The original intent was for the clause to be a last resort, but that's not how provinces are using it. Our Supreme Court will weigh in, but it's for our legislatures to collectively fix.
One of the worst parts about the clause in general is the silencing of 'rights talk' among the electorate. Another one of Lougheed's ideas with the clause is that the electorate, through active engagement with the legislature, could contribute to public discussions about rights, instead of the judiciary being the sole arbiter/charter enforcement. Its recent usage proves its potential for democratic malignance. It is used mostly by majority provincial governments in pursuit of political ends, notwithstanding the charter, the judiciary, and the electorate.
Well, I'm keeping a close eye on this particular issue, that of Secularism, Bill 21 and the NWC, as I have done since last year. It will be my thesis for a Master of Laws at Queen's U in the Fall of 2026. Maybe, just maybe, the SCC will have it's decision by then but I suspect it won't until 2027. Personally, I agree with the 'original intent' and that the NWC should only be used as last resort.
You obviously don't know how the SCC works. I suggest you take a look at past decisions and see how lengthy they can be - for obvious and good reason. They are representing the ENTIRE country of Canada, so yes, it can take that long. They are not just debating what to wear to the prom. This is an extremely complex problem and a very serious one to boot - one that our country has never faced before. And of course it's their "full time job" and I'm grateful we actually have a level-headed SCC. Not so much with the Premier of Alberta...
I believe that section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being abused. I concur that it was intended to be used as a last resort. However, it's used as a political convenience. Something must be done to stop this abuse. Section 33 is a legitimate constitutional tool. However, some governments are invoking it without a clear justification. Its application should be rare, but more provincial governments are using it more frequently, I believe, to exercise their power.
I’m of the opinion that the triggering of the Notwithstanding should automatically trigger an election. If the populace re-elects the government, the law goes through. Much higher bar than current abuse.
I live in Alberta, Nate, and the Not Withstanding Clause is being used to strip rights away intentionally. As a Canadian between having our Canadian Charter Rights taken away we are also having universal healthcare dismantled intentionally. Alberta does not feel like Canada.
Two provinces already have growing separation movements because federal Canada refuses to allow provinces to steward their own cultures and economies. You earnestly believe the answer is to alienate these provinces further?
If you want to stand up against threats to our rights and freedoms, let us discuss freedom of expression. A man in BC was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for expressing an opinion on trans issues. How can there be a free market of ideas if we cannot say what some may believe is offensive?
You’d rather defend a religion that inspires gangs of men to attempt to kidnap Jewish women off the street in Toronto.
How far from the light of enlightenment can the federal liberal party get?
The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the Liberal government had no legal basis to enact the Emergencies Act, violating Canadians rights to gather and protest among other violations. There has been zero acknowledgement, accountability. It’s as if our constituition, Charter of Rights and Freedoms means absolutely nothing. How long can a Country survive with this attitude?
I still fundamentally believe that the Anglosphere, which keeps pushing a form of Western Liberalism which is really a derivative of the Protestant Reformation, has gotten Bill 21 and related secularism policies completely backwards.
*Where will Ontario fall in the secularism vs Conscience Rights debate?*
They are fixated on some hyper-individualistic "rights" of government employees over the citizens and other inhabitants the government should be focused on serving.
It is unfortunate that Canada's Charter of Western Eurocentric Privileges is so narrowly focused on ideologies which grew from the unique history of the British Empire that a Notwithstanding Clause was always required.
I am a settler of Irish, Scottish and French descent where my French ancestors fully assimilated into English society in what became Ontario. You don’t need to be an adherent to either of Canada’s Foreign co-founding Empires (British Empire or French Empire) to recognize when narrow Western European Christian privileges are being abused to override the rights of other peoples.
*Hill Times Letter: Debate about secularism may seem unique to Quebec’s Bill 21, but has been ongoing for generations*
Bullies should not be permitted to hide behind a behaviour that falsely claims to be for the better good, when it's clearly ideologically driven and tramples on entrenched and legislated minority rights and freedoms.
The horse left the barn on this a few decades ago. Quebec has been repeatedly using the clause since it existed without so much as a peep from the federal government when the rights of anglophones were being obliterated.
There are no rules on the clause's repeated use or under what circumstances within its boundaries. Any intent people imagine is not written in the clause (and it could have been) and is not justiciable. "Exceptional" just means less often. "Last resort" means there's no other way of doing it. Lougheed's helpful suggestions 20 years after the Charter could have been included in 1982 but weren't and would now require a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.
