‘Save Our Constitution’ marketing campaign seeks to restrict events governments override Canadians’ rights
EDITOR’S NOTE: This text initially appeared on The Trillium, a Village Media web site devoted solely to overlaying provincial politics at Queen’s Park.
Constitution advocates are launching a nationwide marketing campaign on the however clause in hopes of drumming up public help for what they name a “deeply concerning” misuse of the instrument governments can use to override Canadians’ in any other case enshrined rights.
“In recent years, some provincial governments have increasingly used this clause to override basic rights and freedoms and try to prevent courts from striking down horrendous rights violations as unconstitutional,” Anaïs Bussières McNicoll, the director of the basic freedoms program with the Canadian Civil Liberties Affiliation (CCLA), informed reporters in Ottawa.
“This is deeply alarming.”
The marketing campaign — entitled “Save Our Charter” — calls for 3 issues; the primary of which is for governments to easily not use the however clause preemptively.
“This means that lawmakers should not use the notwithstanding clause until after receiving a final decision from a court on the constitutionality of a law,” Bussières McNicoll mentioned.
An instance of this was Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s authorities’s use of the Part 33 clause in 2022 to stop academic employees from putting amid contract negotiations. The Ford authorities repealed this Sec. 33-equipped laws after fast and vital public outrage and protest.
The CCLA additionally needs to see a legislature supermajority required for the Constitution override for use.
Lastly, it needs the courts to have the flexibility to strike down legal guidelines that invoke the however clause in some circumstances.
“This would be the case when a law directly attacks the core fundamental rights, freedom or legal protection that existed well before the Charter was enacted,” Bussières McNicoll added. “No democratic society can thrive without robust protection of these rights.”
The marketing campaign, which is able to embody a petition and web site spreading consciousness of “the dangers of misuses of the notwithstanding clause,” comes amid new laws anticipated to be tabled Thursday in Ontario cracking down on homeless encampments.
Ford, who inspired mayors to publicly name on him to make use of the however clause to clear encampments with out making certain residents had someplace to go, not too long ago backtracked on the preemptive use of the authorized measure. As an alternative, he mentioned he’s “confident” the measures within the invoice might be “widespread sense, sensible and fully aligned with the Constitution of Rights and Freedoms.”
Nonetheless, the premier additionally famous, “Ought to the courts intervene with our shared purpose of successfully addressing and clearing out encampments utilizing these enhanced instruments, along with your help, our authorities is absolutely ready to make use of the however clause.”
The CCLA mentioned that whereas this could not be interpreted legally as preemptive use of the however clause, they “have a very big problem” with this type of assertion.
“Courts have already recognized that unhoused people have a right to shelter, and if there is no safe shelter accessible and housing accessible, well, they have a right to be in encampments,” Bussières McNicoll mentioned.
Constitutional lawyer and College of Ottawa professor Martha Jackman beforehand informed The Trillium that it seems as if the premier continues to be threatening to make use of the however clause.
“The premier appears to be holding Sec. 33 as a little bit of a sword of Damocles hanging over any response to the laws within the courts,” she mentioned.
The CCLA mentioned it’s not simply Ford who has been cavalier with the however clause. Quebec Premier François Legault has urged utilizing it to ban praying in public, whereas in Saskatchewan, the provincial authorities used the however clause to guard itself from authorized challenges associated to a legislation requiring consent for college kids beneath the age of 16 to alter their names or pronouns whereas at school.
“I mean, this is a very, very dangerous trend,” Bussières McNicoll mentioned.
“Our position is definitely that governments should be enacting laws that comply with the Charter, and they should be prepared to defend the constitutionality of their laws in front of courts.”
—With information from Alan S. Hale
