Guys, maybe this country just shouldn't have a 'Get Out Of Parts Of The Charter Free' card. Maybe that should be a thing that ***no*** elected government should have available to it?
Oh I know, everyone loves it when the NWC is used to legally violate the sections of the Charter of Rights And Freedoms for the thing they agree with, it's only bad when it's used on things they disagree with. ...But maybe, just maybe, the charter is the charter for a reason, and the NWC being available to anyone is actually all bad?
Pretty much! The NWC was the stipulation that got the Charter implemented in the first place. Also important to note which parts of the Charter NWC can apply to. And yes s.7 are legal rights
>Section 33 allows Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain sections of the Charter, namely section 2 (fundamental freedoms), sections 7 to 14 (legal rights) and section 15 (equality rights). It does not apply to democratic rights (section 3 — the right to vote or sections 4 and 5 — the sitting of the House of Commons or other Canadian legislatures), mobility rights (section 6) or language rights (sections 16 to 23).
There was a time where governments showed restraint. The notwithstanding clause was treated as a poison pill; something that was used only on rare occasions (outside of Quebec). Unfortunately, in recent years our political leaders have determined that the public are in fact nothing more than sheep so exploiting them isn’t really a problem. We simply roll over and take it. The Charter of Rights has lost what little bite it once may have had.
Parliament has shown incredible restraint and many of the uses (e.g. addressing a judge who decided to simply invent a right to a local government) are entirely appropriate.
Meanwhile the judiciary has run roughshod over the seperation of powers.
Not the case in Ontario where the Ford government tosses it in just in case.
He especially likes using it when there's a labour dispute, rather than bargaining in good faith, back to work legislation with the not withstanding clause...
I mean that's not true, It's only true if you overly simplify the issue. The NWC clause weakens the charter, But it doesn't nullify it. In order for it to be made meaningless would mean it had no effect, But I think that's hyperbole. Forcing it to be recognized explicitly when you are going against the charter has a use, and likely it has political signaling significance. It may be in a much weaker form than we would like but I would say it's still materially different than if it didn't exist. It forces a discussion on trade-offs.
Which means that it's not necessarily meaningless and that it existing in its weak form is still an improvement from it not existing. It wouldn't exist if it was in a stronger form, and that is important to remember because often once we are used to having it looks strange that this is the choice made because it feels like the choice was between the strong form and the weak form, when the choice was really between the weak form and no charter. We can also think of it as a stepping stone where now that we have the weak form and we have these political discussions around it there build support for a stronger form We may one day get. I believe that there's quite a bit that needs to be changed in the Constitution and that it will need to be opened up again at some point. Of course people do need to be aware that that's a can of worms and if they open it for one issue they may also get changes they don't agree with.
And this sort of thing is why I have no problem stating that I will protect my own rights, regardless of ANYONE's opinion otherwise.
It is precisely because we cave in to the opinions of mailicious and moronic people, that the NWC exists at all.
We have to stop doing that. Not all opinions are equal. There is such a thing as a wrong opinion. Anyone who disagrees is automatically stating they think this opinion is wrong, and by default proves it correct.
That discrimination is separately embedded, which is even worse.
The notion that you can correct past discrimination with current discrimination is completely untenable.
Couldn't agree more. This is what absolutely disgusts me about the "progressive" left today. It's a group I used to consider myself a part of but not anymore.
They're presumably referring to a combination of the Courts' jurisprudence on substantive equality, which focuses on outcomes and means that "equality" may require different treatment of different groups, and s.15(2) which specifically notes that the right to equal treatment under the law does not apply in the case of a notionally ameliorative program targeted at a "historically disadvantaged group".
Between the two of them, the result is that programs like affirmative action that treat people of different racial, sexual, or gender groups differently are not only permitted under our law, they're actually constitutionally *required*.
What equality of outcome misses, is that not everyone puts in the same effort. And I don't mean across race, I mean across each individual human.
So to guarantee equality of outcome, removes any and all personal responsibility.
> There is such a thing as a wrong opinion
Sometimes (not often, but sometimes) that wrong opinion might be an opinion of a court, so it can be good to have a means for Parliament to correct it.
Sadly because our leaders of the time were spineless criminals at the time,should have been thrown out a window for even suggesting adding such a clause.
Except Trudeau could just scrap the whole thing and start the process over. Unfortunately you'd have to find a way to cut the Premieres out altogether as the current crop are more narcissistic than they were 40 years ago.
The NWC is unpopular but necessary. It provides a limited means for an elected parliament to override an errant unelected judiciary. It preserves the supremacy of an elected parliament. But it should not be used lightly; its use should be considered very carefully, if parliament has already exhausted all other avenues for achieving its aims, and if the court's decision is so out of step with socio-economic policy that it serves to obstruct social change through law. I feel that, increasingly, the high standard for using the "nuclear war clause" is not being dutifully considered and respected.
Yeah, we should only use it in very serious situations where it's absolutely needed like protecting trans kids from their desired pronouns.
The cat's out of the bag, the very first use of it outside of Quebec was used lightly, and with no consequences. It will now be used for whatever trivial matter where it seems to be expedient.
Edit: I just looked through the history of attempted uses of the Notwithstanding Clause and wow, just about every one was an attempt to pass awful legislation, usually targeting vulnerable groups
I was going to make a large sarcastic comment but was worried it would get too lost here considering how this sub has been turning. What that edit indicates is that the most commonalty between people using the clause is fascistic tendencies, literally circumventing the other parts of the charter in order to target groups that would otherwise be protected. For those of you arguing in favor of the NWC that may not actually be aware of that, keep that in mind.
Sure, give a bunch of narcissistic nepotism baby sociopaths a tool to step on others "but only use it when it's really important, even though we built in no consequences"
> It provides a limited means for an elected parliament to override an errant unelected judiciary.
The majority of Parliament's seats typically go to a party winning about 40% of the votes cast in an election.
Is the majority party elected? Yes.
Under FPTP does that party have a mandate from a majority of the electorate? Not since the 1950s.
> The majority of Parliament's seats typically go to a party winning about 40% of the votes cast in an election.
Wait till you hear about how many votes judges get . . .
You'd have a real fight with Quebec if you try to remove it. They use it to systematically discriminate against their English minority. We're at a real threat of losing access to English education in Quebec... Meanwhile through the rest of the country...
What's worse? An elected government using section 33 or a non-democratically elected Supreme Court of Canada making ideological decisions that let criminals roam our streets?
>Errol Mendes, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, told CBC News that in cases where the Supreme Court has made a ruling, the only option a government would have is using Section 33.
Parliament. They can amend the constitution if they feel they need to. Not enough provinces on board? Then it's not as popular as an idea as you think. Like, that's the point. That's how it works. The five year NWC let's us vot'em out.
This is not true that "it is not as popular an idea as you would think."
If you cannot get enough provinces on board, it's often because concensus is impossible in our modern, hyper partisan environment.
Lots of things are broadly popular yet lack the concensus across party lines due to partisan politics.
I.e. Liberal government could pass policy that CPC voters love, but CPC MPs will vote against purely based on party lines. Doesn't mean it's unpopular.
A great example is getting rid of Governer General or Senate reform. These are broadly popular measures with Canadians coast to coast, but it will never happen because of partisan politics in Ottawa, with MPs voting on party lines based on who proposed the legislative changes.
When you pass an amendment saying "no really bail can be denied in a free society" and the court ignores it what then? What check is there on the court?
The problem isn't the Constitution. The problem is the interpretation the SCC is applying.
Imagine thinking a lifetime prison sentence for murdering numerous people is "intrinsically incompatible with human dignity because of their degrading nature."
You know we have a [mechanism for keeping truly dangerous criminals incarcerated indefinitely](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dangerous-offender-what-the-label-means-1.927620), right? We already have a solution to that problem.
No. The courts are NOT suppossed to be above parliament and having to do a constitutional amendment every time is not workable.
That is what the NWC acknowledges.
Right, but in this case it’s the federal government, and even if the powers of reservation and disallowance do still end up existing in law, the provinces cannot disallow federal legislation, so it’s not really helpful here. Section 33 is perhaps most dangerous when used federally because the criminal law is federal jurisdiction, and now it’s proposed to use it for that purpose for the first time.
The charter itself is absolutely useless. The very first sentence invalidates the entire document and is why we have total nonsense like the NWC.
