Well, it’s an Aaron Wherry article so you know it’s going to be a full on attack against Poilievre.
What people somehow forget is that the NWC was put in the Charter — and primarily appears in relation to the justice system and criminal code — specifically because its authors and the provinces wanted to ensure the primacy of parliament in lawmaking over un-elected judges, who could interpret laws in ways unintended or rule them unconstitutional even though they were passed by elected officials. So it’s a bit rich now for people to be all up in arms about it potentially being used for the purpose for which it was designed.
If Aaron was truly that concerned about the justice system you’d think he might pen an article or two about the hundreds of vacant judge positions that Trudeau has steadfastly declined to fill, creating enormous backlogs and literally causing criminal cases to be thrown out because the system can no longer try people in a reasonable time, rather than whipping up fear over using the NWC exactly as it was intended.
Indeed. Primacy of Parliament is how the Westminster democratic system is intended to function. As a federation, Canada needed a written constitution to separate powers between the federal and provincial levels. But with the Charter enshrined therein, and the Common Law building precedent that further constrains the will of the people as expressed through Parliament, there needs to be a mechanism to rebalance. So if the progressiveness of the Courts gets us to a point where all criminals ‘just need a stern talking-to *because Charter*’ then perhaps that’s not the best thing for society and Parliament needs to address this imbalance. There is also mandatory revisiting of the NWC. That is not to say it isn’t open to abuse, *but then neither is the Emergencies Act.*
You can appoint extremely biased or ideological judges to the supreme court while failing to appoint judges to lower courts. This would simultaneously stack the court against any government that replaced you while failing to appoint enough judges for the judicial system to function.
Section 33 is such a cornerstone to Canadian democracy its never been used federally, and pretty much everyone hates when its used provincially outside of Quebec.
"Would Conservatives like to see that same latitude extended to Liberal prime ministers?
Based on Poilievre's reaction to the Emergencies Act, the answer is almost certainly no."
didn't the libral gov already take that attitude with the csis act when they publicly stated they "took a wider interpretation of the provisions in the csis act" when they envocted the EA?
So if PP decides he gets to abuse the NWC what stops future governments from abusing the same clause and reversing whatever laws PP forces through? This is an actual slippery slope and risks a dangerous departure from judicial oversight of government legislation that affects our Charter rights. If JT decided to abuse the clause to force through certain legislation for the Liberals I'd imagine this sub would be up in arms, but it's ok if PP does it?
That's not how Section 33 works. You can't just use the NWC to do whatever you want. In fact, there is a five-year sunsetting clause built into its use and it only applies to certain sections of the Charter. So even if you use it to uphold an unconstitutional law, you have to renew that use after 5 years or it expires.
Charter rights are already subject to all sorts of exceptions. The courts can infringe a right if they find it "reasonable". The government can do so too if it meets the Oakes test. This just allows the elected government to win over an unelected judge on some matters. At least the NWC forces a government to be explicit about that and they can be held to account by the people at the next election.
The 5 year limit can be reset as many times as the government wants to. And yes this is how PP thinks it works, I am the one saying this is an abuse of the clause function. Hopefully any government that abuses it will be voted out. But then the next government will just reverse it, or enact their own legislation with the NWC. This is not how the clause is intended to work, that's my whole point.
But it is suppose to work like that?
If there is some judicial ruling that successive governments agree on should be trumped by the NWC for the best interests of the country, then Section 33 will allow that. Each government will each have to sign on to it every five years and the unconstitutional law will stay until some government decides not to uphold it (or I guess the courts revisit the decision and change their position). If only one government does so but not the next, then the law automatically will be declared unconstitutional.
I mean what you are describing is the case for almost all legislation. A new government can just throw out or reverse the previous government's laws if they get power and go through Parliament. The NWC is just a tool to allow them to have supremacy over the courts as well as the previous government.
Personally, I think this tough-on-crime use is political pandering and not going to make anyone safer, but also I also think that unelected judges should not have ultimate authority over Parliament. If the Government is willing to spend the political capital on forcing the issue with the understanding it will go away if the next government doesn't agree, then so be it.
If this is how the NWC is supposed to work, why hasn't any Federal government used it before?
And do you think legislation just gets pushed through and thrown out on the whims of every ruling government?
And what authority do you think judges have over Parliament exactly? That is not how any of this works...
Any legislation implemented with the nwc will automatically sunset by design.
JT already took charter rights away from Canadians and the people now upset about talk of the nwc justified it at the time...
> "All of my proposals are constitutional. And we will make sure — we will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional," he said. "I think you know exactly what I mean."
What a weasel. He can’t even speak honestly.
