I haven't had a long conversation with Sen. Harder about this; this email Q&A was in lieu of that conversation. But to me the most interesting part of his comments is this:
"The following questions could be applied in developing criteria [for whether to pass S. 33 legislation]: is the use of the notwithstanding clause preemptive, or in response to a court decision at the highest level? Has the Minister of Justice tabled a Charter statement? Has the government held a public consultation process? Has the House undertaken a comprehensive committee process with sufficient witness testimony? Has time allocation been used to curtail debate?"
This sets up a game of Chicken. A government that checks off a bunch of these things makes a Senate look ridiculous if Senators try to block a bill. A government that doesn't want to do these things can send the bill up and start spinning against Senators who say, "Where's that consultation? Where's that Charter statement?" etc.
That'd be fun to watch. I think there's no way a bunch of Trudeau-appointed Senators come out of that confrontation looking like heroes. But does anyone really believe other people wouldn't be asking similar questions?
The optimist in me hopes that this could end with a new constitutional convention on the NWC-namely, that it's only used in response to an actual court decision rather than pre-emptively. Canadians still cherish the Charter as one of our main national symbols, and maybe this is something Trudeau (or a future Liberal leader with more credibility) could make.
Yeah, I know, I still have the naivete of youth, so don't bother pointing that out...
PS as to your idea for opening our constitution back up isn’t going to happen, they barely pulled it together in 1982. Remember there are 10 Provinces and three territories who are all going to want to change it to benefit their own political wants and needs
My concern is that it takes way too long for our court system to respond and why are we wasting all those legal expenses when the govt will just invoke anyway. The elected House of Commons will face the people every four years and the Govt of the day can be held accountable by the people of Canada at the next election. Also, it has a five year sunset clause to deal with as well. Let’s cut to the chase, do you believe the unelected senate should have the ability to do this, remember they will not always be liberalists appointed senators.
I think the Senate has survived as long as it has in Canada because it doesn't make waves. I do not think that the Senate has the institutional credibility to start blocking legislation, and I including in "blocking legislation" imposing mandatory checklists on Parliaments seeking to exercise their duly appointed powers.
I think if they actually did so, among other things the profile of persons appointed to the Senate would start to shift rapidly. It would become a much more partisan political body.
The NWC is a part of the Constitution, and it performs a similar function (not exactly the same) as the American power of Veto, granted to only the President.
Whereas both of these are "tools of last resort", both assert the primacy of - in the American case, the will of the President - and in the Canadian case, the will of the currently ruling politicians.
...and both are easily disolvable = simply vote out the politician(s) who invoked it, and relegislate.
The good Senator wants to pre-emptively remove this tool from Pierre Poilievre, let's not be coy about that - he would not be putting this motion forward if the Liberals were leading in the polls right now.
Gerry, I contend that there is one other aspect to the NWC that should make it palatable to even it's fiercest critics: the use of the NWC has a five year life and then either must be renewed or it expires.
Personally, I think that this sunset clause makes up for a lot of potential mischief.
This is a very good point. Addition, the NWC is a fundamental part of the Constitution as pointed out above and if it had not been included, the repatriated Constitution never would have come to be. It truly is our last defence against an over zealous court that is eager to make policy.
I was waiting for you to add “non elected”. You really can’t make this stuff up that a Senate comprised of non elected members unaccountable to any voter would take it upon themselves to do this. Hello, hubris!
Except no Liberal would contemplate using this tool. Conservatives across the country taking an increasing interest in subverting our constitutional protections is not just the latest in partisan gamesmanship. The Senate is meant to be a check against the tyranny of the majority. Harder's rationale checks out. Eventually I think the Senate will have to submit to the will of the House but they sure could slow things down as they raise a hue and cry, and that, frankly, is as it should be.
You can't say that "no Liberal would ever use it". Do you speak for all Liberals for the next 200 years? No Liberal would have considered legalizing pot - until Justin Trudeau came along. Are you the next Liberal leader?
