Recently, there has been a debate regarding the use of the Notwithstanding Clause in the event that Conservatives form the Government next year. The Federal Government has never used this clause to override a decision by the courts, although many provinces have.
There are three contentious issues which may warrant consideration of the use of this clause.
- The courts have regularly pushed back at attempts to impose minimum sentences, even in the case of multiple murders.
- Many people argue that the bail conditions imposed on offenders is often far too low, allowing high risk offenders back on the streets, sometimes without any monetary bail conditions.
- The number of Refugee Claimants who are making claims in Canada (often arriving as visitors or students), has risen from 13,000 in 2014, to an estimated 200,000 in 2024. The courts have insisted that these claimants have the rights to a full oral hearing, often taking years and regularly costing six figures per case to deal with.
Those opposing the use of the Notwithstanding clause, claim that its use by the Federal Government, could lead to erosions in basic human rights, such as freedom of speech, freedom of assembly or interfering with a woman’s rights to choose (as we saw in the USA), or even more fundamental rights, such as the right to a fair and impartial hearing/trial. Many believe that the rights and freedoms contained in our constitution, are best dealt with by our judiciary, not elected officials, and that this process makes Canada one of the greatest nations in the world.
Click below to view last week’s poll question results:
Should Canada match the USA and follow through with a 100% tariff on Chinese EVs?
