11.01.2022 07:18 AM

The end of rights and freedoms

 

31 Comments

  1. Robert White says:

    Premier Ford does not understand the Charter of Rights & Freedoms or the Notwithstanding clause. It’s an abuse
    of the legislation and this is why I cannot tolerate Section 33 given that it’s not disciplined whatsoever and it drives me nuts every time I look at it.

    If I was lawyer I’d be perturbed about Ford and his advisers.

    RW

  2. WestGuy says:

    The clause itself isn’t the issue, it’s how it’s used.
    You have one province that has used the clause repeatedly without anything more than timid verbal opposition from federal leaders – at best. So it was only a matter of time before the other provinces clued in. I find it funny that now that the clause is being used by a province that isn’t Quebec, the Liberals are not only openly criticizing the move but also looking at options to intervene.

    • Martin Dixon says:

      I actually burst out laughing at Trudeau’s comments. “The suspension of people’s rights is something you should only do in the most exceptional circumstances.” I think he even knew how ironic that statement was coming from him. One could argue that a walkout Friday will be much more disruptive than what was going on in Ottawa. But Ottawa is the center of the universe. It will be interesting to see if they bring the same full force of the law against the union leaders.

  3. Sean says:

    Justin has no credibility on this issue at all, after how he treated the postal workers. ZERO. Who the hell do the Liberals think they are kidding?!

  4. Warren,

    I’m confused. I don’t practice constitutional law but it was at least my impression that Section 33 was specifically limited. But when you actually go to Sections 2 and 7-15, you realize how comprehensive an opt-out is legally possible.

    But the Liberals have only themselves to blame: they opted to accept Section 33 in exchange for the premiers of the English-speaking provinces agreeing to the Charter itself. Trudeau made the ultimate devil’s bargain and now Himself TM doesn’t like how Section 33 is being implemented. (Mind you, no one gave a damn when The Gang of Ten screwed over Quebec, so the irony is delicious.)

  5. Doug says:

    Assymetric federalism is toxic and no one should be surprised that the Liberals kowtowing to Quebec all the time on every issue would set precedent for other provinces to.go their own way.

    I’m fairly ambivalent towards the Charter as it seems to have lead to government scope creep. I also support Ford’s use of the Notwithstanding Clause against the unions. At the base of any democratic country is the principal that all individuals are equal. Group rights, be it the right to Catholic education, the right to French language education and government services, the right to collective bargaining and the Indian Act all contradict the principle of equality of individuals. I know this statement is heresy.

    • Doug,

      We must not be watching the same television. Every single one of Quebec’s traditional constitutional demands has been turned down by this Prime Minister. It didn’t matter if the ask came from Couillard or Legault, the answer was always the same: No. So much for kowtowing.

      • Martin Dixon says:

        But the impression(maybe wrong) in flyover country is that Quebec is running roughshod over English speaking and other minority rights and JT is letting it happen. He is allowing the mysterious to the average layperson notwithstanding clause to be used by Quebec to suppress charter rights. But when one million parents have to try to figure out what to do with 2 million kids tomorrow(including many in NIMBY Toronto and Ottawa), NOW he decides to stand on some sort of constitutional principle? And I don’t even get why the notwithstanding clause needs to be invoked to pass back to work legislation. Parties of all stripes at all levels have passed that sort of legislation. Maybe there is a reason but no one will be interested in it while they are trying to find a babysitter.

        • Doug says:

          I think it is because of a 2015 Supreme Court interpretation that the Charter grants a right to strike. Without the NWC, any attempts to legislate back the education workers would likely drag out the dispute, giving the unions more leverage.

        • Martin,

          First off, let’s be clear: the federal government cannot allow or prevent the provinces from using Section 33 in areas of provincial jurisdiction. In reality, the feds are powerless as its use is permitted in the constitution and perfectly legitimate.

          Though the Constitution Act still contains the powers of disallowance and reservation in Sections 55, 56 and 90, those powers are now extinct due to constitutional convention. No federal government will ever invoke those sections by way of the Governor General.

          So all that remains in the world of real politik is court challenges which will inevitably be unsuccessful.

          Now, other legal challenges can win: for example the constitutional obligation to use both English and French in the Quebec courts and legislature. There, any court challenge can’t lose. But put plain and simple, there is no federal Liberal government without Quebec seats so inevitably the buttered bread falls on Quebec’s side.