The point I started with above is that the NWC was written purposefully, and serves a useful function. It gives the ultimate power of legislation to the legislators - and holds them accountable for that power.
It is NOT Senate's job to oppose the House. Being unelected, their role is more one of "constructive" criticism - they are intended to sharpen legislation.
If you would have been outraged to see Trudeau opposed by the Senate, you should be equally outraged to see Poilievre opposed by them.
Unelected appointees, whether they claim to be non-partisan or not, should have no authority to pass, defeat, amend or propose legislation in a democratic country. The Canadian Senate is a pathetic anachronism that should have been disbanded or reformed to elected status decades ago.
If the senate is to stay relevant, it has to be reduced in size where each province and territory elects 2 senators to speak for the concerns of their province.
Currently our senate is bloated, expensive and aligned politically with the person who appointed them.
Currently the senate serves no useful purpose unless it is to frivolously spend taxpayer money.
Carole, you can ALWAYS take these characters at their word. The problem is which word on which day and how they subsequently torque the meaning of what was said to conform to the subsequent action/inaction.
No it isn't. Just abolish it. We don't need another chokepoint in the legislative process, or to mimic the US, which is what the Charter did, until (if memory serves) western premiers demanded the NWC, as a condition of signing on.
Richard, I believe it was originally proposed by Alan Blakeney, Premier of Saskatchewan as a compromise between those that favoured adding a Charter of Rights to the Constitution and those opposed. The worry of those opposed to adding a Charter of Right to the Constitution was that unelected Courts would eventually have primacy over democratically elected Legislators, which has turned out to be the case.
Agreed. Although anyone with any understanding of American constitutional law would recognize (as we are now seeing south of the border), that this would necessarily politicize the judiciary, who need not respond to the public. Just like unelected senators. And whatever that is, it is not democracy.
It is hard to not see the current Prime Minister or his handlers not being the puppeteers holding and ready to pull the strings.
While we have the facade of an independent Senate with few exceptions the party ties of the appointees run long and deep. One only has to look at the failed Senate vote on a bill to remove carbon levies from farmers for grain drying and heating dairy barns to see the LPC in action in the Senate.
Exactly correct. Senate independence is a well known expensive Canadian joke. Obviously it would be to the advantage of the trough feeders to get rid of the not withstanding clause.
Section 33 is part of the Constitution. Senator Harder's motion is an attempt to limit the Constitution without going through the proper process. For there is a process to amend the Constitution. Those who feel strongly enough, should set that process in motion. Otherwise, they are just talking.
Some argue that the Notwithstanding Clause limits Canadians' rights and freedoms. So it does. It allows Parliament to do so, and for a limited time. But Section 1 of the Charter also provides for limits on Canadians' rights and freedoms, this time as decided by the courts. I have yet to hear anyone argue that the Section 1 limitations are inappropriate. Yet, how are they worse than the Section 33 limitations? Section 1 is implemented by an unbiased court system, but one that is not responsible to the general public. Section 33 is implemented by a political body (the Government), but one that has to answer to the electorate every four or five years.
So when is Senator Harder going to start the [process of changing the Constitution?
No. Senator Harder is a non-elected member of the Parliament of Canada. In order of precedence, it is the House that has primacy, period. He is engaging in morally superior -- which he is not -- preventive obstruction which is an anathema to democracy.
If Senator Harder, has an issue with the NWC, he should bring forward a Senate motion urging the government to initiate the constitutional amendment process to repeal the NWC. Any other actions, surrounding the NWC by unelected Senators, would constitute a grave affront to our democracy.
Let me add, parenthetically. I cannot wait to read of PP's reply video, which I predict will result in a further deluge of cash to the party. The presumption of the unelected is truly truly unbounded.
What a delicious conundrum: the wholly undemocratic senate, stuffed with Trudeau appointees, who will be there for decades, would effectively suspend parliamentary access to an elemental tool and escape hatch that was added to the Charter at its creation, and without which the Charter would not have been agreed to.
And being responsible to no one, they might just get away with it for a while - at least in respect of federal legislation, since the provinces would be immune.
