emeritus professor of law at McGill University.
TORONTO – The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement about his meeting with the Prime Minister of India, Narendra Modi:
“It was a great honour and privilege to meet with Prime Minister Modi in Toronto today.
“Canada and India’s longstanding friendship is something of which we can all be proud. Not only are our nations shaped by democratic and pluralistic values, but we share an important cultural bond, with more than one million Canadians tracing their heritage to India.
“As one of the world’s fastest growing major economies, India is a vital trading partner. We must do more to grow and strengthen our bilateral relationship.
“I wish Prime Minister Modi much success during the rest of his time in Canada, and look forward to continued deepening ties between our two countries.”
April 15, 2015
HALIFAX—The Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada, Justin Trudeau, today issued the following statement on Yom HaShoah:
“On Yom HaShoah, Jewish communities in Canada and around the world commemorate one of history’s darkest periods. While it is impossible to fully comprehend the evil and terror of the Holocaust, which saw six million Jews systemically killed, it requires our deep reflection.
“Each and every one of us must consider the unfathomable suffering and loss of life, and the deep-seeded hatred from which it took root, as well as the incredible strength, courage and resilience of those who survived this atrocity.
“Our remembrance is an act of rejection of the evil that fuelled an attempt to extinguish an entire people; an evil we all bear a collective responsibility to ensure is never forgotten.
“On behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada and our Parliamentary Caucus, I extend my thoughts and prayers to all those observing Yom HaShoah.”
Written by MP Murray for Vancity Buzz An estimated 2,800 litres of bunker oil spilled from the Japanese cargo ship Marathassa in English Bay on Wednesday, […]
Dear friends, I would like to extend my warmest wishes to all those observing Passover. On Passover, families across Canada come together to recount the story […]
Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, this is an incredibly important point of privilege. It is a very important issue because it goes to […]
Ms. Joyce Murray (Vancouver Quadra, Lib.): Mr. Speaker, last month, I asked about Reservist Leading Seaman Robyn Young. She was misdiagnosed and injured by a military […]