Will Poilievre flip a 'kill switch' on Canada's Constitution? | About That

Summary

The video discusses Canada's Notwithstanding Clause, a constitutional tool that allows lawmakers to override certain Charter rights, sparking controversy over its potential use by Pierre Poilievre to bypass Supreme Court rulings. Poilievre has promised to invoke the clause to address criminal justice concerns, particularly for multiple murderers. The video explores the clause’s history, its increasing use by provincial governments, and the implications of using it frequently. Critics warn that such actions could undermine democratic values and constitutional protections, shifting the balance of power and risking the rights of vulnerable minorities.

Takeaways

• 😀 The Notwithstanding Clause in Canada's Constitution allows lawmakers to override certain Charter rights and freedoms.
• 😀 Pierre Poilievre, leader of the Conservative Party, has promised to invoke the Notwithstanding Clause if he becomes Prime Minister.
• 😀 Poilievre's intention to use the Notwithstanding Clause stems from a Supreme Court ruling that blocked consecutive life sentences for a multiple murderer in 2017.
• 😀 The Notwithstanding Clause can override fundamental rights like freedom of religion, freedom of expression, and the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment.
• 😀 Poilievre intends to use the Notwithstanding Clause to ensure that multiple murderers serve long prison sentences, even if it conflicts with Charter rights.
• 😀 Section 33, the Notwithstanding Clause, was included in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to allow governments to override court decisions that are seen as harmful to democracy.
• 😀 The Notwithstanding Clause is rarely used in Canadian federal politics, with its most notable uses being by Quebec to protest the Constitution and by various provinces for local issues.
• 😀 Recent years have seen a rise in the use of the Notwithstanding Clause by provincial governments, including Doug Ford in Ontario and Scott Moe in Saskatchewan.
• 😀 Critics argue that the Notwithstanding Clause threatens democratic ideals by enabling majorities to override minority rights, undermining judicial oversight.
• 😀 Poilievre believes that invoking the Notwithstanding Clause in cases of crime and law enforcement could address public concerns over crime while still being constitutionally sound.
• 😀 The Notwithstanding Clause is a controversial political tool, with some seeing it as a necessary check on judicial power, while others fear its potential to erode rights and freedoms.

Q & A

What is the Notwithstanding Clause in Canada's Constitution?

The Notwithstanding Clause, found in Section 33 of Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows Canadian lawmakers to pass laws that override certain rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter, including freedom of expression, religion, and rights to a fair trial, provided they explicitly declare the use of the clause.

Why did Pierre Poilievre reference the Notwithstanding Clause?

Pierre Poilievre referenced the Notwithstanding Clause because he promised to use it as Prime Minister to override certain judicial rulings, particularly in the context of criminal justice reform, such as keeping multiple murderers in jail for life, despite Supreme Court rulings against such sentences.

How does the Notwithstanding Clause work?

The Notwithstanding Clause allows lawmakers to bypass certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, such as rights against unreasonable search and seizure, or against cruel and unusual punishment. It can be used if a law is challenged and the government decides to invoke it, overriding the judicial ruling.

What is the historical context behind the Notwithstanding Clause's inclusion in the Canadian Constitution?

The Notwithstanding Clause was included in the 1982 Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as a mechanism to balance judicial power with legislative authority. It was meant to allow lawmakers to override judicial decisions that they believe go against the democratic will of the people.

Why has the Notwithstanding Clause been rarely used?

The Notwithstanding Clause has been rarely used because invoking it is politically contentious. It carries a high political cost, as it can be seen as undermining fundamental rights. The clause was intended to be a last resort, only to be used in exceptional cases where there is significant political or societal reason.

Which provinces have used the Notwithstanding Clause recently?

In recent years, provinces like Quebec, Ontario, and Saskatchewan have invoked the Notwithstanding Clause. For example, Doug Ford used it in 2018 to reduce the size of Toronto's City Council, Quebec used it to impose language laws, and Saskatchewan invoked it to pass a law requiring parental notification of pronoun changes in schools.

How did Pierre Poilievre's stance on the Notwithstanding Clause become clearer?

Poilievre made his position on the Notwithstanding Clause clear when he promised, as Conservative leader, to use it if he became Prime Minister. This was reiterated in multiple public statements, including his vow to override Supreme Court rulings on criminal justice issues.

What is the concern about invoking the Notwithstanding Clause too often?

The concern is that frequent use of the Notwithstanding Clause could erode the protection of rights and freedoms in Canada, allowing governments to override Charter rights based on the political agenda of the ruling party, thus undermining the democratic ideals and judicial independence that the Charter is meant to protect.

What is the potential long-term impact of using the Notwithstanding Clause in the way Poilievre proposes?

If Poilievre uses the Notwithstanding Clause as he proposes, it could set a precedent for overriding Charter rights on a wider scale, potentially destabilizing the protection of fundamental rights in Canada and leading to greater polarization and political conflict over what rights should be protected.

Why might some politicians see the Notwithstanding Clause as a necessary tool?

Some politicians argue that the Notwithstanding Clause is necessary to prevent unelected judges from having the final say on political issues and to ensure that the will of the democratically elected legislature can sometimes override judicial decisions, particularly in cases where judges are seen as acting contrary to public sentiment or democratic values.