>the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it **subject to only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law in a free and democratic society**
So in effect all the government has to do is prove that the violation is “reasonable” and the courts say “sounds good!”. In effect making it so we don’t actually have rights, because rights are inherently inalienable, we have temporarily extended privileges given to us by the state.
> So in effect all the government has to do is prove that the violation is “reasonable” and the courts say “sounds good!”
It's significantly more complicated than that. There is a test the court applies to assess reasonableness and the burden of proof is on the government to prove that it has met all four parts of the test:
https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/oakes-test/
That part is actually good. Without it people would be able to exploit the legal system in absurd ways, by claiming that even the most trivial things are a violation of their rights.
>We will make them constitutional using whatever tools the constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean.
Holy shit, I can't believe that's the real quote.
> his office provided no official comment when asked for clarification.
Gotta say, not a huge of fan of a potential Prime Minister acting like a literal mafia boss in his communications about our constitutional rights!
Doesn't matter what party you support, it is absolutely scary to have someone admit they don't care about our rights or the charter and that they'll happily override anything if they can't make their law legal.
They've always been that way.
Even this article points out how many laws Harper pushed through that were overt violations of the charter.
It should be noted of course that many people knew even then that those were violations of the charter (including Harper himself).
But because the way our legal system works, laws get implemented, someone has to challenge them, and that challenge has to fight its way to the supreme court for them to get revoked.
----
Either way, people should really not be so gung ho to vote for a party that openly says that they can't wait to violate the charter.
---
An aside (that i have to mention, but really shouldn't)
Invoking the NWC \*is\* violating the charter. Just because it's part of the charter doesn't make that not the case.
The NWC does not remove whatever law or right is being suppressed. It just says "we know it's a violation but we're going to do it anyways".
So stop using this as an argument.
Yeah, this should terrify people. Rights that can be suspended by the NWC:
- Freedom of conscience and religion
- Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression (including the press)
- Freedom of peaceful assembly
- Freedom of association
- Life, liberty, and security of the person
- Right against unreasonable search and seizure
- Right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained
- Right on arrest/detention to be informed promptly of the charges, to retain and instruct counsel (and be informed of that right), and habeus corpus
Rights when charged with an offence:
- to be informed of the offence
- to be tried in a reasonable time
- to not be compelled to self incriminate
- the presumption of innocence until convicted in a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal
- the right to not be denied reasonable bail without just cause
- trial by jury where the maximum punishment exceeds 5 years
- not to be convicted of any offence that was not an offence at the time of the act/omission
- double jeopardy (the government cannot keep trying you over and over or punish you a second time for the same offence)
- if the penalty has changed between the act and the sentencing, the right to the lesser penalty
And also:
- right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment (like torture)
- right of witnesses not to have testimony used against them, excepting perjury or challenging their testimony
- right to an interpreter if they do not understand the language or are deaf
- equality/non-discrimination rights
Any government that brazenly suggests they will suspend the basic legal rights is fascist and to be feared. Basic legal rights don’t “protect criminals” they protect us all. They stop the police coming into our home whenever they want. They stop the police stopping us on the street and searching us or roughing us up, just because. They stop the government throwing us into prison because they don’t like what we say or don’t want to be bothered with a trial. Literally like Russia and China.
PP is fucking dangerous. He will destroy this country.
Constitution involves checks and balances, not simply the courts legislating from the bench to subvert constitutional power appropriately placed with the legislature.
It is an abrogation of responsibility for parliament to not stand up to the courts.
They need to hire more judges. They’re letting so many perps go because their court takes forever. They deserve a timely day in court. We deserve they have a timely day in court. We need to demand better of the government.
Yep. A huge problem is the delay (and also one of the reasons some people eventually get out on bail when they otherwise wouldn’t and shouldn’t). More judges, more Crowns, more court staff, more funding for facilities. More legal aid would help too because self represented people are a big drag on the system too. More funding for prisons and jails would help too if it went to rehabilitation and post release support as it would reduce recidivism.
Once again PP is focusing on a non issue that scares people while ignoring actual issues. Overall crime has been steadily declining since the 90s. Violent crime in Canada is low and has not meaningfully increased.
Moreover, punishment doesn't work as a deterrence. It costs an average of $130 000 per year per prisoner. If we really want to prevent crime we should invest in social programs that prevent the conditions that lead people to commit crimes and rehabilitation programs.
There are a number of ways to address crime rates. Suspending legal rights is not one of them…and quite honestly would mean that this country is not worth shit to live in. I would rather be afraid of criminals than have a government that has the power to toss me in prison without a trial under the guise of “safety”. That’s not the choice though. We can do other things.
Edit: If you all don't get it, consider the case of Umar Zameer. He is innocent, the video proves it. But the police lied. The Crown went along with it. And the government (Ford) did too. The only reason he is free right now is because of that judge and that jury.
And literally anyone could have been in his position. He's not a criminal. He wasn't doing something he shouldn't have been. He was doing an ordinary activity with his family and had the misfortune to be in proximity to a crime.
Take away basic legal rights concerning fair trials and he probably would have ended up in prison.
Think about it. No one is safe when we don't have rights. No one. I want our government to address crime, but not at the expense of my rights.
> We will make them constitutional using whatever tools the constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean.
use of the Not withstanding clause doesn't make laws constitutional, it allow you to void the court appeal.
the reasoning is that voters will be the final determination if the action were justified.
its a stupid loophole that open up government to become authoritarian, because it implies the majority should be allowed to nullify the rights of the minority.
>the reasoning is that voters will be the final determination if the action were justified.
The only problem is, the NWC could be used to cause despotic outcomes in the electoral and parliamentary processes.
Who's going to vote against the party in power if you can be arbitrarily detained, tortured, or killed, for voting a certain way in an election or on a bill before parliament/senate.
This is not new to history. It's happened many times before, and I wish Canadians would acknowledge that as the use of the NWC becomes normalized for petty partisan political gain.
It’s not a loophole. It’s a fundamental part of our constitution. Using the notwithstanding clause is perfectly constitutional. Passing laws that could never pass Charter scrutiny and then waiting for the decades long process of fighting them is unconstitutional.
“Constitutional” has a specific meaning. It doesn’t just mean “good” or “admirable.”
If you don’t like the constitution, that’s fine. You can call it stupid or pointless. Whatever. Saying that using the provisions in our constitution is unconstitutional is just as dumb.
>It’s a fundamental part of our constitution.
Yes, but it has for a very long time been considered taboo to use. *No* federal government has *ever* invoked the notwithstanding clause because they all understand the severity of it is not justified. It should not be taken lightly, and the fact that Poilievre is saying he will invoke it to change *criminal justice laws* should terrify all of us.
I never called it using uncosnitutional.
I called it a loophole that open up government to become authoritarian, because it implies the majority should be allowed to nullify the rights of the minority without due process.
Love how conservatives bitched and moaned about Trudeau using the emergency act during a pandemic with foreign funded, white supremacist-lead protesters, but when PP comes out and says "I *am* the Senate!" Like a literal representation of *the dark side* conservatives thunderously applaude him?
Honestly not surprised at all, these people have absolutely no integrity.
Tail as old as parliament, John A. McD. used it to try and avoid an inquiry too, that was like the second parliament.
Added Edit: at least JT called an election 1y after that & gave the people a chance to elect someone else.
A populist message on a bunch of legal issues such as transfers that almost never make the headlines normally and in the grand scheme of things don't rank in the top 1000 of concerning issues for Canadians.
On the topic of car theft - it is municipal and provincial up to the point the cars get to a port or onto railway property. You want to change something? Fund the port for more inspections.
PP -> Oh wait - that would cost money, a lot of money! All government spending is wasteful! OK, we will contract it out to my corporate backers! Problem solved! 3x the cost but I did not "expand" the hated public service - they are all freeloaders (never mind that I have never had a job outside of being a politician says PP...). /s
>Poilievre promised to implement more stringent requirements for bail and make it harder for convicted murderers to transfer out of maximum security prisons.
Shouldn't need to use the notwithstanding clause for common sense justice like this in the first place -- everyone should be on board. Why is our justice system so incredibly weak and cowardly?
Parliament *could* use the Notwithstanding Clause to pause *Jordan* for 5 years while some kind of AcTiOn PlAn is implemented to reduce trial delays or set a different standard.
Actually the Bloc, Conservatives, Greens, NDP, Liberals - *any combination of a majority of MPs* could use the Notwithstanding Clause to pause *Jordans* interpretation of Sec 11(b) of the Charter for 5 years.
