There's an "arc of history" argument here. Ford is clearly going to be looked back upon with embarrassment in a matter of years. Legault used it to pass a clearly bigoted law that won't age well, either.
By 2040, I think "Use Notwithstanding in haste, repent at leisure" is going to be some kind of saying.
Um, the notwithstanding clause *was* the result of a dispute over political philosophy. Several of the 'Gang of Eight' provincial premiers opposing Pierre Trudeau's actions were concerned about the principle of parliamentary supremacy and elected officials' decisions being overridden by unelected, unaccountable judges. The notwithstanding clause is arguably a compromise on that-the constitutional convention is that the notwithstanding clause is supposed to be an emergency valve, particularly if the court makes an especially bad ruling. Chretien himself suggested it could be used to defang rulings that legalized child porn or hate speech under freedom of expression.
It was the result of political horse-trading? Who cares, so was Confederation. The Upper Canadian Fathers of Confederation and many Maritimers wanted a plain centralized union, but the Lower Canadians were adamant on a federation, so they compromised. Ottawa got the powers deemed most important at the time, the provinces got the powers many Lower Canadians thought were necessary to maintain their francophone character.
And everybody working themselves up about Quebec's values being a little different than the rest of ours needs to remember that most Franco-Quebecois put the "federation" in "Confederation". They've *always* seen themselves as a distinct entity and people from other Canadians, similar to how a lot of Indigenous people see themselves. Why would so many other major Quebec federalists, from André Laurendeau to Claude Ryan to Stéphane freaking Dion have advocated for constitutionally recognizing their province as a "distinct society" in Confederation? Hell, Dion said that Pierre Trudeau's opposition to the Meech Lake Accord was the worst constitutional mistake in Canadian history, and that while we have the practical benefits of Meech now, we don't have its symbolic benefits.
Constitutional historians like Peter Russell have pointed out that the original BNA Act made exceptions and exemptions for Quebec that it didn't make for the other provinces. And Quebec's actions to maintain its Francophone character have actually strengthened national unity. Even Camille Laurin, the author of Bill 101, lamented that it damaged the separatists' cause.
Invoking s. 33 is perhaps a slippery slope, but as the author points out, the skids were greased decades ago. At the risk of sounding like a slowly boiling frog, I disagree with the suggestion that the Ford government is being "lazy" when the only alternative is challenging the law in accordance at the glacial pace of our appellate courts. As they say, "there is no right without a remedy" and such is the case here - Ford's entire purpose for amending the law would be rendered moot if he were made to wait for the learned Justices to pronounce their condemnation. Another way to characterize things is that Ford is answering his critics with the immortal words: "Just watch me."
We do not need the notwithstanding clause because we have section 1 of the Charter which establishes reasonable limited on any right contained within the document. Chretien was flat out wrong when he said we could use the notwithstanding clause for child pornography because in a free and democratic society it is reasonable to expect limited on freedom of expression to protect minors and people who are otherwise unable to represent themselves. If something doesn't meet the requirements of a Charter with an opening section about reasonable limits, there should be no other mechanisms for enactment, period. The notwithstanding clause was a bad idea when it was put in, we all know why it was put in and how it came to be, but it was not some sort of judicial decision. It was politics and it has no place in a free and democratic society.
And flipping the line The National Post
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/opinion-doug-fords-use-of-the-notwithstanding-clause-stands-up-for-democracy
There's an "arc of history" argument here. Ford is clearly going to be looked back upon with embarrassment in a matter of years. Legault used it to pass a clearly bigoted law that won't age well, either.
By 2040, I think "Use Notwithstanding in haste, repent at leisure" is going to be some kind of saying.
1. The clause is part of the Constitution. Get over it.
2. Ford is limiting the huge advantage union lead Super PAC's currently have in Ontario.
3. Election is in less than 1 year.
4. The writer is clearly a political opponent to Ford.
Um, the notwithstanding clause *was* the result of a dispute over political philosophy. Several of the 'Gang of Eight' provincial premiers opposing Pierre Trudeau's actions were concerned about the principle of parliamentary supremacy and elected officials' decisions being overridden by unelected, unaccountable judges. The notwithstanding clause is arguably a compromise on that-the constitutional convention is that the notwithstanding clause is supposed to be an emergency valve, particularly if the court makes an especially bad ruling. Chretien himself suggested it could be used to defang rulings that legalized child porn or hate speech under freedom of expression.
It was the result of political horse-trading? Who cares, so was Confederation. The Upper Canadian Fathers of Confederation and many Maritimers wanted a plain centralized union, but the Lower Canadians were adamant on a federation, so they compromised. Ottawa got the powers deemed most important at the time, the provinces got the powers many Lower Canadians thought were necessary to maintain their francophone character.
And everybody working themselves up about Quebec's values being a little different than the rest of ours needs to remember that most Franco-Quebecois put the "federation" in "Confederation". They've *always* seen themselves as a distinct entity and people from other Canadians, similar to how a lot of Indigenous people see themselves. Why would so many other major Quebec federalists, from André Laurendeau to Claude Ryan to Stéphane freaking Dion have advocated for constitutionally recognizing their province as a "distinct society" in Confederation? Hell, Dion said that Pierre Trudeau's opposition to the Meech Lake Accord was the worst constitutional mistake in Canadian history, and that while we have the practical benefits of Meech now, we don't have its symbolic benefits.
Constitutional historians like Peter Russell have pointed out that the original BNA Act made exceptions and exemptions for Quebec that it didn't make for the other provinces. And Quebec's actions to maintain its Francophone character have actually strengthened national unity. Even Camille Laurin, the author of Bill 101, lamented that it damaged the separatists' cause.
Sex. Not gender. Please stop contributing to those misleading and obfuscating language games.
Invoking s. 33 is perhaps a slippery slope, but as the author points out, the skids were greased decades ago. At the risk of sounding like a slowly boiling frog, I disagree with the suggestion that the Ford government is being "lazy" when the only alternative is challenging the law in accordance at the glacial pace of our appellate courts. As they say, "there is no right without a remedy" and such is the case here - Ford's entire purpose for amending the law would be rendered moot if he were made to wait for the learned Justices to pronounce their condemnation. Another way to characterize things is that Ford is answering his critics with the immortal words: "Just watch me."
We do not need the notwithstanding clause because we have section 1 of the Charter which establishes reasonable limited on any right contained within the document. Chretien was flat out wrong when he said we could use the notwithstanding clause for child pornography because in a free and democratic society it is reasonable to expect limited on freedom of expression to protect minors and people who are otherwise unable to represent themselves. If something doesn't meet the requirements of a Charter with an opening section about reasonable limits, there should be no other mechanisms for enactment, period. The notwithstanding clause was a bad idea when it was put in, we all know why it was put in and how it came to be, but it was not some sort of judicial decision. It was politics and it has no place in a free and democratic society.