Just like (I suppose) the unelected could, theoretically, routinely block ANY Conservative legislation on any subject, (like criminal law reform) regardless of its merits or the wishes of electors, thus sterilizing even a massive Conservative majority, representing overwhelming popular support.
In effect, a unilateral amendment to the Charter of Rights, that could be in place for decades.
It will be an interesting show to watch; and in the result we might even get rid of this 1867 anachronism once and for all.
And let us not forget, Richard, that the unelected courts have "read in" and created non-existent rights.
One can argue that if the Charter is a protection for minorities and that the Charter (specifically the NWC which is also part of the Charter) is a protection for the majority. In other words, the NWC allows an element of protection from the tyranny of the minority just as the Charter allows an element of protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Well said. The creep of what is considered a “right” under the Charter has been disturbing. I can’t imagine this was intended. And most Canadians have no idea. Btw, I only intended to “like” your comment and not replay; however, Substack seems to not register my taps on the button.
Oh, like the Face Painter's ideologies that include a total disinterest in monetary policies, right? Oh, and like the Face Painter's ideology that certain companies (think of the initials SNC) are above the law.
Actually, as I understand it the convention has been that the Senate rarely uses the powers it actually has under the 1867 Constitution Act, precisely because it's not elected. Maybe this could be a way to have a larger discussion about how and when the NWC should actually be applied, notably that it should only be in response to actual court decisions and shouldn't be used pre-emptively in an entirely new bill.
not naive. but I am unable to see the analytical difference, given the purpose: which is to ensure that the views of the elected members of parliament are meant to prevail. It may be wise to await a ruling by the court because that may inform how you go about making the statute law charter compliant, but I see no reason why the parliamentarians should have to wait, although of course the SCC could make that rule up too. Moreover, i suspect that if there were a few more invocations of the clause - if that were as common as normal amendments to fix things - the the court would show more deference too.
If the Senate decides that they won’t pass CPC legislation, of any sort, when the new govt gets a super majority they are begging for a constitutional crisis. Unelected bodies do not have the authority to defy the elected body. Even if they slow walk legislation they will create a crisis.
Like the current govt, these senators really need to read the room and understand the depths of frustration Canadians are now feeling.
SECTION 33 is part of our constitution, so is valid in any piece of legislation, and has valid reasons for use. Especially with a court that has decided their mandate is to rewrite laws to be the opposite of what was intended.
Clear thinking Canadians will be Uber frustrated with an authoritarian government ..should Pierre Poilievre form such. Measure today’s frustration with the government of Doug Ford and multiply that level by a factor of 5 or more.
You want authoritarian look no further than the current PM … who it’s ONLY still PM because of a deal NO ONE voted for. Doug ford is also in this second mandate, which was still remarkable large, Ontarian might be getting frustrated, but they aren’t getting any better choices. Pierre won the leadership on the first vote with an extremely high margin. Canadians want change, they expect that change. They have made that point in every poll for over a year.
“That the Senate express the view that it should not adopt any bill that contains a declaration pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly known as the ‘notwithstanding clause.”
Senator Harder seems to think he has clairvoyant gifts to halt Bills from Senate adoption BEFORE they are a passing thought of a Government, let alone drafts of legislation to see and reflect upon.
The unbridled arrogance and contempt for Parliament with such thoughts is self evident.
It is fair game to have public discussions about the use of the Notwithstanding Clause but Senator Harder must remember that the Clause is a legal tool embedded in the Constitution. He will need a better excuse than intransigence to block Bills that are formed around using the Clause without any consideration of the merits.
If Senator Harder and like minded cohorts proceed with this plan, it could ignite a Constitutional crisis that could form some unlikely alliances amongst the Provinces. It has been suggested that Constitutional amendments are too difficult to get consensus but unelected Senators overplaying their hand might produce some unintended Red Chamber consequences.
Sen Harder says that no Chretien or Trudeau Senate appointees have any affiliation with members of caucus: as in the case of " the other Randy", this Peter no doubt is referring to " the other Peter", who distinguishes himself from the Trudeau appontee currently proposing the motion.