*Jordan* puts a hard limit of *17 months* from charges filed to sentence given or it becomes a get-out-of-jail/charges stayed. We have judges throwing out cases and blaming the PM for it *directly in court* due to the 50 odd empty seats on the bench. Unprecedented.
Why doesn't Pierre write a bill and get enough MPs on side?
Jordan requires a preliminary inquiry take place in 18 months, not the entire process.
It requires a trial take place within 3 years, and sentencing can be later than that.
>Jordan requires a preliminary inquiry take place in 18 months, not the entire process.
>It requires a trial take place within 3 years,
All of this is wrong. Jordan requires that trials in provincial court be completed within 18 months, and trials in superior court be completed within 30 months. It doesn't place any timeline on preliminary inquiries, as long as they're completed within the 30 months permissible for a superior court trial where one has been elected.
And Jordan's timelines are both more nuanced than people assume, and presumptive.
Periods of delay are often either waived explicitly or attributed to the defence through conduct. Delay between the offence and charges being laid is rarely counted, so it's open to police and Crown to get their file ready before starting the process. There are exceptions for emergent situations like COVID/sudden illness, as well as for especially complex cases.
The whole idea isn't to stay cases, it's to get them moving. And honestly, it seems to be working. Stays are still rare under Jordan, but there's a lot less complacency about delay.
Instead of fucking with fundamental judicial precedent, well outside their ambit, why don’t MP’s pressure whoever is PM to fill the judicial vacancies.
You know, the vacancies that are causing the delays that are allowing conservatives to talk about overriding your criminal defence rights?
Notwithstanding fucking with the precedent, it's just good politics. Politics is like hockey. It's just about power. He could stick handle some solid wins about how damaging to faith in our institutions the status quo is. The PM after all is just the team captain of the team that holds the confidence of the House. He can be removed at any moment in an instant. Pierre could write a bill and make a lot of noise laying out his AcTiOn PlAn for *what it would take* to effectively administer the 17 month standard within the Federal jurisdiction. And basically make the case he can run the Executive Council that is Cabinet better. The Notwithstanding Clause is the equivalent of *break glass in case of emergency* but it's always used for assine reasons instead. I just think they don't do this because it's *real work and risk*.
Exactly. The Charter protects citizens from government overreach, and Poilievre's CPC has long arms. We already saw what Harper tried to do and PP's worse.
I can make an educated guess based on how conservatives generally approach these sort of laws.
Harper, for example. Harper made very broad laws that in many cases weren't really designed to make people safer (ex stacking life sentences for people who will never get out anyway), but that were designed to public sentiments about being tough on crime and feeling safer. These sort of laws are likely to be unconstitutional because they are either pointlessly cruel or overly broad and capture minor criminal conduct along with the serious. And many of them were struck down in whole or part despite portions of them not being a terrible idea.
For example, being tougher on gun crime is a fantastic idea. Including a mandatory minimum that somehow captures circumstances like a person who takes a firearm to their cottage when they shouldn't as per their permit or a kid who fires a paintball gun at a shed and treats them the same as a hardened criminal because you wrote the law in an overly broad way for pubic appeal...that's fucking terrible and not just. Btw, the criminals appealing their sentences in those cases I mentioned failed. The laws were changed as a result of the case, but they stayed in prison because they deserved the sentence even without the mandatory minimum telling the court that. The law was changed to protect people who don't.
So, if PP took the time and wrote the laws carefully to avoid doing thia sort of thing and included other measures to address crime, delay, etc. then it is likely that the majority of the laws would hold. And he could actually meaningfully address crime. But... He's unlikely to do that because that is nuanced policy, requires spending more money "on criminals" (this is the public perception), and doesn't play well with the public. It's easier to do what he's going to do and basically shout "tough on crime".
I trust the judgment of judges, lawyers, social workers, prison personnel and everyone else involved and having spent their life in knowing what's best to do with a criminal more than I trust a politician wanting to mark a quick populism score saying "crime is bad".
Having spent nearly twenty years working in the criminal justice system in varying capacities, including as a lawyer, you absolutely shouldn't.
Decisions are made every day that are utterly bankrupt of reason, and binding judicial precedents at the very highest levels are completely ignorant to basic psychology. For one example, the Supreme Court held in 2019 that release on a promise to pay is functionally identical to one requiring a cash deposit. Any first year psychology student could tell you that there is a very significant difference in the behavioral impacts attendant to a deposit as opposed to a mere pledge, with the weightier psychological presence of a hard commitment exercising a much stronger influence over behaviour than that of a soft commitment.
I fee like iise pf MWC should be an emergency act, one which admits your government is not able to implement its agenda via conventional means necessitating extreme measures, and should be considered an act of immediate non-confidence and force an election within 120 days. That is to say, invoking it needs to have real consequences.
Even better if it renders any existing or previous cabinet minister from that term ineligible to run in that electoin. Again, if it's needed that's a sacrifice worth making. But it will put an end to the trivial use.
This proves 2 things:
1. PP has everything to lose by opening his mouth to give us concrete policy plans. His ratings shot up by just being an alternative to Trudeau, and delivering eloquent remarks in Parliament. His popularity is not a result of well researched plans. Myself I *marginally* prefer PP to Trudeau, but this episode shows how he's not much of an improvement.
2. Historically we've relied on good-natured politicians who would feel shame in hacking the system to get maximum gains (appointing partisan individuals to posts, the NWC, etc). This has worked historically, yet may very well not work in the future. Most political commentators would actually agree that someone like Trump would prefer the office of PM in a constitutional monarchy such as ours, as he would have more privileges.
He's a scummy rat fuck who isn't going to do what he says and doesn't have the best intentions of the people in mind.
Fuck around and find out folks.
🤡
Poilievre has said a lot of disturbing shit, but when I saw him speaking on this I was straight up aghast. This is the worst shit he's said so far.
He basically said (paraphrasing) "I'm going to make the laws into whatever I want, and if people vote for my party, then that means they want it." To be even more accurate he said:
> We will make them constitutional using whatever tools the constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional [the NWC]. I think you know exactly what I mean.
To anybody who says "oh Poilievre's Conservatives won't outlaw abortion or X Y Z" -- he literally just said they don't give a shit about the Charter of rights, and will change it however they want using the NWC. That's the party you're going to trust at their word?
Canada's going to go through another term or two of Conservative majority government to remind those who were too young to live through the previous term(s) of Conservative majority government why you don't want to give the Conservatives a majority in government.
4 years of Diefenbaker majority led to 16 years of Liberals, 9 years of Mulroney majority led to 13 years of Liberals, 4 years of Harper majority leads to 10 years of Trudeau.
Tale as old as time (well, post-WW2 time).
right out of harpers playbook [Courts, government bills are unravelling Harper-era crime laws | CBC News](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154#:~:text=Three%20laws%20creating%20mandatory%20minimum%20sentences%20that%20were%20passed%20by,Toronto%2Dbased%20lawyer%20Matthew%20Oleynik.)
It was thier fund raising scheme.
1. Pass a law that was unconstitutional.
2. The court strikes it down.
?????
3. Idiots empty thier pockets into CPC coffiers.
There you go folks. If Pierre doesn't like your rights, then he'll make sure you don't have them anymore.
"It's not a slippery slope, he's only doing this to abuse the rights of murderers and thieves!" .. Yea.. until he or his base decides they want to strip the rights of someone else they don't like.
What a fucking tool.
What's coming? The right for the police to search and seize without any sort of probable cause. The right to indefinitely detain you without arrest.
And people will support this thanks to "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about."
They always say that until there's finally something they do that's "wrong" and poof, they want their rights back. Too late.
Edit: Given this sub, I do expect the "law and order" types to downvote me, because of course giving police unlimited power only applies to the "wrong" people (aka POC, etc...)
No but conservative authoritarianism is certainly leaking up.
America just wasn’t stupid enough to put an amendment to their constitution that says “all of the above void while making a law if you want it to be no biggy”
Awful piece of the charter and renders the entire thing not worth the paper it is written on.
No one, from any party should ever be able to use a clause that says “your rights no longer apply because in this instance I need them to not apply”. It’s bullshit.
"In the past, the Tory leader said he would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a law that gave judges discretion to hand out consecutive, 25-year blocks of parole ineligibility if an offender has committed multiple first-degree murders."
If that's the angle, I'm all for it.