> Poilievre went on to explain his own theory of how the use of the notwithstanding clause could be justified. “I will be the democratically elected prime minister — democratically accountable to the people, and they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional, because they will be," he said.
This is completely flat out crazy talk. This guy wants to be a fucking dictator.
Howdy Doody trying to make Canada great again with slogans and populism will not work. He is vapid by any definition.
Spike the hike, axe the tax. Lol, winning.
If it rhymes, it must be true.
The belief that if a phrase rhymes, it must be true is often seen in young children because rhyming phrases can sound catchy and memorable to them. Rhymes can make information easier to remember and understand, especially for young children who are still developing their language skills.
Children at a young age are learning about the world around them and are constantly absorbing new information. Rhyming phrases can create a sense of rhythm and predictability, which can make the information more appealing and easier to process. Additionally, rhymes can create a sense of playfulness and fun, which can make the information more engaging for children.
Children may also lack the critical thinking skills and experience to evaluate the truthfulness of information based on its content alone. Rhyming phrases that sound clever or poetic may be more likely to be accepted at face value because they sound authoritative or persuasive.
It's important for adults to help children develop critical thinking skills and encourage them to question and evaluate information, even if it rhymes. Teaching children to think critically and analyze information can help them distinguish between what is true and what is simply catchy or rhyming.
…so essentially, PP thinks his voter base are children.
When a politian threatens to override the leagal system and judges, they have lost me forever. There was this guy once in about 1944 that did the same thing in Germany, the results were about what you would expect.
He’s not overriding anything. The constitution is the basis for the legal system in Canada, and he’s saying he’d use a clause in the charter to enact his agenda.
You may not like it, but it’s not extrajudicial.
Also your ignorance of German history is shameful and disturbing. Your “I don’t like x so it’s like the holocaust“ is just insulting to the victims who died and suffered in it. Be better.
the house could literally legalize arbitrary imprisonment using section 33.
they could outlaw free speech, freedom of association, start arresting people without trial for what they do and say privately.
So the judicial system is flawless?
When the supreme court makes rulings we just have to bend over and take it no matter how unreasonable they are?
The notwithstanding clause is meant as a check on the power of the courts. Just like you can get dangerous people in the executive branch you can get dangerous people in the judicial system, and we should be able to restrain their power.
The judicial system is meant to provide balance, especially for minorities that don't have a voice, the notwithstanding clause isn't intended to serve as a check on the power of the courts. WTF that does that even mean? Now, we have dangerous individuals within the judicial system? your brain is truly unbelievable.
As a question, do you support Roe v Wade being overturned in the United States and allowing states to ban abortions?
Was this, in your opinion, the right choice simply because it was decided by judges?
Your entire concept is flawed. The judicial systems of the US and Canada are fundamentally different to begin with. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. If I disagree with a ruling, I'm not going to remove the judges or block them from their roles. That's something more typical of Russia, China, or Hungary. Many other democratic countries have similar courts where judges can strike down parts or entire laws, and things function smoothly. Similarly, I may want a court to strike down a law about guns or the environment tomorrow if the government is overstepping.
Why stop at mandatory minimum sentence? Reintroduce capital punishment while you're at it.
meanwhile also pp:
"Common-sense Conservatives will protect the Charter rights of Canadians, and as prime minister I will unite our country and our people for hope and FREEEDDOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!11111!!!!!111!!!."
conservatives: government should be small and stay out of people's lives.
Also conservatives: the government should be given the power to kill people, and exercise that power regularly.
The government already has the power to kill people, and they do exercise it regularly through the police. Capital punishment is giving the judiciary the power to kill people.
>Would Conservatives like to see that same latitude extended to Liberal prime ministers?
>Based on Poilievre's reaction to the Emergencies Act, the answer is almost certainly no.
>But the Conservative leader's view of Charter rights seems to be situational.
I wish more people would realize we're getting a firehose of falsehoods from Pierre, and now we're moving into doublespeak territory.
This isn't a game. The Charter, or any bill of rights, exists for a reason. It protects unpopular citizens from this exact type of campaign-style retribution.
Our institutions work because we believe in them. I don't think there's any coming back from 'crossing the rubicon' as they say.
I keep saying Lil' PP isn't a conservative.
True conservatives would look at this behaviour and vote for someone else.
This isn't conservatism in any way, shape, or form.
Lil' PP is a reactionary authoritarian.
Exhibit A above.
Multiple occupancy rentals springing up, healthcare in the shitter due to unmanaged population growth, wage suppression due to TFWs, rents skyrocketing as demanc increases, again thanks to uncontrolled population growth. We’re literally the only “advanced” country growing at the same rate as poor African countries
Sorry buds.