Regarding the senator's questions guiding the senate's obligations towards the use of the NWC, why would they apply to that aspect, but which have been almost completely ignored regarding the most serious bills of the past decade--thanks, of course to the ever obliging NDP.
Associative question: it really should be emphasized to any of the current band of Liberal and NDP MP's that they are equally complicit in every single one of Trudeau's actions.
It is a fallacy that courts are unbiased. It is a fallacy that courts always interpret the law rather than make law. Further, the courts are unelected. So, unelected Justices make law - they do this in Canada and in the US. Would those who think the notwithstanding clause is such an anathema be content with a Supreme Court that decided after many years that women do not have freedom of choice? As many have said below, the notwithstanding clause is part of the constitution and is a valuable tool against overreaching courts. This should be especially apparent after the set of decisions that have come down from the US Supreme court.
I haven't had a long conversation with Sen. Harder about this; this email Q&A was in lieu of that conversation. But to me the most interesting part of his comments is this:
"The following questions could be applied in developing criteria [for whether to pass S. 33 legislation]: is the use of the notwithstanding clause preemptive, or in response to a court decision at the highest level? Has the Minister of Justice tabled a Charter statement? Has the government held a public consultation process? Has the House undertaken a comprehensive committee process with sufficient witness testimony? Has time allocation been used to curtail debate?"
This sets up a game of Chicken. A government that checks off a bunch of these things makes a Senate look ridiculous if Senators try to block a bill. A government that doesn't want to do these things can send the bill up and start spinning against Senators who say, "Where's that consultation? Where's that Charter statement?" etc.
That'd be fun to watch. I think there's no way a bunch of Trudeau-appointed Senators come out of that confrontation looking like heroes. But does anyone really believe other people wouldn't be asking similar questions?
The optimist in me hopes that this could end with a new constitutional convention on the NWC-namely, that it's only used in response to an actual court decision rather than pre-emptively. Canadians still cherish the Charter as one of our main national symbols, and maybe this is something Trudeau (or a future Liberal leader with more credibility) could make.
Yeah, I know, I still have the naivete of youth, so don't bother pointing that out...
PS as to your idea for opening our constitution back up isn’t going to happen, they barely pulled it together in 1982. Remember there are 10 Provinces and three territories who are all going to want to change it to benefit their own political wants and needs
My concern is that it takes way too long for our court system to respond and why are we wasting all those legal expenses when the govt will just invoke anyway. The elected House of Commons will face the people every four years and the Govt of the day can be held accountable by the people of Canada at the next election. Also, it has a five year sunset clause to deal with as well. Let’s cut to the chase, do you believe the unelected senate should have the ability to do this, remember they will not always be liberalists appointed senators.
I think the Senate has survived as long as it has in Canada because it doesn't make waves. I do not think that the Senate has the institutional credibility to start blocking legislation, and I including in "blocking legislation" imposing mandatory checklists on Parliaments seeking to exercise their duly appointed powers.
I think if they actually did so, among other things the profile of persons appointed to the Senate would start to shift rapidly. It would become a much more partisan political body.
The NWC is a part of the Constitution, and it performs a similar function (not exactly the same) as the American power of Veto, granted to only the President.
Whereas both of these are "tools of last resort", both assert the primacy of - in the American case, the will of the President - and in the Canadian case, the will of the currently ruling politicians.
...and both are easily disolvable = simply vote out the politician(s) who invoked it, and relegislate.
The good Senator wants to pre-emptively remove this tool from Pierre Poilievre, let's not be coy about that - he would not be putting this motion forward if the Liberals were leading in the polls right now.
Tell me again how this is non-partisan....?
Gerry, I contend that there is one other aspect to the NWC that should make it palatable to even it's fiercest critics: the use of the NWC has a five year life and then either must be renewed or it expires.
Personally, I think that this sunset clause makes up for a lot of potential mischief.
This is a very good point. Addition, the NWC is a fundamental part of the Constitution as pointed out above and if it had not been included, the repatriated Constitution never would have come to be. It truly is our last defence against an over zealous court that is eager to make policy.
