And in good news, Ford backed down.
I guess there was enough backlash to this plan to get through even to him. This still highlights the problem of the NWS clause, but at least it puts the politicians on notice that Canadians actually do care about the clause being used capriciously. Might make them think twice the next time.
The labour movement cares greatly about the resurgence of this tactics. The average Canadian does not closely follow these issues. However, Ford should have reevaluated things and did so.
Coyne has a column concerned with Conservatives threatening to invoke section 33 to deal with serious offenders.
Limited Gift Link:
So Canada’s worst offenders get free food and free housing forever? What a nice gift for them!
To answer in order: no, nothing, renew the legislation or it is automatically repealed, and yes.
In my mind, the NWC has very limited uses and was a poor compromise.
So the Quebec government under Legault used notwithstanding to pass a law outlawing religious symbols (Bill 21). This was challenged in the Quebec Superior Court and Courts of Appeal. Then the Supreme Court recently agreed to hear the challenge.
So if the federal govt uses the notwithstanding clause, why couldn’t this be challenged if the Supreme Court agreed to hear it? And Section 1 is not voided by use of notwithstanding…
In this particular case, it involves the Criminal Code of Canada, which is the sole responsibility of the Federal Government. I’m not a Constitutional scholar, but I don’t believe the provinces have standing to argue it.
The NWC also is only applicable to Section 2 and 7-15 of the Charter, so it’s not a Golden Ticket.
This is trying to get a wedge issue into the debates. For the Tories to excel they need to break the Liberal’s ability to just coast on Trump hate. Crime is a good one.
The Tories have always put crime high on their list because their approach is to directly push for harsher sentences and this is a very simple and easy to understand model for tackling crime. The Liberals tend to focus on the dangers of firearm availability and the NDP focuses on preemptive measures tackling greater societal problems. Both these approaches require more effort, thought, and goodwill from the populace.
Bringing up the worse offenders (mass murderers) is a great way to prevent people from thinking too deep. Mass murder and mass murderers evoke emotional responses strongly enough to shortcut thought and careful consideration. Its much more effective then just repeating “Liberal hug-a-thug mentality” slogan (which was PP’s previous tack).
I mean, Poilevre’s promise here is clearly just pandering to old people who think crime is out of control even though it isn’t. It is noteworthy that the Conservatives aren’t actually using any EXAMPLES of multiple murderers let free. If this was a common thing, they would.
“We will be tough on crime” is always a good platform, empty though it usually is. Talking about invoking the NWC was a terrible, terrible error. It just plays into the worst fears people have about the Tories.
It also tends to frighten people who don’t know what section 33 says; I have seen DOZENS of people on social media who think the notwithstanding clause is something the government invokes to suspend the entire Charter. That is a shockingly common belief but it’s out there. We all assume people generally know what the Charter says; believe me, many Canadians don’t. All THOSE people are instantly terrified of Poilevre, which would be understandable if that’s what sec. 33 said.
Again, Poilevre and his team are just fucking terrible at this.
Coyne points out one could use the notwithstanding clause to imprison someone without a trial. Is he right?
The Charter is one part of the Constitution which outlines federal and provincial responsibilities. Quebec made a decision which was challenged in provincial courts, and the Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, but thus also has to do with how courts are structured.
In the US, it is common for state attorneys-general to sue the federal government over stuff that affects them. Although Canada is quite different, if the federal government declared an emergency where none existed, they could still be criticized.
In 2022, Trudeau invoked the Emergencies Act against Ottawa protestors arguing that they had created an economic emergency. The CCLA took the government to Court since they felt this could have been dealt with under existing laws. Even if the government bypassed legal rights under s.7 etc., would it not still have to pass muster under s.1 being reasonable and demonstrably justified?
I realize PP is playing for the cameras, but I am interested in knowing what the law might say and mean.
Technically, yes. The sections that gives you the right to a trial and all that are mostly sections 7 and 12. The notwithstanding clause can be used to ignore those. (It only applies to sections 2 and 7 through 15.)
No, that’s not how they’re written, and no court has ever seen it that way. The notwithstanding clause is extremely harsh, which is why politically it’s such a landmine.