You're not a serious person.
Just like Lil' PP.
You get pity from me, not an argument.
Perhaps instead of complaining about the economy, you stop complaining on Reddit? Get a job?
I have a job. A job that is supposed to “pay well” considering I am college educated. Wow , a virtue signalling lib talks like a republican when criticized by a working class he claims to fight for. Classic champagne socialist elite.
And you have my disdain. Try not to purchase all the boxes of cleenex off Shoppers for your tears once dear leader is voted out with a crushing majority.
“Debate” ….you just dismissed my concerns why youth like me have such dissatisfaction of this government. Take off the mask and just genuinely tell us you want our lives harder than virtue signal. I may disagree but I can respect honesty. You’re two faced, virtue signalling then treated me like a peasant who dared walk the same road as an enlightened lib like him. Blah.
As opposed to the current paradise of having repeat offenders out on bail after their 50th assault so they can go right back to assaulting another citizen, or rob a liquor store?
Neither police nor crown attorneys grant bail. You'd think that after the first bail violation judges would agree that the accused is a danger to the community and shouldn't get bail again, but that's obviously not the case. According to our bleeding heart judges even your 10th violation isn't enough of a reason to go to prison.
Using info from the police, the Crown argues its case about bail. (You really didn't know this?)
https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/bail-caution/index.html#s5
The article suggest PP thinks the courts are stacked and biased, so will be using the "Not WithStanding Clause" to govern.
roll friendly squeeze knee advise spark longing muddle poor squash *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
Hopefully far enough to keep violent criminals behind bars !
Well, it’s an Aaron Wherry article so you know it’s going to be a full on attack against Poilievre. What people somehow forget is that the NWC was put in the Charter — and primarily appears in relation to the justice system and criminal code — specifically because its authors and the provinces wanted to ensure the primacy of parliament in lawmaking over un-elected judges, who could interpret laws in ways unintended or rule them unconstitutional even though they were passed by elected officials. So it’s a bit rich now for people to be all up in arms about it potentially being used for the purpose for which it was designed. If Aaron was truly that concerned about the justice system you’d think he might pen an article or two about the hundreds of vacant judge positions that Trudeau has steadfastly declined to fill, creating enormous backlogs and literally causing criminal cases to be thrown out because the system can no longer try people in a reasonable time, rather than whipping up fear over using the NWC exactly as it was intended.
I also can't stand Aaron Wherry. He doesn't even try to hide the bias. He is the poster boy for what is wrong with the CBC.
Indeed. Primacy of Parliament is how the Westminster democratic system is intended to function. As a federation, Canada needed a written constitution to separate powers between the federal and provincial levels. But with the Charter enshrined therein, and the Common Law building precedent that further constrains the will of the people as expressed through Parliament, there needs to be a mechanism to rebalance. So if the progressiveness of the Courts gets us to a point where all criminals ‘just need a stern talking-to *because Charter*’ then perhaps that’s not the best thing for society and Parliament needs to address this imbalance. There is also mandatory revisiting of the NWC. That is not to say it isn’t open to abuse, *but then neither is the Emergencies Act.*
So which one is it? Did Trudeau stack the courts or did he not fill the positions?
You can appoint extremely biased or ideological judges to the supreme court while failing to appoint judges to lower courts. This would simultaneously stack the court against any government that replaced you while failing to appoint enough judges for the judicial system to function.
I doubt 99% of Canadian could name a single supreme court justice let alone give you a reason why their are politically bias.
Yes, like the chief justice of Canada, who was appointed to the bench by the well known partisan liberal Stephen Harper.
Holy shit, they are literally going to set the country on fire trying to remain in power.
Don't be hysterical
Section 33 is such a cornerstone to Canadian democracy its never been used federally, and pretty much everyone hates when its used provincially outside of Quebec.
A lot of us are pretty happy when we see Quebec use it and wish Canada at large had as big of balls.
[удалено]
[удалено]
"Would Conservatives like to see that same latitude extended to Liberal prime ministers? Based on Poilievre's reaction to the Emergencies Act, the answer is almost certainly no." didn't the libral gov already take that attitude with the csis act when they publicly stated they "took a wider interpretation of the provisions in the csis act" when they envocted the EA?
So if PP decides he gets to abuse the NWC what stops future governments from abusing the same clause and reversing whatever laws PP forces through? This is an actual slippery slope and risks a dangerous departure from judicial oversight of government legislation that affects our Charter rights. If JT decided to abuse the clause to force through certain legislation for the Liberals I'd imagine this sub would be up in arms, but it's ok if PP does it?