My take is that the Senator is firing a shot across the bow of the Poilieve rowboat..
The question, of course, is whether or not the Senate SHOULD be firing shots across ANYONE'S proverbial "bow".
...being as how they are SO impartial and nonpartisan.....
SO NOT non-partisan. Is Senator Harder delusional, or does he think we’re stupid? Wait until the names of the “witting” are released.
I was waiting for you to add “non elected”. You really can’t make this stuff up that a Senate comprised of non elected members unaccountable to any voter would take it upon themselves to do this. Hello, hubris!
I prefer a senator who says “ wait a minute” as opposed to one who is a supplicant.
Feel free to differ.. ..
Do you prefer them to say “wait a minute” on everything, ie) censorship?
..censorship and censure-
ship will often arise should Poilieve form a government.. so yes!!
Totally missed that whole control on free speech during Covid 19 that was the LPC not the CPC
Except no Liberal would contemplate using this tool. Conservatives across the country taking an increasing interest in subverting our constitutional protections is not just the latest in partisan gamesmanship. The Senate is meant to be a check against the tyranny of the majority. Harder's rationale checks out. Eventually I think the Senate will have to submit to the will of the House but they sure could slow things down as they raise a hue and cry, and that, frankly, is as it should be.
You can't say that "no Liberal would ever use it". Do you speak for all Liberals for the next 200 years? No Liberal would have considered legalizing pot - until Justin Trudeau came along. Are you the next Liberal leader?
The point I started with above is that the NWC was written purposefully, and serves a useful function. It gives the ultimate power of legislation to the legislators - and holds them accountable for that power.
It is NOT Senate's job to oppose the House. Being unelected, their role is more one of "constructive" criticism - they are intended to sharpen legislation.
If you would have been outraged to see Trudeau opposed by the Senate, you should be equally outraged to see Poilievre opposed by them.
Unelected appointees, whether they claim to be non-partisan or not, should have no authority to pass, defeat, amend or propose legislation in a democratic country. The Canadian Senate is a pathetic anachronism that should have been disbanded or reformed to elected status decades ago.
Reformed! Reformed, I say!
That old idea of a Triple E Senate is still a good idea.
If the senate is to stay relevant, it has to be reduced in size where each province and territory elects 2 senators to speak for the concerns of their province.
Currently our senate is bloated, expensive and aligned politically with the person who appointed them.
Currently the senate serves no useful purpose unless it is to frivolously spend taxpayer money.
Anyway, that's what I think.
Clearly, you think very clearly!
Thanks Ken. Reading the senators weasel words (so reminiscent of our current PM's word salads) do not encourage me to take the senator at his word.
Carole, you can ALWAYS take these characters at their word. The problem is which word on which day and how they subsequently torque the meaning of what was said to conform to the subsequent action/inaction.
Good luck getting that passed.
I know. I am pretty sure that the pathological trough feeders would really not like the idea of a smaller more responsible senate.
No it isn't. Just abolish it. We don't need another chokepoint in the legislative process, or to mimic the US, which is what the Charter did, until (if memory serves) western premiers demanded the NWC, as a condition of signing on.
Richard, I believe it was originally proposed by Alan Blakeney, Premier of Saskatchewan as a compromise between those that favoured adding a Charter of Rights to the Constitution and those opposed. The worry of those opposed to adding a Charter of Right to the Constitution was that unelected Courts would eventually have primacy over democratically elected Legislators, which has turned out to be the case.
Agreed. Although anyone with any understanding of American constitutional law would recognize (as we are now seeing south of the border), that this would necessarily politicize the judiciary, who need not respond to the public. Just like unelected senators. And whatever that is, it is not democracy.
It is hard to not see the current Prime Minister or his handlers not being the puppeteers holding and ready to pull the strings.
While we have the facade of an independent Senate with few exceptions the party ties of the appointees run long and deep. One only has to look at the failed Senate vote on a bill to remove carbon levies from farmers for grain drying and heating dairy barns to see the LPC in action in the Senate.