If we're talking intent, the fathers of the Charter deliberately left out collective bargaining and guess what the SCC did a few years ago - they created a collective bargaining right by slipping it into freedom of association, disregarding that it was expressly left out, and reversing the SCC's own 1987 ruling that it was not a Charter right. The SCC has become a legislative body which is exactly why the clause's inclusion was a dealbreaker.
And while the Federal government has not used the clause, it has repeatedly used section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end strikes since the SCC collective bargaining decision to exactly the same end; Alberta used the clause to end a provincial strike and progressives had a collective meltdown.
But this SCC case is unnecessary - the federal government isn't arguing against Bill 21, it's arguing against pre-emptive use of the clause, whether the clause can be used repeatedly, and whether the courts should be able to declare what right a law invoked with the clause violates. It wants the SCC to do its work. It's spinelessness elevated to an art form.
If the Liberal party believes Bill 21 is racist garbage then fight it. But this would in all likelihood mean giving up any seats in the province of Quebec, meaning no more majority Liberal governments, ever, and likely few, if any, minority governments for the foreseeable future. Similarly, the power of disallowance is still on the books and could be used by the federal government on Bill 21 and the host of other anti-minority, charter-violating legislation Quebec has that it uses the clause on (uh, how about unwarranted search and seizure for language use?). The Liberals may as well start now because the pending Quebec "constitution" will usurp the authority of the Canadian constitution - disallowance will have to be used to preserve the confederation, or every province will do the same. Of course this would essentially mean the Liberal party ceases to exist, and it's party over God and country so it will let it pass, as it always has. Trudeau did nothing and Carney won't either.
💯 You clearly understand the Notwithstanding Clause better than most Canadians and why the Liberal party will never ever do anything to lose votes in Quebec. Rights and Freedoms be damned. Under this government the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and elections no longer matter in the new world order. If this trend continues - it won’t be long before Canada no longer matters either.
I'm pleased you're tackling this issue. Keep up the good work
One of the worst parts about the clause in general is the silencing of 'rights talk' among the electorate. Another one of Lougheed's ideas with the clause is that the electorate, through active engagement with the legislature, could contribute to public discussions about rights, instead of the judiciary being the sole arbiter/charter enforcement. Its recent usage proves its potential for democratic malignance. It is used mostly by majority provincial governments in pursuit of political ends, notwithstanding the charter, the judiciary, and the electorate.
Well, I'm keeping a close eye on this particular issue, that of Secularism, Bill 21 and the NWC, as I have done since last year. It will be my thesis for a Master of Laws at Queen's U in the Fall of 2026. Maybe, just maybe, the SCC will have it's decision by then but I suspect it won't until 2027. Personally, I agree with the 'original intent' and that the NWC should only be used as last resort.
Why in hell should it take that long as well? Unnecessary delays, this is their full time job right? Danielle Smith must be stopped.
You obviously don't know how the SCC works. I suggest you take a look at past decisions and see how lengthy they can be - for obvious and good reason. They are representing the ENTIRE country of Canada, so yes, it can take that long. They are not just debating what to wear to the prom. This is an extremely complex problem and a very serious one to boot - one that our country has never faced before. And of course it's their "full time job" and I'm grateful we actually have a level-headed SCC. Not so much with the Premier of Alberta...
Yes! If It’s”: Notwithstanding “ all the time , it ends up being a denial of the Charter’s usefulness in the first place. Nothing is left standing!!
I believe that section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is being abused. I concur that it was intended to be used as a last resort. However, it's used as a political convenience. Something must be done to stop this abuse. Section 33 is a legitimate constitutional tool. However, some governments are invoking it without a clear justification. Its application should be rare, but more provincial governments are using it more frequently, I believe, to exercise their power.
I’m of the opinion that the triggering of the Notwithstanding should automatically trigger an election. If the populace re-elects the government, the law goes through. Much higher bar than current abuse.
This is an extemely important issue. The 'Not Withstanding Clause' is being abused by power- hungry legislators.
I live in Alberta, Nate, and the Not Withstanding Clause is being used to strip rights away intentionally. As a Canadian between having our Canadian Charter Rights taken away we are also having universal healthcare dismantled intentionally. Alberta does not feel like Canada.
Two provinces already have growing separation movements because federal Canada refuses to allow provinces to steward their own cultures and economies. You earnestly believe the answer is to alienate these provinces further?