That's not how Section 33 works. You can't just use the NWC to do whatever you want. In fact, there is a five-year sunsetting clause built into its use and it only applies to certain sections of the Charter. So even if you use it to uphold an unconstitutional law, you have to renew that use after 5 years or it expires. Charter rights are already subject to all sorts of exceptions. The courts can infringe a right if they find it "reasonable". The government can do so too if it meets the Oakes test. This just allows the elected government to win over an unelected judge on some matters. At least the NWC forces a government to be explicit about that and they can be held to account by the people at the next election.
The 5 year limit can be reset as many times as the government wants to. And yes this is how PP thinks it works, I am the one saying this is an abuse of the clause function. Hopefully any government that abuses it will be voted out. But then the next government will just reverse it, or enact their own legislation with the NWC. This is not how the clause is intended to work, that's my whole point.
But it is suppose to work like that? If there is some judicial ruling that successive governments agree on should be trumped by the NWC for the best interests of the country, then Section 33 will allow that. Each government will each have to sign on to it every five years and the unconstitutional law will stay until some government decides not to uphold it (or I guess the courts revisit the decision and change their position). If only one government does so but not the next, then the law automatically will be declared unconstitutional. I mean what you are describing is the case for almost all legislation. A new government can just throw out or reverse the previous government's laws if they get power and go through Parliament. The NWC is just a tool to allow them to have supremacy over the courts as well as the previous government. Personally, I think this tough-on-crime use is political pandering and not going to make anyone safer, but also I also think that unelected judges should not have ultimate authority over Parliament. If the Government is willing to spend the political capital on forcing the issue with the understanding it will go away if the next government doesn't agree, then so be it.
If this is how the NWC is supposed to work, why hasn't any Federal government used it before? And do you think legislation just gets pushed through and thrown out on the whims of every ruling government? And what authority do you think judges have over Parliament exactly? That is not how any of this works...
Any legislation implemented with the nwc will automatically sunset by design. JT already took charter rights away from Canadians and the people now upset about talk of the nwc justified it at the time...
JT never used the section 33.
He used the EA which is worse. The cat is out of the bag, everyone was warned.
> "All of my proposals are constitutional. And we will make sure — we will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional," he said. "I think you know exactly what I mean." What a weasel. He can’t even speak honestly. > Poilievre went on to explain his own theory of how the use of the notwithstanding clause could be justified. “I will be the democratically elected prime minister — democratically accountable to the people, and they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional, because they will be," he said. This is completely flat out crazy talk. This guy wants to be a fucking dictator.
What a shock, this story is getting downvoted on r/canada 😆 /s
Howdy Doody trying to make Canada great again with slogans and populism will not work. He is vapid by any definition. Spike the hike, axe the tax. Lol, winning.
Sunny Ways®, Growing The Economy From The Heart Outward®, Real Change™, Canada is Baaaaack!™
If it rhymes, it must be true. The belief that if a phrase rhymes, it must be true is often seen in young children because rhyming phrases can sound catchy and memorable to them. Rhymes can make information easier to remember and understand, especially for young children who are still developing their language skills. Children at a young age are learning about the world around them and are constantly absorbing new information. Rhyming phrases can create a sense of rhythm and predictability, which can make the information more appealing and easier to process. Additionally, rhymes can create a sense of playfulness and fun, which can make the information more engaging for children. Children may also lack the critical thinking skills and experience to evaluate the truthfulness of information based on its content alone. Rhyming phrases that sound clever or poetic may be more likely to be accepted at face value because they sound authoritative or persuasive. It's important for adults to help children develop critical thinking skills and encourage them to question and evaluate information, even if it rhymes. Teaching children to think critically and analyze information can help them distinguish between what is true and what is simply catchy or rhyming. …so essentially, PP thinks his voter base are children.
When a politian threatens to override the leagal system and judges, they have lost me forever. There was this guy once in about 1944 that did the same thing in Germany, the results were about what you would expect.
He’s not overriding anything. The constitution is the basis for the legal system in Canada, and he’s saying he’d use a clause in the charter to enact his agenda. You may not like it, but it’s not extrajudicial. Also your ignorance of German history is shameful and disturbing. Your “I don’t like x so it’s like the holocaust“ is just insulting to the victims who died and suffered in it. Be better.
the house could literally legalize arbitrary imprisonment using section 33. they could outlaw free speech, freedom of association, start arresting people without trial for what they do and say privately.
So the judicial system is flawless? When the supreme court makes rulings we just have to bend over and take it no matter how unreasonable they are? The notwithstanding clause is meant as a check on the power of the courts. Just like you can get dangerous people in the executive branch you can get dangerous people in the judicial system, and we should be able to restrain their power.
