Anyone knows what if "Notwithstanding" clause applies to Bill C-36?
- Thread starter seekfun
- Start date
So your saying we have 5 years to hobby like it is now? Hopefully when or if this law is passed, perhaps Fred Zed's lawyers can explain the law to us.
The bill will be passed without going through the SCC most likely. And no, the conservatives would not invoke the notwithstanding clause for something like this. It is politically stupid since it has only been invoked federally during war or significant national terrorist threats. I doubt the courts will knowingly enforce an unconstitutional law even if they really should (minimum sentencing is a good example of the courts just ignoring harpers bullshit). I doubt sex workers pose a threat to national security...
courts will enforce it, but constitutional challanges will be part of that process quite quickly.
Invoking the "Notwithstanding" clause for a routine bill such as C-36 would be extraordinarily dangerous politically, not just because it would be likely to cause the government to loose the next election, but more importantly because it would put Canada well onto the path of a dictatorial government without any checks whatsoever.
I think it has been used only once. Not surprisingly by Quebec. Marois did threaten to use it to it for her Charter of Values.
You don't get to 'call a Notwithstanding' after the fact. You write it into your bill when you propose it. No government wants to open debate by saying, "Even though this law tramples on people's Charter rights, we're going ahead". Some might even believe in the Charter, and think their law would pass the test. Either or both might be why there is no 'notwithstanding' clause in C36.
Now that they've confidently put it forward, it seems unlikely they'd admit they'd overlooked the possibility of a successful Charter challenge by adding that clause as an amendment. And I sure can't imagine the opposition parties helping them out by proposing one. Although I suppose they might do it for the embarrassment potential.
I believe Québec has included notwithstanding wording in every statute pretty much since the Constitution was adopted, but as a SOP to assert its independence, and not to protect bad legislation, except maybe for the language laws.
