Legal experts are warning that the Liberal government’s request for the Supreme Court of Canada to place limits on the Charter’s notwithstanding clause will upend the constitution.
Unstated is the notion that if the court can arbitrarily restrict one clause, why not others and end up re-writing the Charter? And it undermines rule of law insofar as every case is unique and must be decided on it's own merits!
Also unstated is that Trudeau Liberals stacked the courts with activist judges, starting with the Head of the SCC. So it would become the liberal's pathway to undermining our rights. I can assure you, they're just using this to get their foot in the door. They already have several other restrictions up their sleeve!!! And to prove my point, only an activist court would want to restrict their own ability to decide cases!!!
Definitely SOMETHING coming down the tube...there's alotta scrambling around..here AND the states. When ya think Carney will pause Parliament again..??
If they rule in favor of Carnage that's what they may see. It never should have gotten to this point. I blame voters. Now many newly arrived Canadians would likely not have a problem with Marxist Rule.
Yup..almost there..if I'd have known Ontar-we-owe was THIS F$#KED up, I would not have left Alberta..our provincial Conservative gov't has a Liberal premier?? who's brainchild for easing Toronto's traffic woes is to build a tunnel UNDER the 401 the length of the GTA...
"Unstated is the notion that if the court can arbitrarily restrict one clause, why not others and end up re-writing the Charter?"
The Charter already grants judges unfettered discretion to abridge constitutional rights on the basis of "reasonable limits" under section 1, so your fears are unwarranted because this is already the status quo. The only "reasonable limit" on judicial discretion was of course section 33, the provision the Liberals now seek to nullify.
thks for that!!..do you know if the Charter states we can legally oppose an abusive/ tyrannical gov't??..I swear I read it in there about 7/ 8 years ago..but for the life of me I can't find it..
The first is that our supposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms the rather worthless document that it seems to be. This since politicians like the weird sock fetish jerk ignored it whenever it suited him to go after those who he did not like or disagreed with.
Next, as useless as this document appears to be the NOTWITHSTANDING clause was put in there to avoid exactly what the Lieberals are asking the Supreme court to do which was to suspend rulings issued by the courts that appeared to be in conflict with what politicians were elected to do or which contradicted the intent of the charter itself. This has been used for both good and bad but such is the price of putting that in their and it was intended to make that useless piece of paper a bit more meaningful when judges issued certain edicts.
… SO … Does it not seem strange and sad that now Carney’s Liberals are asking the Supreme Court to rule on a Charter mechanism which was placed there to specifically over-ride their opinions…
…. Laughable …. SO… If the Supremies rule there are limits to the use of this clause can that cluase then be invoked to over-ride their ruling??
…. BTW … Such was/is the legacy of the jerk’s daddy who intentionally created a document that shifted accountability and responsibility from elected officials to unelected judges.
Now said same elected officials are, in effect, asking these unelected judges, to make them even less responsible and accountable.
How much coin did Trudeau bank? I haven't a clue but I will say this. RCMP Detective 101 indicates "follow the money trail Mountie/gumshoe/flat foot/Dick Tracy/G-Man". Want an example? Google search George Soros and NGOs. USA Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent worked for George Soros until he joined the Trump Administration team . He was a hedge fund manager and 200W light bulb. How do you think Trump Admin got the jump on the NGOs after the inaugeration, and are now filing RICO charges against George Soros and other progressives. Also, some of those NGOs operated in Canada. Follow the money trail folks.
AI Overview app thingy response to my query on the percentage corruption crimes involve money >> "While specific statistics on the percentage of all corruption crimes involving money are not readily available, evidence suggests that financial gain is a primary motivator for corruption, and money laundering is a significant component of organized crime. Reports show that 29% of organized crime groups are involved in money laundering, and substantial amounts of money are laundered annually in Canada and globally".
Fraser is an USELESS jerk,I wish the P.O.S. carnage had allowed him to exit politics and not talked him into staying.He was useless during “turdboy” reign and he will be USELESS under carnage as well!!
I am seriously beginning to think that all governments are out to have the populace go in circles until the day we wake up and it looks like Elysium. Rich up top in the sky with the food/medical and clean air as the rest of the populace is running around in the pit of the world left behind. And the whole time - the government did it all for you. I keep telling my husband....we have to be very careful what we ask the government for because it seems like someone indicates to the government we need help - parents can't talk at parent council meetings, peoples guns are now unlawful, you can't get on a plane without first get a shot.....
This has to be by design. Fraser would not have the brains to appeal to the SCC on his won. This is Carney's plan, leading to the break-up of Canada.
Now the big question is WHY? I am seriously asking. I know Carney is a WEF zealot who wants to implement their 2030 agenda.
But, if Quebec, AB & SK secede (probably followed by anything north of Vancouver in BC), what's left? Ontario cannot provide equalization payment to the Maritime provinces, not what they are used to.