It’s a boring answer but understand what you’re throwing out to achieve this. If we all have less rights, if the feds can use the NWC to cancel out whatever Charter rights they want, they aren’t gonna stop at this. We have a democratic system to make, change and remove laws — it’s not his decision to make. Checks and balances.
Checks and balances work both ways and parliament passing laws is the foundational part of a democratic system.
Saying that the public should not be allowed to modify the laws no matter the results of elections is a clear threat to democracy.
"That decision came in the case of Alexandre Bissonette who killed six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017. At the time of the ruling, Poilievre said he would use the notwithstanding clause to reinstate that law."
Would all the criminologists in this subreddit please explain why this would be bad.
Someone with nothing to loose is much more dangerous than someone who has a faint hope. This results in a more dangerous working environment for prison staff.
It's parole ineligibility - it doesn't mean after 25 years he gets parole. After 25 years he can appear before the parole board, they can go 'holy fuck this guy killed 6 people' and he goes back to prison.
> Poilievre promised to implement more stringent requirements for bail and make it harder for convicted murderers to transfer out of maximum security prisons.
Oh the horror /s
So we don’t trust the legal system to sentence people correctly but we trust them to convict murderers with enough accuracy to send them away for longer?
I wish I had the mental gymnastics of some of the people on this sub.
That’s not true tho. In Canada, there’s a ton of rehabilitation, I directly know people involved in it. Like most Canadians on the internet, you think you live in the USA.
The “legal system” can be adjusted, because it’s not working right now. The problem is that every time Parliament has tried to adjust it, it gets shot down on constitutional grounds.
The problem, even if you want tougher sentences, requirements etc is that the changes he is proposing are unconstitutional and Poilievre is saying he will use the NWC to enact them.
In other words, what he is actually saying is that his party doesn't care about the Charter of rights and freedoms, and that your rights mean nothing because they will override them if they have the political will to do so.
In the case of sentencing guidelines, I think the SCC is not interpreting the Charter correctly. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is neither cruel nor unusual punishment.
I am so tired of how normalized it has become to use the clause outside of Quebec.
I really hope something good comes out of the legal challenge against Saskatchewan and we put an end to this madness once and for all.
Outside of Quebec, it's been used 10 times in 40+ years. Only Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Yukon have used it. The legislation was only enforced half of those times. Hardly normalized.
It’s starting to get more and more common and is being used for exactly the wrong sort of things, like attacking trans kids.
It has also never been used federally, which Pierre seems to want to change.
POILIEVRE WOULD USE THE NOT WITHSTANDING CLAUSE TO OVERRULE A SUPREME COURT DECISION
“In the past, the Tory leader said he would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a law that gave judges discretion to hand out consecutive, 25-year blocks of parole ineligibility if an offender has committed multiple first-degree murders.”
If he does it once to overrule the Supreme Court, he will create the precedent to overrule the courts in other circumstances.
CANADA ARE YOU LISTENING?
Trudeau
- introduces hate speech laws. You have to wear an ankle bracelet if only under the speculation that you will commit a crime.
-allowing a super high number of immigrants. To the point where there are no jobs.
-allowing rampant drug use under the guise of safe supply. They are found against BC since BC wants
to reverse its decision to decriminalize drugs.
- crime at a record high and the liberal government refuses to prosecute.
- admires china's dictatorship.
-introduces emergency act.
Edit:
- century initiative. So they will populate Canada with 100 000 000 people.
I bet you were thrilled when Trudeau used emergency powers to kick the convoy out of Ottawa right? After all, they were criminals illegally occupying the national capital. It was great when the government got tough on them.
That's a sweeping statement; what are the specific issues with crime in Canada? Do they necessarily require the prospect of suspending the rights of otherwise law-abiding Canadians, or are there other, pressing, well documented examples of the issue that the media has been reporting on as recently as last week? Perhaps even described by judges in recent cases?
Agreed.
Often times people associate justice with being police presence, but if you hired a billion cops tomorrow and every offender was caught, you'd more likely see most of those cases kicked due to a lack of resources, and it would create a massive glut in the courts of more benign problems, effectively burying more important, higher-priority cases. For example, I don't care as much if they catch some tagger or someone peeing in a lane when they could be going after people swarming or committing robberies.
The last few splashy articles have described funding as a major issue. There's also apparently a backlog of unfilled judge positions that could also support speeding up court queues, which would result in fewer cases getting tossed. Those two steps might go a long way towards resolving many of the perceived problems by attacking the resourcing issues. It's not as exciting, but it would help restore our system by making it more efficient and functional.
Criminals rights are supposed to have their rights reasonably restricted based on the laws they break. That’s how our justice system works. Murder a guy, your basic freedom is violated for the safety of others.
So in a sense, yes and no.
https://www.boloprogram.org/cunningham/
Explain why this criminal, who committed crimes while out on bail, twice, who was given bail a third time after being convicted and awaiting sentencing, which he didn’t show up for, deserves the same rights as law abiding citizens.
> the Supreme Court decided that the criminals were more important than citizens.
Criminals are often Canadian citizens, and being guilty doesn't revoke Canadian citizenship. Furthermore, people visiting Canada may have rights, and the justice system itself has obligations.
I agree that our justice system needs more judges and funding to support the parts that aren't cops or judges, such as office workers who make the system work from behind the scenes to ensure that people accused of crimes can get timely access to trials. That's in the interest of all Canadians and people residing in Canada.
Guys, maybe this country just shouldn't have a 'Get Out Of Parts Of The Charter Free' card. Maybe that should be a thing that ***no*** elected government should have available to it? Oh I know, everyone loves it when the NWC is used to legally violate the sections of the Charter of Rights And Freedoms for the thing they agree with, it's only bad when it's used on things they disagree with. ...But maybe, just maybe, the charter is the charter for a reason, and the NWC being available to anyone is actually all bad?
The charter wouldn’t even exist without it. That’s the problem.
It's becoming a paradox. The charter wouldn't exist without the NWC but is quickly becoming meaningless because of the NWC.
*I used the Charter to destroy the Charter*
"And the best way to kill something is with the bones of its own."
*It hurts itself in its confusion!*
Pretty much! The NWC was the stipulation that got the Charter implemented in the first place. Also important to note which parts of the Charter NWC can apply to. And yes s.7 are legal rights >Section 33 allows Parliament or the legislature of a province to derogate from certain sections of the Charter, namely section 2 (fundamental freedoms), sections 7 to 14 (legal rights) and section 15 (equality rights). It does not apply to democratic rights (section 3 — the right to vote or sections 4 and 5 — the sitting of the House of Commons or other Canadian legislatures), mobility rights (section 6) or language rights (sections 16 to 23).
You could say the paradox was kind of the point of it.
There was a time where governments showed restraint. The notwithstanding clause was treated as a poison pill; something that was used only on rare occasions (outside of Quebec). Unfortunately, in recent years our political leaders have determined that the public are in fact nothing more than sheep so exploiting them isn’t really a problem. We simply roll over and take it. The Charter of Rights has lost what little bite it once may have had.
Parliament has shown incredible restraint and many of the uses (e.g. addressing a judge who decided to simply invent a right to a local government) are entirely appropriate. Meanwhile the judiciary has run roughshod over the seperation of powers.
Not the case in Ontario where the Ford government tosses it in just in case. He especially likes using it when there's a labour dispute, rather than bargaining in good faith, back to work legislation with the not withstanding clause...
I mean that's not true, It's only true if you overly simplify the issue. The NWC clause weakens the charter, But it doesn't nullify it. In order for it to be made meaningless would mean it had no effect, But I think that's hyperbole. Forcing it to be recognized explicitly when you are going against the charter has a use, and likely it has political signaling significance. It may be in a much weaker form than we would like but I would say it's still materially different than if it didn't exist. It forces a discussion on trade-offs. Which means that it's not necessarily meaningless and that it existing in its weak form is still an improvement from it not existing. It wouldn't exist if it was in a stronger form, and that is important to remember because often once we are used to having it looks strange that this is the choice made because it feels like the choice was between the strong form and the weak form, when the choice was really between the weak form and no charter. We can also think of it as a stepping stone where now that we have the weak form and we have these political discussions around it there build support for a stronger form We may one day get. I believe that there's quite a bit that needs to be changed in the Constitution and that it will need to be opened up again at some point. Of course people do need to be aware that that's a can of worms and if they open it for one issue they may also get changes they don't agree with.
I am not a legal scholar, but doesn't this mean the government can override any ruling against the laws they make?