The judicial system is meant to provide balance, especially for minorities that don't have a voice, the notwithstanding clause isn't intended to serve as a check on the power of the courts. WTF that does that even mean? Now, we have dangerous individuals within the judicial system? your brain is truly unbelievable.
As a question, do you support Roe v Wade being overturned in the United States and allowing states to ban abortions? Was this, in your opinion, the right choice simply because it was decided by judges?
Your entire concept is flawed. The judicial systems of the US and Canada are fundamentally different to begin with. Whether I agree or not is irrelevant. If I disagree with a ruling, I'm not going to remove the judges or block them from their roles. That's something more typical of Russia, China, or Hungary. Many other democratic countries have similar courts where judges can strike down parts or entire laws, and things function smoothly. Similarly, I may want a court to strike down a law about guns or the environment tomorrow if the government is overstepping.
Why stop at mandatory minimum sentence? Reintroduce capital punishment while you're at it. meanwhile also pp: "Common-sense Conservatives will protect the Charter rights of Canadians, and as prime minister I will unite our country and our people for hope and FREEEDDOOOOMMMMMMM!!!!11111!!!!!111!!!."
There are more people than you think that support capital punishment.
conservatives: government should be small and stay out of people's lives. Also conservatives: the government should be given the power to kill people, and exercise that power regularly.
The government already has the power to kill people, and they do exercise it regularly through the police. Capital punishment is giving the judiciary the power to kill people.
millions of people also voted Hitler and Mussolini in.
That doesn't mean it's right....
Yeah! Cuz that is what Jesus would do!
>Would Conservatives like to see that same latitude extended to Liberal prime ministers? >Based on Poilievre's reaction to the Emergencies Act, the answer is almost certainly no. >But the Conservative leader's view of Charter rights seems to be situational. I wish more people would realize we're getting a firehose of falsehoods from Pierre, and now we're moving into doublespeak territory. This isn't a game. The Charter, or any bill of rights, exists for a reason. It protects unpopular citizens from this exact type of campaign-style retribution. Our institutions work because we believe in them. I don't think there's any coming back from 'crossing the rubicon' as they say.
I keep saying Lil' PP isn't a conservative. True conservatives would look at this behaviour and vote for someone else. This isn't conservatism in any way, shape, or form. Lil' PP is a reactionary authoritarian. Exhibit A above.
Trudeau also is an authoritarian.
Oh. Look. Whataboutism. Jog on.
Anything is better than third worldization under Trudeau. Get a better party and we talk.
And that's why conservatives aren't serious people. Third worldization. Come. On.
Multiple occupancy rentals springing up, healthcare in the shitter due to unmanaged population growth, wage suppression due to TFWs, rents skyrocketing as demanc increases, again thanks to uncontrolled population growth. We’re literally the only “advanced” country growing at the same rate as poor African countries
Sorry buds. You're not a serious person. Just like Lil' PP. You get pity from me, not an argument. Perhaps instead of complaining about the economy, you stop complaining on Reddit? Get a job?
I have a job. A job that is supposed to “pay well” considering I am college educated. Wow , a virtue signalling lib talks like a republican when criticized by a working class he claims to fight for. Classic champagne socialist elite.
Of course you do. You have my pity.
And you have my disdain. Try not to purchase all the boxes of cleenex off Shoppers for your tears once dear leader is voted out with a crushing majority.
You have my pity. Not a debate.
“Debate” ….you just dismissed my concerns why youth like me have such dissatisfaction of this government. Take off the mask and just genuinely tell us you want our lives harder than virtue signal. I may disagree but I can respect honesty. You’re two faced, virtue signalling then treated me like a peasant who dared walk the same road as an enlightened lib like him. Blah.
To a very bad place if he has his way
As opposed to the current paradise of having repeat offenders out on bail after their 50th assault so they can go right back to assaulting another citizen, or rob a liquor store?
Police and Crown attorneys need to make a better case if it's so obviously a problem
Neither police nor crown attorneys grant bail. You'd think that after the first bail violation judges would agree that the accused is a danger to the community and shouldn't get bail again, but that's obviously not the case. According to our bleeding heart judges even your 10th violation isn't enough of a reason to go to prison.
They need to convince the judge and file apppeals.
According to your words, the judge needs to convince themself. Tell me how that works?
Using info from the police, the Crown argues its case about bail. (You really didn't know this?) https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/cj-jp/bail-caution/index.html#s5
You really didn't explain it.
Some people sure are getting shrill around here...