Does Carney think he can rule over what is left or will we be annexed to the USA? I don't see that as being feasible to him. Maybe Europe? He's spoken about Canada being a European country.
Another irony of this, is it's aimed at Que's Bill 23 to stop religious garb prohibitions there. Muslims are the beneficiaries of that being over-turned. Islamists have openly sneered that they will take over this country and all of the west. This is another step closer to that in Canada.
I'm trying to foresee the outcome of this and really can't see how Carney benefits. What am I missing?
On the Islamists front a read of the Koran has many answers, though they would counter that the book is up to interpretation and they are the only ones who can accomplish that. I say, "how convenient."
On the previous comment I think Carney envisions Marxist rule that would effectively make us prisoners in our own country. His friend Xi smiles knowingly on that one.
He benefits by having control. And by rewarding his Brookfield Asset management group of which he holds 'lots of shares'. Did you really thing he was doing this in good faith? Name one good faith he has done since he 'showed up' with his fake book. I suggest a way around this if we can put an important secret piece together.
Thanks. I am beginning to think that a constitutional crises, especially in light of this new bill C9 hate speech, might be our only chance of waking enough people up that this has all been by design--that Carney's goal was to break Canada. Our best hope would be that triggers an election.
But I also fear it will be too late. The western provinces will break from Canada and they will be strong. God only knows what will happen to QC.
Personally, I would prefer that the USA take what is left of us over (probably they'd only be interested if we were a territory with no voting power like Puerto Rico) to being a Marxist WEF/UN country.
The notwithstanding clause was designed to protect democracy from activist judges. With sufficient public support, it allows our elected governments to stop the courts from overriding them. This protects our freedoms.
What is a real threat to our freedoms is section 1 of the Charter that allows judges to override our charter rights whenever they, in their sole discretion, think the restriction on our rights is, in their opinion, “justified in a free and democratic society”. What free and democratic society allows judges to override rights?
Yeah but if politicians get elected by stomping all over the charter rights of minority groups, your freedoms are protected by the judicial branch. When the legislative branch is against you, your only recourse is to the courts.
What groups are “the judiciary” against? Last time I checked, different judges have very different interpretations and arguments— hence the different levels of courts that you can appeal a case to.
The judiciary in Canada tends to be Liberal. The appeals courts and the Supreme court are all Liberal too, so if you’re fighting for a conservative cause like freedom of speech or the right to self defence or to own guns, you won’t get much of a hearing in the courts of Canada.
Freedom of speech is certainly not a conservative only cause, that is absolutely for sure.
I guess you have more trust in the legislative branch and I have more trust in the judicial branch. I hope they find the appropriate balance between the two.
I think all provinces should for their own benefit leave confederation. Leave the feds holding an empty bag. I can't see any future for this already busted country. I'll be sticking with APP, and then we'll see if UPC will hang together and lead.
Ottawa tells us to tighten our belts. The reason we're in such a bloody mess is squarely on their shoulders. Yes, get rid of Confederation, get rid of Ottawa's blood sucking ways and reality will then take over. Some will have to work or starve. No more golden pensions. No more G.G.s who are a throw back to 1780's France. No more indigenous with their hands out to Ottawa either. It will be redundant....and get rid of policy telling us to put up all those wandering in to this country into hotels while our homeless sleep in tents.
That's the way I figure it. If we are going to work together, we have to abolish confederation (and fed government). Look after our own. Then we could start all over, with equal membership. Every thing equal in law and citizen's rights.
This is once again having lawyers deal with something that they have no power or business doing . These laws were formed by the people and elected officials . They should only be changed by the people . You can't have a couple corrupt people deciding what is good for all the people . Carney is increasing his power every chance he gets and the supreme court is bought and paid for . This would take away provincial power and the power of the people . This is text book communism .
probably not communism since they dont say free the worker with tyranny. Probably more national socialist since they want total control of the economy with people suppression and all friends rewarded.
Well people have voted from school boards to Municipal Govts. to fill them with Liberals. We knew what a corrupt group they have become. We have a chance to begin at the Municipal Election in October to stop it there which includes school boards as well that absolutely 'no one' bothers to even read the names. They were possibly the most important names on the ballot 10 Elections ago.
Fraser should have left politics. He's failed in every portfolio. This will likely be his worst. Another Liberal swelled head bringing our once proud nation down.
Not one province would be in favour of the courts circumventing the process to alter the charter. If the Carney circus wishes to try they can look to Mulrooney's Meechlake Accord for the proper process. They haven't a snowball's chance in he** of getting this through by process. It also demonstrates the authoritarian nature of the liebrals. They are not to be trusted.
Funny how the Liberal government/Sean Fraser is expressing concern over our Charter of Rights & Freedoms and Quebec’s use of a particular section. The government was quite happy to stomp all over it during Covid, the mandates and the Freedom
Convoy. The Charter does not protect any of us against a tyrannical government.
Some times I wish, as a common citizen I could use the not withstanding clause. Then I am sure that those in "higher" seats would very careful when walking in egg shells!