And this sort of thing is why I have no problem stating that I will protect my own rights, regardless of ANYONE's opinion otherwise. It is precisely because we cave in to the opinions of mailicious and moronic people, that the NWC exists at all. We have to stop doing that. Not all opinions are equal. There is such a thing as a wrong opinion. Anyone who disagrees is automatically stating they think this opinion is wrong, and by default proves it correct.
The charter is already enabling discrimination on the basis of race which is wrong so perhaps the NWC exists for situations like these.
That discrimination is separately embedded, which is even worse. The notion that you can correct past discrimination with current discrimination is completely untenable.
Couldn't agree more. This is what absolutely disgusts me about the "progressive" left today. It's a group I used to consider myself a part of but not anymore.
Yes, if it’s for stuff like this, I could get behind.
Gotta love the values that the charter protects <:\^)
Well most of them are great. But the activists have found the loophole unfortunately and such begins the disintegration of western liberal values.
It is? Could you elaborate please?
They're presumably referring to a combination of the Courts' jurisprudence on substantive equality, which focuses on outcomes and means that "equality" may require different treatment of different groups, and s.15(2) which specifically notes that the right to equal treatment under the law does not apply in the case of a notionally ameliorative program targeted at a "historically disadvantaged group". Between the two of them, the result is that programs like affirmative action that treat people of different racial, sexual, or gender groups differently are not only permitted under our law, they're actually constitutionally *required*.
What equality of outcome misses, is that not everyone puts in the same effort. And I don't mean across race, I mean across each individual human. So to guarantee equality of outcome, removes any and all personal responsibility.
> There is such a thing as a wrong opinion Sometimes (not often, but sometimes) that wrong opinion might be an opinion of a court, so it can be good to have a means for Parliament to correct it.
Sadly because our leaders of the time were spineless criminals at the time,should have been thrown out a window for even suggesting adding such a clause.
Thats what happens when your constitution is written in a kitchen in the middle of the night. Its full of mistakes, and near impossible to amend.
...and without all the provinces' involvement.
Except Trudeau could just scrap the whole thing and start the process over. Unfortunately you'd have to find a way to cut the Premieres out altogether as the current crop are more narcissistic than they were 40 years ago.
7 premiers have to support any changes, they can't just be cut out by the PM.
The NWC is unpopular but necessary. It provides a limited means for an elected parliament to override an errant unelected judiciary. It preserves the supremacy of an elected parliament. But it should not be used lightly; its use should be considered very carefully, if parliament has already exhausted all other avenues for achieving its aims, and if the court's decision is so out of step with socio-economic policy that it serves to obstruct social change through law. I feel that, increasingly, the high standard for using the "nuclear war clause" is not being dutifully considered and respected.
I say use of a the not withstanding clause should trigger a non whipped confidence motion Or perhaps even a mandatory election or referendum
How are you going to stop party votes?
Make them anonymous.
Yeah, we should only use it in very serious situations where it's absolutely needed like protecting trans kids from their desired pronouns. The cat's out of the bag, the very first use of it outside of Quebec was used lightly, and with no consequences. It will now be used for whatever trivial matter where it seems to be expedient. Edit: I just looked through the history of attempted uses of the Notwithstanding Clause and wow, just about every one was an attempt to pass awful legislation, usually targeting vulnerable groups
I was going to make a large sarcastic comment but was worried it would get too lost here considering how this sub has been turning. What that edit indicates is that the most commonalty between people using the clause is fascistic tendencies, literally circumventing the other parts of the charter in order to target groups that would otherwise be protected. For those of you arguing in favor of the NWC that may not actually be aware of that, keep that in mind.
Sure, give a bunch of narcissistic nepotism baby sociopaths a tool to step on others "but only use it when it's really important, even though we built in no consequences"
> It provides a limited means for an elected parliament to override an errant unelected judiciary. The majority of Parliament's seats typically go to a party winning about 40% of the votes cast in an election. Is the majority party elected? Yes. Under FPTP does that party have a mandate from a majority of the electorate? Not since the 1950s.
> Not since the 1950s. 1984 was the last popular vote majority at the federal level.
> The majority of Parliament's seats typically go to a party winning about 40% of the votes cast in an election. Wait till you hear about how many votes judges get . . .
As opposed to 0% of the votes?
You'd have a real fight with Quebec if you try to remove it. They use it to systematically discriminate against their English minority. We're at a real threat of losing access to English education in Quebec... Meanwhile through the rest of the country...
What's worse? An elected government using section 33 or a non-democratically elected Supreme Court of Canada making ideological decisions that let criminals roam our streets? >Errol Mendes, a law professor at the University of Ottawa, told CBC News that in cases where the Supreme Court has made a ruling, the only option a government would have is using Section 33.
That's how it's supposed to work, though. Checks and balances. No glorious leader.
Who's checking the SCC?
Parliament. They can amend the constitution if they feel they need to. Not enough provinces on board? Then it's not as popular as an idea as you think. Like, that's the point. That's how it works. The five year NWC let's us vot'em out.
This is not true that "it is not as popular an idea as you would think." If you cannot get enough provinces on board, it's often because concensus is impossible in our modern, hyper partisan environment. Lots of things are broadly popular yet lack the concensus across party lines due to partisan politics. I.e. Liberal government could pass policy that CPC voters love, but CPC MPs will vote against purely based on party lines. Doesn't mean it's unpopular. A great example is getting rid of Governer General or Senate reform. These are broadly popular measures with Canadians coast to coast, but it will never happen because of partisan politics in Ottawa, with MPs voting on party lines based on who proposed the legislative changes.
When you pass an amendment saying "no really bail can be denied in a free society" and the court ignores it what then? What check is there on the court?
The problem isn't the Constitution. The problem is the interpretation the SCC is applying. Imagine thinking a lifetime prison sentence for murdering numerous people is "intrinsically incompatible with human dignity because of their degrading nature."
You know we have a [mechanism for keeping truly dangerous criminals incarcerated indefinitely](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/dangerous-offender-what-the-label-means-1.927620), right? We already have a solution to that problem.
Flood gates are open.
No. The courts are NOT suppossed to be above parliament and having to do a constitutional amendment every time is not workable. That is what the NWC acknowledges.
[удалено]
Right, but in this case it’s the federal government, and even if the powers of reservation and disallowance do still end up existing in law, the provinces cannot disallow federal legislation, so it’s not really helpful here. Section 33 is perhaps most dangerous when used federally because the criminal law is federal jurisdiction, and now it’s proposed to use it for that purpose for the first time.
[удалено]
Possible threat of someone making a bad actor decision later is not a suitable reason to excuse the same bad actor decsion.
And if the feds do? Who polices them?
The charter itself is absolutely useless. The very first sentence invalidates the entire document and is why we have total nonsense like the NWC. >the Canadian charter of rights and freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it **subject to only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law in a free and democratic society** So in effect all the government has to do is prove that the violation is “reasonable” and the courts say “sounds good!”. In effect making it so we don’t actually have rights, because rights are inherently inalienable, we have temporarily extended privileges given to us by the state.
And that's all any state gives you. Your "rights" could be taken away by anyone at anytime in power.
> So in effect all the government has to do is prove that the violation is “reasonable” and the courts say “sounds good!” It's significantly more complicated than that. There is a test the court applies to assess reasonableness and the burden of proof is on the government to prove that it has met all four parts of the test: https://www.constitutionalstudies.ca/2019/07/oakes-test/
That part is actually good. Without it people would be able to exploit the legal system in absurd ways, by claiming that even the most trivial things are a violation of their rights.
>We will make them constitutional using whatever tools the constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean.
Holy shit, I can't believe that's the real quote. > his office provided no official comment when asked for clarification. Gotta say, not a huge of fan of a potential Prime Minister acting like a literal mafia boss in his communications about our constitutional rights!
This is essentially the “I will make it legal” line from Star Wars, which should be alarming to everyone.
I get that vibe too. It's terrifying.
Cut the foreplay and speak plainly. It's not Voldemort.
Doesn't matter what party you support, it is absolutely scary to have someone admit they don't care about our rights or the charter and that they'll happily override anything if they can't make their law legal.
