[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Malthus]

In other news - the Ford government in Ontario is set to use the notwithstanding clause to pass election financing legislation overturned by the courts, and I hope he gets piles of shit for doing so.

https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.theglobeandmail.com/amp/canada/article-ontario-to-recall-legislature-invoke-notwithstanding-clause-over/

[Grey Fox]

It seems such a trivial thing to invoke the clause on. Attack ads, really?

How is he going to become Prime Minister if he can't stomach attack ads?!

[Barrister]

Don't have a religion with face coverings then.

or better yet don't have a religion.

[Malthus]

It seems such a trivial thing to invoke the clause on. Attack ads, really?

How is he going to become Prime Minister if he can't stomach attack ads?!

He threatened to do it before, over legislation concerning the composition of the city council of Toronto.

His threatened use of the clause over such matters is a big problem - it leads to the impression the government will just use the clause whenever it doesn't get its way in anything.

In my view the use of the clause should carry a heavy burden of denunciation and political pain, so that governments only use it on matters they truly think are essential.

So, Quebec (and every other province), please denounce this.

[Barrister]

Man, I remember a time when no less a figure than Stephen Harper sued the government of Canada to strike down spending limits on third parties (Harper v Canada 2004 SCC 33).  Now Ford not only wants such restrictions but will use the Notwithstanding clause to do so? 

I always supported s. 33, thinking it would only be used in cases where the courts just plainly "got it wrong" in areas with broad public support.  But now I'm afraid the public just doesn't care one way or another - that it's too esoteric a subject.

[Zoupa]

Can one of you smarter folks than me explain what the notwithstanding clause is, and that s. 33 thing too for that matter?

[Barrister]

Can one of you smarter folks than me explain what the notwithstanding clause is, and that s. 33 thing too for that matter?

That was just me showing off.  s. 33 of the Charter *is* the notwithstanding clause.

It says that if Parliament or a legislature expressly says so, they can pass a law that contravenes either s. 2 or s. 7-15 of the Charter.  Such an enactment can only last for up to 5 years, but can be re-passed again once the 5 years runs out.

[Malthus]

Man, I remember a time when no less a figure than Stephen Harper sued the government of Canada to strike down spending limits on third parties (Harper v Canada 2004 SCC 33).  Now Ford not only wants such restrictions but will use the Notwithstanding clause to do so? 

I always supported s. 33, thinking it would only be used in cases where the courts just plainly "got it wrong" in areas with broad public support.  But now I'm afraid the public just doesn't care one way or another - that it's too esoteric a subject.

The reason: in Ontario, such legislation will hurt other political parties (particularly the NDP) more than the Conservatives. The other parties rely heavily on unions for funding of so called third party groups.

[Jacob]

Can one of you smarter folks than me explain what the notwithstanding clause is, and that s. 33 thing too for that matter?

I'm sure the lawyers will go into more details, but from a layman's perspective it's like this. Basically, it's an escape clause that allows a government (provincial?) to say "notwithstanding the charter of rights and freedoms, we're going to pass this law that violates it...."

It notwithstanding clause exists as it was necessary to keep Quebec in during the last constitutional settlement. Basically, the idea is that it allows Quebec to say "notwithstanding that this is a clear violation of the common human rights and freedoms all Canadians are entitled to, we're passing this law to protect French culture/ French language." It's framed to be for all provinces, because we have to be fair, see? But it's very much there to help square the circle of fundamental human rights and the need for Quebec to protect its language and culture. So however much Anglo-Canada complains about the laicite laws that's the intended use (because the laicite laws are a violation of fundamental human rights)... basically, the idea is it allows English Canada to go "yeah, we really don't like that shit because it's fundamentally wrong, but okay, we'll live with it because it's a compromise to avoid fracturing the country" and it allows Quebec to say "we believe in human rights and so on just as much as everyone else, it's just those rights specifically exclude a few key items necessary to preserve Quebec culture and identity."

That Ford then goes ahead and uses it for trivial bullshit and short term political advantage essentially undermines the Charter altogether and gives a big old kick to the rickety compromise that's holding our nation together.

... not sure about s.33 specifically.

[Barrister]

Since 1982 it has very rarely been used.

Quebec used it in 1982 to blanket exclude all laws, but no laws were ever challenged and that expired by 1992.  Quebec also used it in the late 80s over it's language laws, but again it was allowed to expire.

Saskatchewan also used it in the 1980s for something about public sector bargaining, but the court later said it was unnecessary as the law in question did not violate the Charter.

But that has been it - it hadn't been used (although it had been threatened) until Quebec in 2019.

[Barrister]

It notwithstanding clause exists as it was necessary to keep Quebec in during the last constitutional settlement.

Quebec was a factor in introducing s. 33, but there was hesitancy / opposition to the Charter in English Canada as well.  Plus in the end Quebec did not sign off on the Constitution.

[Jacob]

Quebec was a factor in introducing s. 33, but there was hesitancy / opposition to the Charter in English Canada as well.  Plus in the end Quebec did not sign off on the Constitution.

That was a nuance I missed at the time.

Where the the hesitancy originate from in English Canada? I have assumptions I could make, but they'd be just that....

[Barrister]

Quebec was a factor in introducing s. 33, but there was hesitancy / opposition to the Charter in English Canada as well.  Plus in the end Quebec did not sign off on the Constitution.

That was a nuance I missed at the time.

Where the the hesitancy originate from in English Canada? I have assumptions I could make, but they'd be just that....

I can't say.  I just looked at a couple of different sources which just said "there was opposition from several premiers" to the Charter without specifying.  Trudeau (Sr.) was obviously a big proponent.

[Barrister]

So New Brunswick Green MP Jenica Atwin (one of only 3 MPs, and only one from eastern Canada) is set to cross the floor and join the Liberals.

Apparently the motivating factor is: Israel / Palestine?  Green leader Annamie Paul (who is Jewish) spoke in favour of peace and reconciliation after the Israel / Hamas conflict last month, but Atwin wasn't standing for it, saying she's firmly on the side of the Palestinians and accused Israel of being an apartheid state.

Not convinced this is a great move for the Liberals though.  I know it's a minority parliament, but they stood a  good chance of picking up the seat anyways in the next election.  And now they can be forced to defend her position on Israel/Palestine.

[Valmy]

We don't have a culture of Islamophobia. We have a culture of religiophobia.

I have certain problems with that but considering the ridiculous amount English speaking countries seem to do to accommodate religions: basically enabling them to launder money, cover up criminal activity, and destroy people's lives just because we don't want to threaten religious freedom. I mean it comes from a noble place but sometimes I think we go too far. Maybe taking a little bit more of an adversarial approach might not be too bad. I guess my main criticism of the Franco model is it seems to come down on more on Joe Christian or Abdul Muslim and less on the institutions themselves. Though French have shown a willingness to remove religious protections from religions that they think are harmful. I don't know, there are problems with both approaches.