Our constitution is already uprnded. The liberals have ignored it for a decade. They walk all over the constitution without consequence. It may as well be scrapped.
That's because the Federal Conservatives have no balls. If Moxy Smith can hire lawyers to address a constitutional violation, why can't the Federal Conservatives. Canada has a minority federal gov. This is the the test of the BLOC, NDP and Green parties' Canadian patriotism. Will they work with the Conservatives to repair the social economic issues of Canada? We are in the same course as England. So, far the unimaginative BLOC keep spewing separatism - just leave, here's your part of the debt, bye bye $25B equalization payment, higher Hydro Quebec bills and fuel costs, higher medical costs. I'm telling you all - if the BLOC, NDP and Green parties don't "BLINK", by forming a coalition gov with the Conservatives by the end of the year, then Charlie Kirk is right in "Canada has fallen".
You are mostly right. To make it more meaningful help ensure Stephen Lewis doesn't win the leadership of the NDP. Naomi Klein his wife comes from a communist family. And, given voter behaviour to vote for 'flashy newcomers' the fools will vote him in. So, another hurdle to overcome.
good point..we'll see what happens next..not sure what Freeland's taking the Envoy job in Ukraine (her home) was about..but pretty sure Carney sent her immediately, because of the fallout from her Transport Minister dealings with the Chinese building those 4 ships..this might turn out to be bad news for Carney..we can only hope..
wud be nice..Carney/Trudeau are slicker than snot on a doorknob..if we can't find a legal way to make criminal charges against them stick, we shud use something a bit more...penetrating??..just sayin'
I'm not sure the 4 ships are that meaningful to the big picture. My understanding was that the BC NDP orchestrated that foolish purchase. I feel she didn't have time to review the file properly and couldn't stop it. I believe she resigned from her Ministry in Transportation for that reason. Carney doesn't want her talking about it so he pretends to still be her NBF and is shipping her out of the way to the Ukraine. Prove me wrong!
Actually, when reporters last week asked her about the deal, Freeland said she had JUST been informed about it, and was 'surprised' the China deal happened, and disappointed that it didn't go to a Canadian shipbuilder..BUT..Premier Eby has an email advising Freeland about the deal 6 weeks before it was publicized!!!
The Canadian Charter is a joke. All you need to verify this is to examine the clown who pushed all this through in 1982 - Pierre Elliott Trudeau - the father of Western Destruction.
All Canadians should not only read our charter but own a copy, then they would realize how useless our charter of rights and freedoms truly is. I own a copy and I am disgusted by the all the protection it gives politicians and the powers to be in England as well as the so called royal family...and yet give only a few short pages for us citizens, or should I say us subjects!
They already crapped on the Constitution with an illegal EA, hunting down and persecuting Convoy donors, revoking our right to peaceful assembly, forcing experimental vaccines on us and weaponizing the police against the public.
“When Tyranny becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty.” - Thomas Jefferson
Carney is evil. He could pay Quebec to change Bill 21. Using the Supreme Court to limit the Not Withstanding rule in the Constitution is aimed at Alberta. It was Peter Lougheed, the Premiere of Alberta, who refused to sign the Constitution unless the Not Withstanding rule was added. Take this rule out and Alberta will declare the Constitution null and void. Go ahead, destroy Canada's Constitution.
Maybe have a look at the actual arguments being proposed. The Liberals aren’t “using the Supreme Court”. The federal government is one of like 60 groups providing their opinion, which they should be doing.
Mostly all this is about is whether the courts can still examine whether a piece of legislation is against the charter and issue a *non-binding* declaration. It wouldn’t stop a policy from going forward, it’s just doing judicial analysis of whether rights are violated by a piece of legislation. The public can then decide whether that’s worth it. This isn’t changing the constitution whatsoever and section 33 remains in effect.
So far it’s only Sask, Alberta, and Ontario that think going to the courts shouldn’t be possible if notwithstanding clause is used. Canada, bc, Manitoba, and about 55 other groups think the opposite.
"Mostly all this is about is whether the courts can still examine whether a piece of legislation is against the charter and issue a *non-binding* declaration."
If that were actually the limit of the applicant's position then this would barely be newsworthy, although arguing for the courts' ability to make political "declarations" of no force or effect is by definition a pointless waste of time.
But of course that's not what this is "mostly" about - the reason it's actually newsworthy is because they said they wanted to limit the use of s. 33 to repeatedly abridge Charter rights on some cockamamie grounds that s. 33 doesn't mean exactly what it says.
One thing is for sure: if the Supreme Court is arrogant and reckless enough to try to negate s. 33, it will provoke a constitutional crisis. I'm not even sure the Provinces would respect such a ruling, nor should they.
Declarations without force are absolutely not a waste of time. They (1) inform citizens of their rights; (2) inform the legislative branch and the electorate, who will eventually decide whether to renew it; and (3) will help inform courts across the country if similar policies are enacted elsewhere without using the notwithstanding clause.