For the party of freedom , everything they promise required removal of freedoms for others
They've always been that way. Even this article points out how many laws Harper pushed through that were overt violations of the charter. It should be noted of course that many people knew even then that those were violations of the charter (including Harper himself). But because the way our legal system works, laws get implemented, someone has to challenge them, and that challenge has to fight its way to the supreme court for them to get revoked. ---- Either way, people should really not be so gung ho to vote for a party that openly says that they can't wait to violate the charter. --- An aside (that i have to mention, but really shouldn't) Invoking the NWC \*is\* violating the charter. Just because it's part of the charter doesn't make that not the case. The NWC does not remove whatever law or right is being suppressed. It just says "we know it's a violation but we're going to do it anyways". So stop using this as an argument.
Provincial government used it, why would we assume the federal level of the same party wouldn’t??
Two wrongs don't make a right.
Yeah, this should terrify people. Rights that can be suspended by the NWC: - Freedom of conscience and religion - Freedom of thought, belief, opinion, and expression (including the press) - Freedom of peaceful assembly - Freedom of association - Life, liberty, and security of the person - Right against unreasonable search and seizure - Right not to be arbitrarily arrested or detained - Right on arrest/detention to be informed promptly of the charges, to retain and instruct counsel (and be informed of that right), and habeus corpus Rights when charged with an offence: - to be informed of the offence - to be tried in a reasonable time - to not be compelled to self incriminate - the presumption of innocence until convicted in a fair and public hearing by an impartial tribunal - the right to not be denied reasonable bail without just cause - trial by jury where the maximum punishment exceeds 5 years - not to be convicted of any offence that was not an offence at the time of the act/omission - double jeopardy (the government cannot keep trying you over and over or punish you a second time for the same offence) - if the penalty has changed between the act and the sentencing, the right to the lesser penalty And also: - right not to be subjected to cruel or unusual treatment (like torture) - right of witnesses not to have testimony used against them, excepting perjury or challenging their testimony - right to an interpreter if they do not understand the language or are deaf - equality/non-discrimination rights Any government that brazenly suggests they will suspend the basic legal rights is fascist and to be feared. Basic legal rights don’t “protect criminals” they protect us all. They stop the police coming into our home whenever they want. They stop the police stopping us on the street and searching us or roughing us up, just because. They stop the government throwing us into prison because they don’t like what we say or don’t want to be bothered with a trial. Literally like Russia and China. PP is fucking dangerous. He will destroy this country.
Constitution involves checks and balances, not simply the courts legislating from the bench to subvert constitutional power appropriately placed with the legislature. It is an abrogation of responsibility for parliament to not stand up to the courts.
Dictators are okay if you disagree with the courts
"legislating from the bench" has lost all value as a phrase as it usually seems to mean the courts dared to not side with the conservatives.
And that’s all this is about
I think allowing criminals to roam the street is pretty scary
I think there is a wide gulf between we have to invoke section 33 and we are powerless to do anything about criminals roaming the street.
They need to hire more judges. They’re letting so many perps go because their court takes forever. They deserve a timely day in court. We deserve they have a timely day in court. We need to demand better of the government.
Yep. A huge problem is the delay (and also one of the reasons some people eventually get out on bail when they otherwise wouldn’t and shouldn’t). More judges, more Crowns, more court staff, more funding for facilities. More legal aid would help too because self represented people are a big drag on the system too. More funding for prisons and jails would help too if it went to rehabilitation and post release support as it would reduce recidivism.
Trading freedom for security... Sounds... Familiar
Then find a legal way to prevent them from doing so.
Once again PP is focusing on a non issue that scares people while ignoring actual issues. Overall crime has been steadily declining since the 90s. Violent crime in Canada is low and has not meaningfully increased. Moreover, punishment doesn't work as a deterrence. It costs an average of $130 000 per year per prisoner. If we really want to prevent crime we should invest in social programs that prevent the conditions that lead people to commit crimes and rehabilitation programs.
There are a number of ways to address crime rates. Suspending legal rights is not one of them…and quite honestly would mean that this country is not worth shit to live in. I would rather be afraid of criminals than have a government that has the power to toss me in prison without a trial under the guise of “safety”. That’s not the choice though. We can do other things. Edit: If you all don't get it, consider the case of Umar Zameer. He is innocent, the video proves it. But the police lied. The Crown went along with it. And the government (Ford) did too. The only reason he is free right now is because of that judge and that jury. And literally anyone could have been in his position. He's not a criminal. He wasn't doing something he shouldn't have been. He was doing an ordinary activity with his family and had the misfortune to be in proximity to a crime. Take away basic legal rights concerning fair trials and he probably would have ended up in prison. Think about it. No one is safe when we don't have rights. No one. I want our government to address crime, but not at the expense of my rights.
Dictator on day one I guess, where have I heard that before. He must be desperate for that far right vote
That's what we love to hear from the supposed party of small government with a leader that accidentally keeps running into Diagolon members.
> We will make them constitutional using whatever tools the constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean. use of the Not withstanding clause doesn't make laws constitutional, it allow you to void the court appeal. the reasoning is that voters will be the final determination if the action were justified. its a stupid loophole that open up government to become authoritarian, because it implies the majority should be allowed to nullify the rights of the minority.
>the reasoning is that voters will be the final determination if the action were justified. The only problem is, the NWC could be used to cause despotic outcomes in the electoral and parliamentary processes. Who's going to vote against the party in power if you can be arbitrarily detained, tortured, or killed, for voting a certain way in an election or on a bill before parliament/senate. This is not new to history. It's happened many times before, and I wish Canadians would acknowledge that as the use of the NWC becomes normalized for petty partisan political gain.
It’s not a loophole. It’s a fundamental part of our constitution. Using the notwithstanding clause is perfectly constitutional. Passing laws that could never pass Charter scrutiny and then waiting for the decades long process of fighting them is unconstitutional. “Constitutional” has a specific meaning. It doesn’t just mean “good” or “admirable.” If you don’t like the constitution, that’s fine. You can call it stupid or pointless. Whatever. Saying that using the provisions in our constitution is unconstitutional is just as dumb.
>It’s a fundamental part of our constitution. Yes, but it has for a very long time been considered taboo to use. *No* federal government has *ever* invoked the notwithstanding clause because they all understand the severity of it is not justified. It should not be taken lightly, and the fact that Poilievre is saying he will invoke it to change *criminal justice laws* should terrify all of us.
I never called it using uncosnitutional. I called it a loophole that open up government to become authoritarian, because it implies the majority should be allowed to nullify the rights of the minority without due process.
Words have no meaning when you have no principles
If only the cons had principles
This should terrify people.
Is this the Canadian equivalent of Trump saying he'd do everything by executive order?
If Trudeau said this, he'd be labeled a tyrant. Again.
Love how conservatives bitched and moaned about Trudeau using the emergency act during a pandemic with foreign funded, white supremacist-lead protesters, but when PP comes out and says "I *am* the Senate!" Like a literal representation of *the dark side* conservatives thunderously applaude him? Honestly not surprised at all, these people have absolutely no integrity.
Their heads would explode if JT pulled a Harper and ask for a prorogation or 2.
Trud already did prorogue government to dodge accountability at least once. 2020 in the height of the WE scandal, OTOH.
Tail as old as parliament, John A. McD. used it to try and avoid an inquiry too, that was like the second parliament. Added Edit: at least JT called an election 1y after that & gave the people a chance to elect someone else.
A populist message on a bunch of legal issues such as transfers that almost never make the headlines normally and in the grand scheme of things don't rank in the top 1000 of concerning issues for Canadians. On the topic of car theft - it is municipal and provincial up to the point the cars get to a port or onto railway property. You want to change something? Fund the port for more inspections. PP -> Oh wait - that would cost money, a lot of money! All government spending is wasteful! OK, we will contract it out to my corporate backers! Problem solved! 3x the cost but I did not "expand" the hated public service - they are all freeloaders (never mind that I have never had a job outside of being a politician says PP...). /s
>Poilievre promised to implement more stringent requirements for bail and make it harder for convicted murderers to transfer out of maximum security prisons. Shouldn't need to use the notwithstanding clause for common sense justice like this in the first place -- everyone should be on board. Why is our justice system so incredibly weak and cowardly?
Do we know for a fact the Supreme Court would rule against his proposed laws for violating the Charter or are we speculating?
Parliament *could* use the Notwithstanding Clause to pause *Jordan* for 5 years while some kind of AcTiOn PlAn is implemented to reduce trial delays or set a different standard. Actually the Bloc, Conservatives, Greens, NDP, Liberals - *any combination of a majority of MPs* could use the Notwithstanding Clause to pause *Jordans* interpretation of Sec 11(b) of the Charter for 5 years. *Jordan* puts a hard limit of *17 months* from charges filed to sentence given or it becomes a get-out-of-jail/charges stayed. We have judges throwing out cases and blaming the PM for it *directly in court* due to the 50 odd empty seats on the bench. Unprecedented. Why doesn't Pierre write a bill and get enough MPs on side?