If you want to stand up against threats to our rights and freedoms, let us discuss freedom of expression. A man in BC was fined hundreds of thousands of dollars for expressing an opinion on trans issues. How can there be a free market of ideas if we cannot say what some may believe is offensive?
You’d rather defend a religion that inspires gangs of men to attempt to kidnap Jewish women off the street in Toronto.
How far from the light of enlightenment can the federal liberal party get?
The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled that the Liberal government had no legal basis to enact the Emergencies Act, violating Canadians rights to gather and protest among other violations. There has been zero acknowledgement, accountability. It’s as if our constituition, Charter of Rights and Freedoms means absolutely nothing. How long can a Country survive with this attitude?
I still fundamentally believe that the Anglosphere, which keeps pushing a form of Western Liberalism which is really a derivative of the Protestant Reformation, has gotten Bill 21 and related secularism policies completely backwards.
*Where will Ontario fall in the secularism vs Conscience Rights debate?*
https://r.flora.ca/p/ontario-secularism
They are fixated on some hyper-individualistic "rights" of government employees over the citizens and other inhabitants the government should be focused on serving.
It is unfortunate that Canada's Charter of Western Eurocentric Privileges is so narrowly focused on ideologies which grew from the unique history of the British Empire that a Notwithstanding Clause was always required.
I am a settler of Irish, Scottish and French descent where my French ancestors fully assimilated into English society in what became Ontario. You don’t need to be an adherent to either of Canada’s Foreign co-founding Empires (British Empire or French Empire) to recognize when narrow Western European Christian privileges are being abused to override the rights of other peoples.
*Hill Times Letter: Debate about secularism may seem unique to Quebec’s Bill 21, but has been ongoing for generations*
https://r.flora.ca/p/hill-times-letter-debate-about-secularism
Bullies should not be permitted to hide behind a behaviour that falsely claims to be for the better good, when it's clearly ideologically driven and tramples on entrenched and legislated minority rights and freedoms.
The horse left the barn on this a few decades ago. Quebec has been repeatedly using the clause since it existed without so much as a peep from the federal government when the rights of anglophones were being obliterated.
There are no rules on the clause's repeated use or under what circumstances within its boundaries. Any intent people imagine is not written in the clause (and it could have been) and is not justiciable. "Exceptional" just means less often. "Last resort" means there's no other way of doing it. Lougheed's helpful suggestions 20 years after the Charter could have been included in 1982 but weren't and would now require a constitutional amendment, not a court ruling.
If we're talking intent, the fathers of the Charter deliberately left out collective bargaining and guess what the SCC did a few years ago - they created a collective bargaining right by slipping it into freedom of association, disregarding that it was expressly left out, and reversing the SCC's own 1987 ruling that it was not a Charter right. The SCC has become a legislative body which is exactly why the clause's inclusion was a dealbreaker.
And while the Federal government has not used the clause, it has repeatedly used section 107 of the Canada Labour Code to end strikes since the SCC collective bargaining decision to exactly the same end; Alberta used the clause to end a provincial strike and progressives had a collective meltdown.
But this SCC case is unnecessary - the federal government isn't arguing against Bill 21, it's arguing against pre-emptive use of the clause, whether the clause can be used repeatedly, and whether the courts should be able to declare what right a law invoked with the clause violates. It wants the SCC to do its work. It's spinelessness elevated to an art form.
If the Liberal party believes Bill 21 is racist garbage then fight it. But this would in all likelihood mean giving up any seats in the province of Quebec, meaning no more majority Liberal governments, ever, and likely few, if any, minority governments for the foreseeable future. Similarly, the power of disallowance is still on the books and could be used by the federal government on Bill 21 and the host of other anti-minority, charter-violating legislation Quebec has that it uses the clause on (uh, how about unwarranted search and seizure for language use?). The Liberals may as well start now because the pending Quebec "constitution" will usurp the authority of the Canadian constitution - disallowance will have to be used to preserve the confederation, or every province will do the same. Of course this would essentially mean the Liberal party ceases to exist, and it's party over God and country so it will let it pass, as it always has. Trudeau did nothing and Carney won't either.
💯 You clearly understand the Notwithstanding Clause better than most Canadians and why the Liberal party will never ever do anything to lose votes in Quebec. Rights and Freedoms be damned. Under this government the constitution, the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and elections no longer matter in the new world order. If this trend continues - it won’t be long before Canada no longer matters either.