I’m not sure what you mean by the second part of your comment. The other recommendation by Canada is that the notwithstanding clause shouldn’t be used indefinitely or it amounts to a constitutional amendment. I’m not sure that argument will hold water but they give some compelling examples of why that is worth considering in their factum.
@Alex If I bring an application requesting from the court a declaration that 1) Carries no legal force or effect; and 2) Provides no remedy for my client and/or has no import to my client, the judge is rightly going to wonder what I'm doing wasting his time. But admittedly I don't have experience with constitutional law so maybe in that arena just getting the court to make declarations with zero legal effect is commonplace, although I doubt it.
On the latter point, I have at least read the Charter and s. 33 and have some familiarity with the history behind this. Looking at the plain wording of s. 33 I truly have no idea how you can argue that it doesn't permit the Provinces to do precisely what they have been doing for almost 40 years. I mean here is the text:
Provision
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
To engage s. 33 by using it precisely as it is written, in exactly the way that it was historically understood to work, in exactly the way it has been historically been used, isn't "amending" the Constitution but suddenly out of thin air declaring it no longer effective would be an amendment.
Which is why I say this could provoke a constitutional crisis. This isn't the court just discovering some hitherto unknown right through the alchemy of the "living tree". That at least doesn't engage a massive conflict of interest, which this would.
In effect, this would be the Supreme Court negating a constitutional provision *expressly designed* to limit its own power using... its own power. You can understand why a few people just miiiight find that a little questionable. If the Supreme Court can just POOF say it isn't bound by a constitutional provision limiting its power whose to say the legislature can't POOF say "NOPE" we don't recognize your power to negate the limit on your power and where does this end? Nowhere good would be my guess.
Yeah well as far as I can tell none of the other 65 interveners are proposing time limits, so I doubt that ‘constitutional crisis’ is going to happen. I’m sure the Supreme Court isn’t keen on splitting the country apart.
Just have a read through the factums. They’re pretty straight forward and not that alarming.
Not sure what you are getting at. You are suggesting the rest of us do a number of things.. I prefer when people use the word 'we' instead 'You should' We are our own keepers.
Like Canada isn't torn apart now! The Canadian experiment has failed, Canada as a free, sovereign nation exists no more. Thanks to all the liberal/ndp/bloc supporters and the newly formed elbows up morons. I hope you are truly proud of destroying this once great nation and knowing that you have definitely caused pain and suffrage to your future unborn family members! Good job
Unstated is the notion that if the court can arbitrarily restrict one clause, why not others and end up re-writing the Charter? And it undermines rule of law insofar as every case is unique and must be decided on it's own merits!
Also unstated is that Trudeau Liberals stacked the courts with activist judges, starting with the Head of the SCC. So it would become the liberal's pathway to undermining our rights. I can assure you, they're just using this to get their foot in the door. They already have several other restrictions up their sleeve!!! And to prove my point, only an activist court would want to restrict their own ability to decide cases!!!
You can't help but think this Liberal move is intended to do exactly what is stated.
Tear Canada Apart.
The UN/WEF/GLOBALIST agenda in plain view for all to see if they would but look.
Hopefully the Supreme Court is smarter than these idiot Liberals but I will still not be holding my breath for that one.
Mr. Carney is on record stating he would have no problem playing the E Act card.
Definitely SOMETHING coming down the tube...there's alotta scrambling around..here AND the states. When ya think Carney will pause Parliament again..??
As soon as there is a relevant 'vote of non-confidence' on one of his bills, which shouldn't take too long to happen.
If they rule in favor of Carnage that's what they may see. It never should have gotten to this point. I blame voters. Now many newly arrived Canadians would likely not have a problem with Marxist Rule.
How many 'non-thinking NDP and other non-informed voters' do you think voted for Carney. It was a set up and turns out they only harmed themselves.
Apparently...too many.
I hope your wrong but it's only a distant hope.
Liberal's long game? Authoritarian rule...where there is no leader of an opposition cramping their style.
yup...and thousands of unvetted/ illegal "new Canadian" liberal voters..
...Carney has said he is Canada's last PM..and even his wife(?) refers to her(?)self as The First Lady(?)..
https://immigrationstatistics.ca/
You are absolutely correct and These charts say it is worse than we realize.
Don't be bothered by the 'first lady' comment it is always used so she didn't invent it. It means nothing harmful.
ya..I get that..you may have missed the sarcasm..
Absolute power, to push the agenda, s all ottawa wants.....
Yup..almost there..if I'd have known Ontar-we-owe was THIS F$#KED up, I would not have left Alberta..our provincial Conservative gov't has a Liberal premier?? who's brainchild for easing Toronto's traffic woes is to build a tunnel UNDER the 401 the length of the GTA...
I left there in 1993...where I was born and worked. Now Victoria BC is suffering the Trudeau woes too.
"Unstated is the notion that if the court can arbitrarily restrict one clause, why not others and end up re-writing the Charter?"