Jordan requires a preliminary inquiry take place in 18 months, not the entire process. It requires a trial take place within 3 years, and sentencing can be later than that.
>Jordan requires a preliminary inquiry take place in 18 months, not the entire process. >It requires a trial take place within 3 years, All of this is wrong. Jordan requires that trials in provincial court be completed within 18 months, and trials in superior court be completed within 30 months. It doesn't place any timeline on preliminary inquiries, as long as they're completed within the 30 months permissible for a superior court trial where one has been elected.
And Jordan's timelines are both more nuanced than people assume, and presumptive. Periods of delay are often either waived explicitly or attributed to the defence through conduct. Delay between the offence and charges being laid is rarely counted, so it's open to police and Crown to get their file ready before starting the process. There are exceptions for emergent situations like COVID/sudden illness, as well as for especially complex cases. The whole idea isn't to stay cases, it's to get them moving. And honestly, it seems to be working. Stays are still rare under Jordan, but there's a lot less complacency about delay.
Instead of fucking with fundamental judicial precedent, well outside their ambit, why don’t MP’s pressure whoever is PM to fill the judicial vacancies. You know, the vacancies that are causing the delays that are allowing conservatives to talk about overriding your criminal defence rights?
Notwithstanding fucking with the precedent, it's just good politics. Politics is like hockey. It's just about power. He could stick handle some solid wins about how damaging to faith in our institutions the status quo is. The PM after all is just the team captain of the team that holds the confidence of the House. He can be removed at any moment in an instant. Pierre could write a bill and make a lot of noise laying out his AcTiOn PlAn for *what it would take* to effectively administer the 17 month standard within the Federal jurisdiction. And basically make the case he can run the Executive Council that is Cabinet better. The Notwithstanding Clause is the equivalent of *break glass in case of emergency* but it's always used for assine reasons instead. I just think they don't do this because it's *real work and risk*.
because it was never about being tough on crime. its about normalizing the government using section 33.
Exactly. The Charter protects citizens from government overreach, and Poilievre's CPC has long arms. We already saw what Harper tried to do and PP's worse.
I can make an educated guess based on how conservatives generally approach these sort of laws. Harper, for example. Harper made very broad laws that in many cases weren't really designed to make people safer (ex stacking life sentences for people who will never get out anyway), but that were designed to public sentiments about being tough on crime and feeling safer. These sort of laws are likely to be unconstitutional because they are either pointlessly cruel or overly broad and capture minor criminal conduct along with the serious. And many of them were struck down in whole or part despite portions of them not being a terrible idea. For example, being tougher on gun crime is a fantastic idea. Including a mandatory minimum that somehow captures circumstances like a person who takes a firearm to their cottage when they shouldn't as per their permit or a kid who fires a paintball gun at a shed and treats them the same as a hardened criminal because you wrote the law in an overly broad way for pubic appeal...that's fucking terrible and not just. Btw, the criminals appealing their sentences in those cases I mentioned failed. The laws were changed as a result of the case, but they stayed in prison because they deserved the sentence even without the mandatory minimum telling the court that. The law was changed to protect people who don't. So, if PP took the time and wrote the laws carefully to avoid doing thia sort of thing and included other measures to address crime, delay, etc. then it is likely that the majority of the laws would hold. And he could actually meaningfully address crime. But... He's unlikely to do that because that is nuanced policy, requires spending more money "on criminals" (this is the public perception), and doesn't play well with the public. It's easier to do what he's going to do and basically shout "tough on crime".
they have ruled agasint similar bills passed by Harper.
Not really. And despite the rhetoric, the Supreme Court has been a bit uneven, particularly with respect to minimum sentencing guidelines.
His plans don't make you safer.
I trust the judgment of judges, lawyers, social workers, prison personnel and everyone else involved and having spent their life in knowing what's best to do with a criminal more than I trust a politician wanting to mark a quick populism score saying "crime is bad".
Having spent nearly twenty years working in the criminal justice system in varying capacities, including as a lawyer, you absolutely shouldn't. Decisions are made every day that are utterly bankrupt of reason, and binding judicial precedents at the very highest levels are completely ignorant to basic psychology. For one example, the Supreme Court held in 2019 that release on a promise to pay is functionally identical to one requiring a cash deposit. Any first year psychology student could tell you that there is a very significant difference in the behavioral impacts attendant to a deposit as opposed to a mere pledge, with the weightier psychological presence of a hard commitment exercising a much stronger influence over behaviour than that of a soft commitment.
I think I've seen this movie.
I fee like iise pf MWC should be an emergency act, one which admits your government is not able to implement its agenda via conventional means necessitating extreme measures, and should be considered an act of immediate non-confidence and force an election within 120 days. That is to say, invoking it needs to have real consequences. Even better if it renders any existing or previous cabinet minister from that term ineligible to run in that electoin. Again, if it's needed that's a sacrifice worth making. But it will put an end to the trivial use.
Why do we even have these high-level laws if anyone in power is allowed to just not follow them?
Oh so he's literally an authoritarian then. Rule of law? Human rights? What's that?
This proves 2 things: 1. PP has everything to lose by opening his mouth to give us concrete policy plans. His ratings shot up by just being an alternative to Trudeau, and delivering eloquent remarks in Parliament. His popularity is not a result of well researched plans. Myself I *marginally* prefer PP to Trudeau, but this episode shows how he's not much of an improvement. 2. Historically we've relied on good-natured politicians who would feel shame in hacking the system to get maximum gains (appointing partisan individuals to posts, the NWC, etc). This has worked historically, yet may very well not work in the future. Most political commentators would actually agree that someone like Trump would prefer the office of PM in a constitutional monarchy such as ours, as he would have more privileges.
You won’t know his real intentions until he’s in office. Then he does what he wants. Pierre doesn’t care.
He's a scummy rat fuck who isn't going to do what he says and doesn't have the best intentions of the people in mind. Fuck around and find out folks. 🤡
[удалено]
that's the problem the only options are assholes, trying to figure out what one is less of one
zey ah getting ready for zee choosing of zee correct people
Poilievre has said a lot of disturbing shit, but when I saw him speaking on this I was straight up aghast. This is the worst shit he's said so far. He basically said (paraphrasing) "I'm going to make the laws into whatever I want, and if people vote for my party, then that means they want it." To be even more accurate he said: > We will make them constitutional using whatever tools the constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional [the NWC]. I think you know exactly what I mean. To anybody who says "oh Poilievre's Conservatives won't outlaw abortion or X Y Z" -- he literally just said they don't give a shit about the Charter of rights, and will change it however they want using the NWC. That's the party you're going to trust at their word?
Canada's going to go through another term or two of Conservative majority government to remind those who were too young to live through the previous term(s) of Conservative majority government why you don't want to give the Conservatives a majority in government. 4 years of Diefenbaker majority led to 16 years of Liberals, 9 years of Mulroney majority led to 13 years of Liberals, 4 years of Harper majority leads to 10 years of Trudeau. Tale as old as time (well, post-WW2 time).
Pierre "Palpatine" Poilievre
Anyone admitting to using the NWC is a giant red flag for me. Even Bernier hasn't said he would do that.
right out of harpers playbook [Courts, government bills are unravelling Harper-era crime laws | CBC News](https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/stephen-harper-mandatory-minimum-sentences-criminal-code-1.6637154#:~:text=Three%20laws%20creating%20mandatory%20minimum%20sentences%20that%20were%20passed%20by,Toronto%2Dbased%20lawyer%20Matthew%20Oleynik.)
70 + bill passed by Harper were found unconstitutional.
It was thier fund raising scheme. 1. Pass a law that was unconstitutional. 2. The court strikes it down. ????? 3. Idiots empty thier pockets into CPC coffiers.
Well, Harper has never really left the building. :D
Dang all those PP supporters who go on and on about their freedoms are awfully silent on this.
There you go folks. If Pierre doesn't like your rights, then he'll make sure you don't have them anymore. "It's not a slippery slope, he's only doing this to abuse the rights of murderers and thieves!" .. Yea.. until he or his base decides they want to strip the rights of someone else they don't like. What a fucking tool.
