- Parliament, the Courts and the Charter
The Conservative Party believes that Parliament, rather than the courts, is the law-making body of Canada. We support the establishment of a parliamentary judicial review committee to prepare an appropriate response to those court decisions that Parliament believes should be addressed through legislation. We re-affirm the legitimacy of the entire Charter of Rights and Freedoms including section 33 (notwithstanding clause). We support legislation to remove authority from the Canadian Human Rights Commission and the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal to regulate, receive, investigate or adjudicate complaints related to section 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act.
Is there a linkable source where I can reference for the skeptics? It’s going to be much easier to refute whatever they’re saying if I have something solid to prove them wrong
This is what he means every time he says “small government.” Him and his cronies in charge of everything. And this is just another attempt to normalize this disgusting centralization of power, in direct contradiction to everything Canada stands for.
Fuck off, Pierre, and take your increasingly fascist party with you.
Promising to use the notwithstanding clause means the laws they intend to pass will fail to pass a charter challenge. That should alarm anyone.
If they were to do this, the law would only stand for 5 years before being subject to challenge again, and inevitably it will fail (which is why they used notwithstanding), and the people who were harmed by the government’s use of notwithstanding will sue the government for the violation of their rights and they will win.
We only need to look at Ontario and how it went with Ford’s use.
That was the biggest red flag to me when Pierre said that he would us the not withstanding clause to do that. Wtf. Anybody who believe in him using that clause to get what they want is no doubt the crowd that was crying out that Trudeau was another Vladimir Putin during COVID. Absolutely rediculous
Th argument for notwithstanding was that it would be used in matters of extreme importance, and in a thoughtful and limited way.
Now it’s being wielded by the right to push policy that feels good to vengeful idiots with no consideration if it would lead to good outcomes. And because Notwithstanding now framed as a left/right matter it will be impossible to get rid of.
So now we’re in a situation where in each election from now until the end of time, we have to convince a clickbait-hungry media and a population distracted by slogans and shiny objects that boring nerdy shit like notwithstanding is something that they must pay attention to.
This fucking sucks.
It sure does. All because our people don’t really know their civics very well.
If we did, this shit wouldn’t fly.
They can’t challenge if it they just use it again.
If the cons take power, it will remain in place until they are out of power. I imagine the opposing parties would have immediately revoking it, be a part of their platform, so we wouldn’t need to wait through the end of the 5 year period.
I’m glad this fucker has shown his true colors publicly at last. Keep spreading information and talking with your friends and neighbors even when it’s maddening or difficult.
We do not need extreme fascism or dictatorship in Canada and that’s what the cons and ~smol pp~ are all about. They’ve told us as much many times. Believe them. Organize against them. Fight them.
They want the authority to decide what appropriate sentencing is for serious offenses with the promise to put criminals behind bars for their entire lives. And they also want to be able to decide what constitutes a serious offense. Can’t see anything wrong with that.
They have it already, is what’s wrong with it. This is a dog whistle saying they want to forego due process.
They only used the notwithstanding clause to harm trans kids in Saskatchewan…
This isn’t even borrowed from the yanks, look back at shit the Tories said during the Harper years, it’s literally exactly the same rhetoric, there’s a clip on CBC from years ago with Pierre talking about the Omar Khadr supreme court ruling and dude was saying shit like “this is a matter for the democratically elected government, not the courts”.
While I get the overlap, we shouldn’t downplay our own shit, we’ve been perfectly capable of having a christofacist party on our own, and exporting it globally (Gaven McInnes - Canadian, worked with the rebel, Jordan Peterson, Harper has been involved with the IDU, Preston Manning’s takeover of the Conservatives was cited as an inspiration for Nigel Farage)
CANADA DOESN’T NEED A SMALL pp
Or a big one
Now that might be a nice change
So basically, they’re saying that the courts shouldn’t pass laws and only parliament should.
Isn’t that how it’s supposed to be? I don’t understand why y’all take issue with it
The courts already don’t pass legislation. They pass rulings which inform legal precedent, and that is used as a base in cases where legislation is being challenged as unconstitutional.
He’s basically trying to find a way to make sure that illegal laws “stick” and that the courts can’t repeal them after the fact for being illegal. That should worry you, because the court being able to review a law for constitutionality is a sign of a free and just society, and PP wants to take that away.
There would be nothing stopping any government from just stripping the right to protest from the Human Rights Act, for example. The courts wouldn’t have the authority to act.
Because not all laws or regulations passed by Parliament meet the standards of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
In Canada the Charter is more important than the politicians, and that is as it should be.
And, critically, it supersedes the hot issue of the day, meaning in theory it prevents “ends justify the means” approach even with explicit approval from the population.