The Charter already grants judges unfettered discretion to abridge constitutional rights on the basis of "reasonable limits" under section 1, so your fears are unwarranted because this is already the status quo. The only "reasonable limit" on judicial discretion was of course section 33, the provision the Liberals now seek to nullify.
From Sunny Ways to Storm Clouds dead ahead. In 2014 Canada was still a proud nation. Now?
Well stupid people thought 'elbows up' was cute. They will never be forgiven.
..Now, we're just pissed off..
100% spot on
thks for that!!..do you know if the Charter states we can legally oppose an abusive/ tyrannical gov't??..I swear I read it in there about 7/ 8 years ago..but for the life of me I can't find it..
A couple of observations:
The first is that our supposed Charter of Rights and Freedoms the rather worthless document that it seems to be. This since politicians like the weird sock fetish jerk ignored it whenever it suited him to go after those who he did not like or disagreed with.
Next, as useless as this document appears to be the NOTWITHSTANDING clause was put in there to avoid exactly what the Lieberals are asking the Supreme court to do which was to suspend rulings issued by the courts that appeared to be in conflict with what politicians were elected to do or which contradicted the intent of the charter itself. This has been used for both good and bad but such is the price of putting that in their and it was intended to make that useless piece of paper a bit more meaningful when judges issued certain edicts.
… SO … Does it not seem strange and sad that now Carney’s Liberals are asking the Supreme Court to rule on a Charter mechanism which was placed there to specifically over-ride their opinions…
…. Laughable …. SO… If the Supremies rule there are limits to the use of this clause can that cluase then be invoked to over-ride their ruling??
…. BTW … Such was/is the legacy of the jerk’s daddy who intentionally created a document that shifted accountability and responsibility from elected officials to unelected judges.
Now said same elected officials are, in effect, asking these unelected judges, to make them even less responsible and accountable.
WOW... NOW THAT IS A LOT OF NERVE!!!!!!!!!!!
Thanks for the info. I never thought of this. This sounds like the final stage for full fledged commie rule.
Getting closer every day .
You have to think this is totally intentional and by design.
Yes, Canada's destruction was a WEF/UN plan from the beginning of Trudeau's reign in 2015. Open borders was just one component.
How much coin did Trudeau bank? I haven't a clue but I will say this. RCMP Detective 101 indicates "follow the money trail Mountie/gumshoe/flat foot/Dick Tracy/G-Man". Want an example? Google search George Soros and NGOs. USA Secretary of the Treasury Scott Bessent worked for George Soros until he joined the Trump Administration team . He was a hedge fund manager and 200W light bulb. How do you think Trump Admin got the jump on the NGOs after the inaugeration, and are now filing RICO charges against George Soros and other progressives. Also, some of those NGOs operated in Canada. Follow the money trail folks.
AI Overview app thingy response to my query on the percentage corruption crimes involve money >> "While specific statistics on the percentage of all corruption crimes involving money are not readily available, evidence suggests that financial gain is a primary motivator for corruption, and money laundering is a significant component of organized crime. Reports show that 29% of organized crime groups are involved in money laundering, and substantial amounts of money are laundered annually in Canada and globally".
Fraser seems only too anxious to comply.
Fraser is an USELESS jerk,I wish the P.O.S. carnage had allowed him to exit politics and not talked him into staying.He was useless during “turdboy” reign and he will be USELESS under carnage as well!!
He is in cahoots with Carney. Birds of a feather.
Carney is just itching to use the E Act to shut our democracy down.
Seems to me that it’s not invoked for much when politicians can still get away with so much corruption…
I am seriously beginning to think that all governments are out to have the populace go in circles until the day we wake up and it looks like Elysium. Rich up top in the sky with the food/medical and clean air as the rest of the populace is running around in the pit of the world left behind. And the whole time - the government did it all for you. I keep telling my husband....we have to be very careful what we ask the government for because it seems like someone indicates to the government we need help - parents can't talk at parent council meetings, peoples guns are now unlawful, you can't get on a plane without first get a shot.....
For those able to leave what's left of Canada now might be an opportune time. Many have.
I agree!
At 68..I'm not turning tail and running..(to where?? the whole world is going thru this shit)..I gotta different plan....
This has to be by design. Fraser would not have the brains to appeal to the SCC on his won. This is Carney's plan, leading to the break-up of Canada.
Now the big question is WHY? I am seriously asking. I know Carney is a WEF zealot who wants to implement their 2030 agenda.
But, if Quebec, AB & SK secede (probably followed by anything north of Vancouver in BC), what's left? Ontario cannot provide equalization payment to the Maritime provinces, not what they are used to.
Does Carney think he can rule over what is left or will we be annexed to the USA? I don't see that as being feasible to him. Maybe Europe? He's spoken about Canada being a European country.
Another irony of this, is it's aimed at Que's Bill 23 to stop religious garb prohibitions there. Muslims are the beneficiaries of that being over-turned. Islamists have openly sneered that they will take over this country and all of the west. This is another step closer to that in Canada.