      • Doug says:

        Not a word from the PM (or the opposition leaders) on Quebec Bills 21 and 96

  6. Doug says:

    I’m unsure if it is true, but I heard from a fairly well informed acquaintance that a Supreme Court ruling from around 2015 interpreted the right to strike as under Charter protection. If that is the case, use of notwithstanding is absolutely required or unions would have free reign to blackmail.

    I’ve always wondered if Right to Work (aka option to opt of union representation) could be interpreted as freedom of association as forced union representation is in effect forced assocation.

  7. Steve T says:

    Laws and “rights” come and go – their presence doesn’t necessarily convey goodness, and their absence doesn’t necessarily convey badness.

    Case in point, the “anti-scab” legislation that is being proposed in various provinces, including here in Manitoba by the opposition NDP. I have another name for scabs: people with a work ethic.

    You want to strike? Knock yourself out. But don’t be surprised when other people are quite happy to take your job, at the rate of pay/benefits you allege is “unfair”. That’s called a competitive labor market.

    Legislating to remove that competitive market is the surest way to guarantee a race to the bottom in terms of Canada’s productivity. But that doesn’t mean the legislation won’t pass – lots of entrenched interests love the idea of removing people’s right to work.

  8. RKJ says:

    Would the “not withstanding” clause enable a Province to opt out of the carbon tax legislation?

    • RKJ,

      You would have to be able to directly attach it to an enumerated right specifically outlined in the Charter and that right would be those specifically affected by the use of the notwithstanding clause. I doubt anyone can actually tie a bow around that one but I’m no constitutional law expert.

    • Doug says:

      The Charter only affects the relationship between the Federal government and individuals. Provinces disputing the carbon tax would need other lines of reasoning.

      • Warren says:

        It affects the relationship between every level of government and individuals. Not just the federal government.

        • RKJ says:

          With Provinces readily using “notwithstanding”, it seems Canadian governance, at the federal level, will steadily become weaker. Agreement to change the Charter requires (I recall), 7 Provinces and 70 percent of the population. I doubt the Supreme Court can direct a change – a conflict between the legislative and legal constituencies. That is a question for others to answer – way out of my knowledge level.

  9. Derek Pearce says:

    This is one of those ” if I could go back in time” things where I’d tell Pierre to stick with his original plan– leave Section 33 out and go over the Premiers’ heads directly to the people with a referendum to shame them into signing.

    • Derek,

      It took one premier and one politician to sink Meech Lake and Charlottetown. Referendum results would not be enough to get all premiers on board. Not in a month of Sundays.

      • Put another way, premiers love constitutional law. It’s the only place where they can use nuclear leverage against the feds and win big. And do it with federal law, to add insult to injury against the feds. Now you know why Liberal or Conservative PMs never want to talk constitution.

  10. Martin Dixon says:

    We rent a small part of our office building to the local MPP. Levac for years and now Bouma. As a result, we attract picketers on a regular basis. It is usually fine. But every once in a while they will stop the staff and clients from accessing our parking lot. That happened this morning with the now “law breaking” picketers. Funny thing is they blocked one of my staff that I would never mess with! Cops are there now. We would not have called them-they would have just known there would be an issue.

  11. Martin Dixon says:

    Protest made the funny papers.

    https://www.brantfordexpositor.ca/news/local-news/cupe-members-hit-picket-lines

    Just for the record, I actually have sympathy for these workers. We just gave our employees big raises because of Justinflation. My dad who I mention above was the director of a school board that he ran with FOUR other people. It is a bit bigger now but now there are FIFTY in the board office. FIFTY. No way can anyone make the case that maybe one or two positions might not be necessary and maybe give the support staff a bigger raise. I say again. It is just math.

    https://www.thomasnet.com/insights/imt/2009/01/20/the-mathematics-of-bureaucracy-explains-how-they-grow-and-at-what-point-they-become-inefficient/

    • Doug says:

      Regardless of whether they are deserving, raises for support workers would set a floor for other union bargaining. The resulting settlements would add billions to government spending. Increased government spending counters central bank tightening, forcing the central banks to tighten more. The only way to end the inflationary spiral is to increase unemployment and decrease disposable income. The stimulus initiatives which started all the way back in 1997 after the collapse of LTCM and the Asian Financial Crisis, may have bought short term electoral gain, but make us all poorer in the long run.

Leave a Reply to Martin Dixon Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.