Exactly correct. Senate independence is a well known expensive Canadian joke. Obviously it would be to the advantage of the trough feeders to get rid of the not withstanding clause.
Please excuse the double negative in the first sentence 😉
Section 33 is part of the Constitution. Senator Harder's motion is an attempt to limit the Constitution without going through the proper process. For there is a process to amend the Constitution. Those who feel strongly enough, should set that process in motion. Otherwise, they are just talking.
Some argue that the Notwithstanding Clause limits Canadians' rights and freedoms. So it does. It allows Parliament to do so, and for a limited time. But Section 1 of the Charter also provides for limits on Canadians' rights and freedoms, this time as decided by the courts. I have yet to hear anyone argue that the Section 1 limitations are inappropriate. Yet, how are they worse than the Section 33 limitations? Section 1 is implemented by an unbiased court system, but one that is not responsible to the general public. Section 33 is implemented by a political body (the Government), but one that has to answer to the electorate every four or five years.
So when is Senator Harder going to start the [process of changing the Constitution?
Well said!
No. Senator Harder is a non-elected member of the Parliament of Canada. In order of precedence, it is the House that has primacy, period. He is engaging in morally superior -- which he is not -- preventive obstruction which is an anathema to democracy.
If Senator Harder, has an issue with the NWC, he should bring forward a Senate motion urging the government to initiate the constitutional amendment process to repeal the NWC. Any other actions, surrounding the NWC by unelected Senators, would constitute a grave affront to our democracy.
"In a word: no. I would find that inappropriate and I believe Prime Minister Justin Trudeau would as well."
Since he actually wrote this mendacity then I must take everything he says to be spurious.
Let me add, parenthetically. I cannot wait to read of PP's reply video, which I predict will result in a further deluge of cash to the party. The presumption of the unelected is truly truly unbounded.
What a delicious conundrum: the wholly undemocratic senate, stuffed with Trudeau appointees, who will be there for decades, would effectively suspend parliamentary access to an elemental tool and escape hatch that was added to the Charter at its creation, and without which the Charter would not have been agreed to.
And being responsible to no one, they might just get away with it for a while - at least in respect of federal legislation, since the provinces would be immune.
Just like (I suppose) the unelected could, theoretically, routinely block ANY Conservative legislation on any subject, (like criminal law reform) regardless of its merits or the wishes of electors, thus sterilizing even a massive Conservative majority, representing overwhelming popular support.
In effect, a unilateral amendment to the Charter of Rights, that could be in place for decades.
It will be an interesting show to watch; and in the result we might even get rid of this 1867 anachronism once and for all.
And let us not forget, Richard, that the unelected courts have "read in" and created non-existent rights.
One can argue that if the Charter is a protection for minorities and that the Charter (specifically the NWC which is also part of the Charter) is a protection for the majority. In other words, the NWC allows an element of protection from the tyranny of the minority just as the Charter allows an element of protection from the tyranny of the majority.
Well said. The creep of what is considered a “right” under the Charter has been disturbing. I can’t imagine this was intended. And most Canadians have no idea. Btw, I only intended to “like” your comment and not replay; however, Substack seems to not register my taps on the button.
A person with the ideologies of Pierre Poilievre deserves sober second thought review.
And just exactly what “ideologies” would that broad (and false) statement encompass?
Statements need to be backed up by some specific examples. If not, they are simply drive-by smears.
His ideologies that disregard factual causes.
Oh, like the Face Painter's ideologies that include a total disinterest in monetary policies, right? Oh, and like the Face Painter's ideology that certain companies (think of the initials SNC) are above the law.
Those sorts of ideologies, right?
Another broad (and false) statement.
Actually, as I understand it the convention has been that the Senate rarely uses the powers it actually has under the 1867 Constitution Act, precisely because it's not elected. Maybe this could be a way to have a larger discussion about how and when the NWC should actually be applied, notably that it should only be in response to actual court decisions and shouldn't be used pre-emptively in an entirely new bill.