I'm trying to foresee the outcome of this and really can't see how Carney benefits. What am I missing?
On the Islamists front a read of the Koran has many answers, though they would counter that the book is up to interpretation and they are the only ones who can accomplish that. I say, "how convenient."
On the previous comment I think Carney envisions Marxist rule that would effectively make us prisoners in our own country. His friend Xi smiles knowingly on that one.
He benefits by having control. And by rewarding his Brookfield Asset management group of which he holds 'lots of shares'. Did you really thing he was doing this in good faith? Name one good faith he has done since he 'showed up' with his fake book. I suggest a way around this if we can put an important secret piece together.
Thanks. I am beginning to think that a constitutional crises, especially in light of this new bill C9 hate speech, might be our only chance of waking enough people up that this has all been by design--that Carney's goal was to break Canada. Our best hope would be that triggers an election.
But I also fear it will be too late. The western provinces will break from Canada and they will be strong. God only knows what will happen to QC.
Personally, I would prefer that the USA take what is left of us over (probably they'd only be interested if we were a territory with no voting power like Puerto Rico) to being a Marxist WEF/UN country.
This is all very troubling.
The notwithstanding clause was designed to protect democracy from activist judges. With sufficient public support, it allows our elected governments to stop the courts from overriding them. This protects our freedoms.
What is a real threat to our freedoms is section 1 of the Charter that allows judges to override our charter rights whenever they, in their sole discretion, think the restriction on our rights is, in their opinion, “justified in a free and democratic society”. What free and democratic society allows judges to override rights?
Yeah but if politicians get elected by stomping all over the charter rights of minority groups, your freedoms are protected by the judicial branch. When the legislative branch is against you, your only recourse is to the courts.
And when the judiciary is against you,you have no recourse at all.
What groups are “the judiciary” against? Last time I checked, different judges have very different interpretations and arguments— hence the different levels of courts that you can appeal a case to.
The judiciary in Canada tends to be Liberal. The appeals courts and the Supreme court are all Liberal too, so if you’re fighting for a conservative cause like freedom of speech or the right to self defence or to own guns, you won’t get much of a hearing in the courts of Canada.
Freedom of speech is certainly not a conservative only cause, that is absolutely for sure.
I guess you have more trust in the legislative branch and I have more trust in the judicial branch. I hope they find the appropriate balance between the two.
That would because we can vote out the legislators.
Yes, except when the judicial branch is merely an extension of the ruling political party, such as it is now.
Alberta separation is CRITICAL now! Liberty, freedom and basic democracy is at risk under the CCP loving Liberals.
Uck em, we'll go if we want to. Don't need to ask anybody.
I would never pick up one of my guns to defend Kanada. Alberta, yes. Lets see them try and stop us.
Attention, right face, present arms......I'll tag along with that.
im in
It is well past time....GO ALBERTA GO
Yes CLo, the writing is definitely on the wall. Those who can't see this refuse to.
I think all provinces should for their own benefit leave confederation. Leave the feds holding an empty bag. I can't see any future for this already busted country. I'll be sticking with APP, and then we'll see if UPC will hang together and lead.
Ottawa tells us to tighten our belts. The reason we're in such a bloody mess is squarely on their shoulders. Yes, get rid of Confederation, get rid of Ottawa's blood sucking ways and reality will then take over. Some will have to work or starve. No more golden pensions. No more G.G.s who are a throw back to 1780's France. No more indigenous with their hands out to Ottawa either. It will be redundant....and get rid of policy telling us to put up all those wandering in to this country into hotels while our homeless sleep in tents.
That's the way I figure it. If we are going to work together, we have to abolish confederation (and fed government). Look after our own. Then we could start all over, with equal membership. Every thing equal in law and citizen's rights.
The destruction of a united Canada and the Constitution begins with Liberal obstructions.
Provincial splits are certain now. Human nature rules.
Hopefully this breaks the evil beast that lives off of theft from the West. Go Quebec! And by default, FREE ALBERTA!
👍
This is once again having lawyers deal with something that they have no power or business doing . These laws were formed by the people and elected officials . They should only be changed by the people . You can't have a couple corrupt people deciding what is good for all the people . Carney is increasing his power every chance he gets and the supreme court is bought and paid for . This would take away provincial power and the power of the people . This is text book communism .
probably not communism since they dont say free the worker with tyranny. Probably more national socialist since they want total control of the economy with people suppression and all friends rewarded.
They will do what is best for themselves and we will be on the bottom .
You said it . Text book communism. So sad for Our Nation that was a bright light in a world of corruption!
Well people have voted from school boards to Municipal Govts. to fill them with Liberals. We knew what a corrupt group they have become. We have a chance to begin at the Municipal Election in October to stop it there which includes school boards as well that absolutely 'no one' bothers to even read the names. They were possibly the most important names on the ballot 10 Elections ago.
