[ad_1]
In January 2006, during a debate among federal leaders, liberal leader Paul Martin seemed to surprise many political observers because he did not appear to be part of the Blue, but raised the question of this clause.
Martin challenged Conservative leader Stephen Harper to agree to the constitutional amendment to ensure that Ottawa will never use controversial clauses. Harper refused, the question was a kind of effort by Martin to promote his campaign, falling into trouble from the electoral campaign situation.
But the issue comes back to the campaign, which was proposed by conservative leaders, with a groundbreaking political commitment to become the first prime minister to invoke the terms of office.
“Obviously, this is obviously a step.
Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre announced another announcement on his Justice agenda on Monday, pledging to use the clause to cover the Charter of Rights and Freedoms to ensure that people convicted of multiple murders never leave prison.
“although [clause] It is no federal government uses it. Now, we have a passionate way of bringing this up. This is the main one. “Axworthy, now president of public policy at the University of Toronto’s Massey College, said.
Stéphane Sérafin, assistant professor of law at the University of Ottawa, responded that although the province is the only province actually used so far, the guarantee of Pierre Poilievre’s use of the clause is important.
“It’s usually a game-changer,” he said.
Continuous lifeless sentences
On Monday, Poilievre promised to use the clause to sentence multiple murderers to life imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Canada ruled in 2022 that life imprisonment violated the criminal’s charter rights.
Article 33 (even if the clause is also called a clause) allows the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister to cover a legislative ruling determined by a judge that would violate the five-year constitution.
Liberal leader Mark Carney said the plan of conservative leader Pierre Poilievre still plans to use the terms that sentence Canada’s “landslide” to risk. Poilievre said he would invoke the clause to cover the charter of rights and freedoms so that those convicted of multiple murders will never leave prison.
“It has been a huge problem for those who have devoted a lot of their lives to support the charter, being able to use it the way we see it now,” Axworthy said.
“It is not in a crisis situation, not wise, not after a large-scale public debate, etc., but rather the majority government is played on its basis for its own political reasons.”
The provisions can only cover certain parts of the Charter, including Sections 2 and Articles 7 to 15, which involve fundamental freedoms, legal rights and equal rights, but cannot be used to transcend democratic rights.
This clause has been used at the provincial level, including Saskatchewan,,,,, Quebec and Ontariobut no federal government has never used the clause to pass the law. It is mainly used in Quebec, which includes every legislation from 1982 to 1985, and is a form of political protest.
Nelson Wiseman, an emeritus professor of political science at the University of Toronto, said the federal use of the terms is certainly a major move.
“But it’s not as surprising as it was 20 or 30 or 40 years ago, because it’s already used a lot in various provinces,” Wiseman said.
While some Conservative MPs, including contenders to conservative leaders, have publicly supported raising them a range of issues, party leaders must stay away from that position during election activities.
‘You know what I mean’
Back in May 2024, Poilievre himself suggested using the clause to implement some criminal justice reforms when talking to the Canadian Police Association meeting.
Poilievre told the crowd: “We will use any tool the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean.”
He said on Monday that he will use Parliament’s “legal constitutional authority” to protect the charter rights of law-abiding Canadians to give life, freedom and security.
The use of this clause has always been a concern for those who see it as a tool for trampling rights. Earlier this month, more than 50 organizations, human rights advocates and legal experts, led by the Canadian Viral Liberties Association, issued an open letter urging all federal leaders to conduct public consultation on the clause within six months of forming a new government.
“Although the terms increasingly use the terms to trample civil and human rights, it is a threat to our most basic rights and freedoms,” Anaïs Bussières Mcnicol, director of the Basic Freedoms Program at CCLA, said in a statement related to the open letter.
“It’s time for federal party leaders to listen to Canadians’ attention and defend their rights.”
On Monday, both liberal leader Mark Carney and New Democratic leader Jagmeet Singh refused to use the clause.
New Democratic leader Jagmeet Singh spoke in Toronto on the 23rd day of the federal election campaign, but was still questioned about the promise of conservative leader Pierre Poilievre’s promise that even a Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms has driven criminal justice reform.
ax Say it’s a “big thing” when any government invokes the clause, but it’s especially important when the federal government plans to use it.
“Slowly, these constraints start to weaken and weaken, and now we have a federal leader saying he’s happy,” he said.
Necessary for criminal law reform: professors
But Seraphin, who supports the use of the clause, said it was necessary in the case of someone trying to reform the criminal law, because the court removed criminal injunctions such as mandatory minimum sentences.
He rejected the idea that despite the provisions, asking whether Canada was a tyrannical country before the 1982 rule of the Constitution should be concerned.
“The answer is of course not. Although the clause effectively fulfilled Article 33, it allowed the parliament or legislature to return to the status quo before 1982, but lasted only five years. ”
Seraphine said it was not a coincidence of five years, and it was also the longest duration of the parliament under the charter.
“If conservatives come in, they put this [law] Pass Section 33 and then hold the election. ” he said.
“So you’re making sure you’re doing some kind of democratic check on that.”
[ad_2]
Source link