Naive, I know...
not naive. but I am unable to see the analytical difference, given the purpose: which is to ensure that the views of the elected members of parliament are meant to prevail. It may be wise to await a ruling by the court because that may inform how you go about making the statute law charter compliant, but I see no reason why the parliamentarians should have to wait, although of course the SCC could make that rule up too. Moreover, i suspect that if there were a few more invocations of the clause - if that were as common as normal amendments to fix things - the the court would show more deference too.
If the Senate decides that they won’t pass CPC legislation, of any sort, when the new govt gets a super majority they are begging for a constitutional crisis. Unelected bodies do not have the authority to defy the elected body. Even if they slow walk legislation they will create a crisis.
Like the current govt, these senators really need to read the room and understand the depths of frustration Canadians are now feeling.
SECTION 33 is part of our constitution, so is valid in any piece of legislation, and has valid reasons for use. Especially with a court that has decided their mandate is to rewrite laws to be the opposite of what was intended.
Clear thinking Canadians will be Uber frustrated with an authoritarian government ..should Pierre Poilievre form such. Measure today’s frustration with the government of Doug Ford and multiply that level by a factor of 5 or more.
You want authoritarian look no further than the current PM … who it’s ONLY still PM because of a deal NO ONE voted for. Doug ford is also in this second mandate, which was still remarkable large, Ontarian might be getting frustrated, but they aren’t getting any better choices. Pierre won the leadership on the first vote with an extremely high margin. Canadians want change, they expect that change. They have made that point in every poll for over a year.
I have no issue with change for the better.
No poll will convince me that Canadians will be better off under a Poilievre autocracy..
Clear thinking Canadians? 🤔
Senator Harder declares:
“That the Senate express the view that it should not adopt any bill that contains a declaration pursuant to section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, commonly known as the ‘notwithstanding clause.”
Senator Harder seems to think he has clairvoyant gifts to halt Bills from Senate adoption BEFORE they are a passing thought of a Government, let alone drafts of legislation to see and reflect upon.
The unbridled arrogance and contempt for Parliament with such thoughts is self evident.
It is fair game to have public discussions about the use of the Notwithstanding Clause but Senator Harder must remember that the Clause is a legal tool embedded in the Constitution. He will need a better excuse than intransigence to block Bills that are formed around using the Clause without any consideration of the merits.
If Senator Harder and like minded cohorts proceed with this plan, it could ignite a Constitutional crisis that could form some unlikely alliances amongst the Provinces. It has been suggested that Constitutional amendments are too difficult to get consensus but unelected Senators overplaying their hand might produce some unintended Red Chamber consequences.
Sen Harder says that no Chretien or Trudeau Senate appointees have any affiliation with members of caucus: as in the case of " the other Randy", this Peter no doubt is referring to " the other Peter", who distinguishes himself from the Trudeau appontee currently proposing the motion.
Regarding the senator's questions guiding the senate's obligations towards the use of the NWC, why would they apply to that aspect, but which have been almost completely ignored regarding the most serious bills of the past decade--thanks, of course to the ever obliging NDP.
Associative question: it really should be emphasized to any of the current band of Liberal and NDP MP's that they are equally complicit in every single one of Trudeau's actions.
Good on you Paul for asking relevant questions..
I could just see him rolling his eyes at the answer to the question re: Party affiliation.
I would have to agree that the timing of Senator Harder’s motion and his affiliation with the LPC make it suspect.
When he refers to the ‘tyranny of the majority’, the performance of our current government comes to mind.
It is a fallacy that courts are unbiased. It is a fallacy that courts always interpret the law rather than make law. Further, the courts are unelected. So, unelected Justices make law - they do this in Canada and in the US. Would those who think the notwithstanding clause is such an anathema be content with a Supreme Court that decided after many years that women do not have freedom of choice? As many have said below, the notwithstanding clause is part of the constitution and is a valuable tool against overreaching courts. This should be especially apparent after the set of decisions that have come down from the US Supreme court.
The Canadian Supremes need oversight!