Fraser should have left politics. He's failed in every portfolio. This will likely be his worst. Another Liberal swelled head bringing our once proud nation down.
In liberal terms, fraser will be up for a promotion, does great work
Does Fraser know about the availability of a Specialized S-Works Roubeaux road bike on the first floor bicycle shop?
Not one province would be in favour of the courts circumventing the process to alter the charter. If the Carney circus wishes to try they can look to Mulrooney's Meechlake Accord for the proper process. They haven't a snowball's chance in he** of getting this through by process. It also demonstrates the authoritarian nature of the liebrals. They are not to be trusted.
Funny how the Liberal government/Sean Fraser is expressing concern over our Charter of Rights & Freedoms and Quebec’s use of a particular section. The government was quite happy to stomp all over it during Covid, the mandates and the Freedom
Convoy. The Charter does not protect any of us against a tyrannical government.
Some times I wish, as a common citizen I could use the not withstanding clause. Then I am sure that those in "higher" seats would very careful when walking in egg shells!
Unfortunately, wishing doesn't accomplish anything .................. only action does. Time to get involved with you and your families future.
What You say is correct!
Our constitution is already uprnded. The liberals have ignored it for a decade. They walk all over the constitution without consequence. It may as well be scrapped.
That's because the Federal Conservatives have no balls. If Moxy Smith can hire lawyers to address a constitutional violation, why can't the Federal Conservatives. Canada has a minority federal gov. This is the the test of the BLOC, NDP and Green parties' Canadian patriotism. Will they work with the Conservatives to repair the social economic issues of Canada? We are in the same course as England. So, far the unimaginative BLOC keep spewing separatism - just leave, here's your part of the debt, bye bye $25B equalization payment, higher Hydro Quebec bills and fuel costs, higher medical costs. I'm telling you all - if the BLOC, NDP and Green parties don't "BLINK", by forming a coalition gov with the Conservatives by the end of the year, then Charlie Kirk is right in "Canada has fallen".
You are mostly right. To make it more meaningful help ensure Stephen Lewis doesn't win the leadership of the NDP. Naomi Klein his wife comes from a communist family. And, given voter behaviour to vote for 'flashy newcomers' the fools will vote him in. So, another hurdle to overcome.
"will upend the constitution and could send the country hurtling towards a crisis."..
...and it's not like wer're presently in a state of euphoria...
It is if You are a lieberal.
good point..we'll see what happens next..not sure what Freeland's taking the Envoy job in Ukraine (her home) was about..but pretty sure Carney sent her immediately, because of the fallout from her Transport Minister dealings with the Chinese building those 4 ships..this might turn out to be bad news for Carney..we can only hope..
Oh, there is something in the air all right .I just hope it is the take down of carnage clown!
wud be nice..Carney/Trudeau are slicker than snot on a doorknob..if we can't find a legal way to make criminal charges against them stick, we shud use something a bit more...penetrating??..just sayin'
I'm not sure the 4 ships are that meaningful to the big picture. My understanding was that the BC NDP orchestrated that foolish purchase. I feel she didn't have time to review the file properly and couldn't stop it. I believe she resigned from her Ministry in Transportation for that reason. Carney doesn't want her talking about it so he pretends to still be her NBF and is shipping her out of the way to the Ukraine. Prove me wrong!
Actually, when reporters last week asked her about the deal, Freeland said she had JUST been informed about it, and was 'surprised' the China deal happened, and disappointed that it didn't go to a Canadian shipbuilder..BUT..Premier Eby has an email advising Freeland about the deal 6 weeks before it was publicized!!!
...so...ya..
We will soon see who the SCC answers too but I think we all know the answer.
The Canadian Charter is a joke. All you need to verify this is to examine the clown who pushed all this through in 1982 - Pierre Elliott Trudeau - the father of Western Destruction.
All Canadians should not only read our charter but own a copy, then they would realize how useless our charter of rights and freedoms truly is. I own a copy and I am disgusted by the all the protection it gives politicians and the powers to be in England as well as the so called royal family...and yet give only a few short pages for us citizens, or should I say us subjects!
I will re-read the one I have and look for the shortfalls you mention. I hadn't noticed because I assumed we lived in a Democracy.
They already crapped on the Constitution with an illegal EA, hunting down and persecuting Convoy donors, revoking our right to peaceful assembly, forcing experimental vaccines on us and weaponizing the police against the public.
“When Tyranny becomes Law, Rebellion becomes Duty.” - Thomas Jefferson
yes rebelon is our only corse mass rebelon
Carney is evil. He could pay Quebec to change Bill 21. Using the Supreme Court to limit the Not Withstanding rule in the Constitution is aimed at Alberta. It was Peter Lougheed, the Premiere of Alberta, who refused to sign the Constitution unless the Not Withstanding rule was added. Take this rule out and Alberta will declare the Constitution null and void. Go ahead, destroy Canada's Constitution.