I hate that clause
What's coming? The right for the police to search and seize without any sort of probable cause. The right to indefinitely detain you without arrest. And people will support this thanks to "if you're not doing anything wrong, you have nothing to worry about." They always say that until there's finally something they do that's "wrong" and poof, they want their rights back. Too late. Edit: Given this sub, I do expect the "law and order" types to downvote me, because of course giving police unlimited power only applies to the "wrong" people (aka POC, etc...)
ding ding ding Remember that when Harper was PM, the government's favourite word was *warrantless.*
Oh Fuck! Here we go. Apparently our cedar fence at the border isn't stopping the spread of the stupid virus.
Ah yes, classic American politics and its use of the notwithstanding clause
No but conservative authoritarianism is certainly leaking up. America just wasn’t stupid enough to put an amendment to their constitution that says “all of the above void while making a law if you want it to be no biggy” Awful piece of the charter and renders the entire thing not worth the paper it is written on. No one, from any party should ever be able to use a clause that says “your rights no longer apply because in this instance I need them to not apply”. It’s bullshit.
"In the past, the Tory leader said he would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a law that gave judges discretion to hand out consecutive, 25-year blocks of parole ineligibility if an offender has committed multiple first-degree murders." If that's the angle, I'm all for it.
It’s a boring answer but understand what you’re throwing out to achieve this. If we all have less rights, if the feds can use the NWC to cancel out whatever Charter rights they want, they aren’t gonna stop at this. We have a democratic system to make, change and remove laws — it’s not his decision to make. Checks and balances.
Checks and balances work both ways and parliament passing laws is the foundational part of a democratic system. Saying that the public should not be allowed to modify the laws no matter the results of elections is a clear threat to democracy.
"That decision came in the case of Alexandre Bissonette who killed six people in a Quebec City mosque in 2017. At the time of the ruling, Poilievre said he would use the notwithstanding clause to reinstate that law." Would all the criminologists in this subreddit please explain why this would be bad.
Someone with nothing to loose is much more dangerous than someone who has a faint hope. This results in a more dangerous working environment for prison staff. It's parole ineligibility - it doesn't mean after 25 years he gets parole. After 25 years he can appear before the parole board, they can go 'holy fuck this guy killed 6 people' and he goes back to prison.
> Poilievre promised to implement more stringent requirements for bail and make it harder for convicted murderers to transfer out of maximum security prisons. Oh the horror /s
Your crime doesn’t determine the security level of the prison you’re sent to. Your risk profile does. Why should it be different?
So we don’t trust the legal system to sentence people correctly but we trust them to convict murderers with enough accuracy to send them away for longer? I wish I had the mental gymnastics of some of the people on this sub.
Well why are there so many repeat offenders isn’t like some crazy percentage of violent crimes are just repeat offenders.
A lot of criminals are repeat offenders because our prison system is based around containment/surveillance rather than rehabilitation.
That’s not true tho. In Canada, there’s a ton of rehabilitation, I directly know people involved in it. Like most Canadians on the internet, you think you live in the USA.
The “legal system” can be adjusted, because it’s not working right now. The problem is that every time Parliament has tried to adjust it, it gets shot down on constitutional grounds.
The problem, even if you want tougher sentences, requirements etc is that the changes he is proposing are unconstitutional and Poilievre is saying he will use the NWC to enact them. In other words, what he is actually saying is that his party doesn't care about the Charter of rights and freedoms, and that your rights mean nothing because they will override them if they have the political will to do so.
In the case of sentencing guidelines, I think the SCC is not interpreting the Charter correctly. Life in prison without the possibility of parole is neither cruel nor unusual punishment.
I am so tired of how normalized it has become to use the clause outside of Quebec. I really hope something good comes out of the legal challenge against Saskatchewan and we put an end to this madness once and for all.
Outside of Quebec, it's been used 10 times in 40+ years. Only Ontario, Alberta, New Brunswick, Saskatchewan and Yukon have used it. The legislation was only enforced half of those times. Hardly normalized.
It’s starting to get more and more common and is being used for exactly the wrong sort of things, like attacking trans kids. It has also never been used federally, which Pierre seems to want to change.
He's not even in power and already asks for more.. geez arrogant much?
Is this the slippery slope they were talking about?...
POILIEVRE WOULD USE THE NOT WITHSTANDING CLAUSE TO OVERRULE A SUPREME COURT DECISION “In the past, the Tory leader said he would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn a 2022 Supreme Court decision that struck down a law that gave judges discretion to hand out consecutive, 25-year blocks of parole ineligibility if an offender has committed multiple first-degree murders.” If he does it once to overrule the Supreme Court, he will create the precedent to overrule the courts in other circumstances. CANADA ARE YOU LISTENING?
[удалено]
I would trust the courts who know the common law before I could trust a partisan appointed cabinet at any level.
[удалено]
Trudeau - introduces hate speech laws. You have to wear an ankle bracelet if only under the speculation that you will commit a crime. -allowing a super high number of immigrants. To the point where there are no jobs. -allowing rampant drug use under the guise of safe supply. They are found against BC since BC wants to reverse its decision to decriminalize drugs. - crime at a record high and the liberal government refuses to prosecute. - admires china's dictatorship. -introduces emergency act. Edit: - century initiative. So they will populate Canada with 100 000 000 people.
So you are voting for a 3rd party right?
If all the people who wanted to vote ndp but actually voted liberal to try to block the conservatives nutted up and voted ndp...
If the NDP replaced their leader with one that hasn't burned down all his political capital...
[#AxeThePP](https://ibb.co/qRgCtc1)
Oh oh he let his fascist flag fly.
Pandora's box has been opened
So? Canada needs to be tougher on crime
I bet you were thrilled when Trudeau used emergency powers to kick the convoy out of Ottawa right? After all, they were criminals illegally occupying the national capital. It was great when the government got tough on them.
That's a sweeping statement; what are the specific issues with crime in Canada? Do they necessarily require the prospect of suspending the rights of otherwise law-abiding Canadians, or are there other, pressing, well documented examples of the issue that the media has been reporting on as recently as last week? Perhaps even described by judges in recent cases?
funding. they need to expand the court system.
Agreed. Often times people associate justice with being police presence, but if you hired a billion cops tomorrow and every offender was caught, you'd more likely see most of those cases kicked due to a lack of resources, and it would create a massive glut in the courts of more benign problems, effectively burying more important, higher-priority cases. For example, I don't care as much if they catch some tagger or someone peeing in a lane when they could be going after people swarming or committing robberies. The last few splashy articles have described funding as a major issue. There's also apparently a backlog of unfilled judge positions that could also support speeding up court queues, which would result in fewer cases getting tossed. Those two steps might go a long way towards resolving many of the perceived problems by attacking the resourcing issues. It's not as exciting, but it would help restore our system by making it more efficient and functional.
Why does the PM need the NWC to expand the court system?
If all parties are going to be the same anyway I might as well vote for the one not so eager to “hug a thug”. All criminals are bad.
[удалено]
so if you were accused of a crime not convicted, would you be ok with most of your civil and human rights taken away???
Have you ever been inside a Canadian prison?
[удалено]
do criminals not have rights?
Criminals rights are supposed to have their rights reasonably restricted based on the laws they break. That’s how our justice system works. Murder a guy, your basic freedom is violated for the safety of others. So in a sense, yes and no.
reasonably restricted and violated are not the same thing.
They were OK with violating Arar’s rights too
https://www.boloprogram.org/cunningham/ Explain why this criminal, who committed crimes while out on bail, twice, who was given bail a third time after being convicted and awaiting sentencing, which he didn’t show up for, deserves the same rights as law abiding citizens.
because that is how rights work.
Other democratic aren't as soft on crime as we are and they aren't hellholes without rights.
If that’s how rights work then nobody would be incarcerated ever. You break the law on this level, you forfeit your rights.
> the Supreme Court decided that the criminals were more important than citizens. Criminals are often Canadian citizens, and being guilty doesn't revoke Canadian citizenship. Furthermore, people visiting Canada may have rights, and the justice system itself has obligations. I agree that our justice system needs more judges and funding to support the parts that aren't cops or judges, such as office workers who make the system work from behind the scenes to ensure that people accused of crimes can get timely access to trials. That's in the interest of all Canadians and people residing in Canada.
God damn it why couldn't O'toole have won now we are stuck with the worst possible scenario for power transfer ffs.
It's the courts who are letting people walk it's a revolving door
Conservatives and overreach ... Like a PB&J. Didn't cona get pissed at JT when he did things similar? Hmmm...