Maybe have a look at the actual arguments being proposed. The Liberals aren’t “using the Supreme Court”. The federal government is one of like 60 groups providing their opinion, which they should be doing.
Mostly all this is about is whether the courts can still examine whether a piece of legislation is against the charter and issue a *non-binding* declaration. It wouldn’t stop a policy from going forward, it’s just doing judicial analysis of whether rights are violated by a piece of legislation. The public can then decide whether that’s worth it. This isn’t changing the constitution whatsoever and section 33 remains in effect.
So far it’s only Sask, Alberta, and Ontario that think going to the courts shouldn’t be possible if notwithstanding clause is used. Canada, bc, Manitoba, and about 55 other groups think the opposite.
Edit to add: you can view it all here https://www.scc-csc.ca/cases-dossiers/search-recherche/41231/
"Mostly all this is about is whether the courts can still examine whether a piece of legislation is against the charter and issue a *non-binding* declaration."
If that were actually the limit of the applicant's position then this would barely be newsworthy, although arguing for the courts' ability to make political "declarations" of no force or effect is by definition a pointless waste of time.
But of course that's not what this is "mostly" about - the reason it's actually newsworthy is because they said they wanted to limit the use of s. 33 to repeatedly abridge Charter rights on some cockamamie grounds that s. 33 doesn't mean exactly what it says.
One thing is for sure: if the Supreme Court is arrogant and reckless enough to try to negate s. 33, it will provoke a constitutional crisis. I'm not even sure the Provinces would respect such a ruling, nor should they.
Declarations without force are absolutely not a waste of time. They (1) inform citizens of their rights; (2) inform the legislative branch and the electorate, who will eventually decide whether to renew it; and (3) will help inform courts across the country if similar policies are enacted elsewhere without using the notwithstanding clause.
I’m not sure what you mean by the second part of your comment. The other recommendation by Canada is that the notwithstanding clause shouldn’t be used indefinitely or it amounts to a constitutional amendment. I’m not sure that argument will hold water but they give some compelling examples of why that is worth considering in their factum.
@Alex If I bring an application requesting from the court a declaration that 1) Carries no legal force or effect; and 2) Provides no remedy for my client and/or has no import to my client, the judge is rightly going to wonder what I'm doing wasting his time. But admittedly I don't have experience with constitutional law so maybe in that arena just getting the court to make declarations with zero legal effect is commonplace, although I doubt it.
On the latter point, I have at least read the Charter and s. 33 and have some familiarity with the history behind this. Looking at the plain wording of s. 33 I truly have no idea how you can argue that it doesn't permit the Provinces to do precisely what they have been doing for almost 40 years. I mean here is the text:
Provision
33. (1) Parliament or the legislature of a province may expressly declare in an Act of Parliament or of the legislature, as the case may be, that the Act or a provision thereof shall operate notwithstanding a provision included in section 2 or sections 7 to 15 of this Charter.
(2) An Act or a provision of an Act in respect of which a declaration made under this section is in effect shall have such operation as it would have but for the provision of this Charter referred to in the declaration.
(3) A declaration made under subsection (1) shall cease to have effect five years after it comes into force or on such earlier date as may be specified in the declaration.
(4) Parliament or the legislature of a province may re-enact a declaration made under subsection (1).
(5) Subsection (3) applies in respect of a re-enactment made under subsection (4).
To engage s. 33 by using it precisely as it is written, in exactly the way that it was historically understood to work, in exactly the way it has been historically been used, isn't "amending" the Constitution but suddenly out of thin air declaring it no longer effective would be an amendment.
Which is why I say this could provoke a constitutional crisis. This isn't the court just discovering some hitherto unknown right through the alchemy of the "living tree". That at least doesn't engage a massive conflict of interest, which this would.
In effect, this would be the Supreme Court negating a constitutional provision *expressly designed* to limit its own power using... its own power. You can understand why a few people just miiiight find that a little questionable. If the Supreme Court can just POOF say it isn't bound by a constitutional provision limiting its power whose to say the legislature can't POOF say "NOPE" we don't recognize your power to negate the limit on your power and where does this end? Nowhere good would be my guess.
Yeah well as far as I can tell none of the other 65 interveners are proposing time limits, so I doubt that ‘constitutional crisis’ is going to happen. I’m sure the Supreme Court isn’t keen on splitting the country apart.
Just have a read through the factums. They’re pretty straight forward and not that alarming.
Thanks Alex I will read the factums.
what do they. that is government , have lawyers on staff for ?
Not sure what you are getting at. You are suggesting the rest of us do a number of things.. I prefer when people use the word 'we' instead 'You should' We are our own keepers.
💯
Like Canada isn't torn apart now! The Canadian experiment has failed, Canada as a free, sovereign nation exists no more. Thanks to all the liberal/ndp/bloc supporters and the newly formed elbows up morons. I hope you are truly proud of destroying this once great nation and knowing that you have definitely caused pain and suffrage to your future unborn family members! Good job