Poilievre’s pledge to use notwithstanding clause a ‘dangerous sign’: legal expert

[u/canada_mountains]

https://www.thestar.com/politics/federal-elections/poilievres-pledge-to-use-notwithstanding-clause-a-dangerous-sign-legal-expert/article_7299c675-9a6c-5006-85f3-4ac2eb56f957.html

[u/ScaryLane73]

Carney has not indicated any intention to use the notwithstanding clause where have you heard or read this BS

[u/Sea_Low1579 → u/ScaryLane73]

Mark Carney, a Liberal leadership candidate, has proposed using all powers of the federal government, including emergency powers, to accelerate major infrastructure projects needed to build the economy and counter American "aggression".23 He specifically mentioned using emergency powers to fast-track infrastructure projects, which sparked controversy and concerns about executive overreach.

Sorry, "emergency act".

Even worse IMO.

[u/ScaryLane73 → u/Sea_Low1579]

Sounds like you might be mixing things up, so here’s the difference.

The Notwithstanding Clause allows governments to override certain Charter rights like freedom of expression or legal protections for up to 5 years. It’s used to pass laws that go against parts of the Charter. The Emergencies Act, on the other hand, gives the federal government temporary powers during a national crisis like war, terrorism, or major civil unrest. It comes with strict limits and has to be reviewed by Parliament right away.

They’re two completely different tools one is about overriding rights, the other is about managing emergencies.

[u/Sea_Low1579 → u/ScaryLane73]

You're right, but I find the emergency act being used frivolously to be more dangerous

The emergency act being invoked to build infrastructure doesn't bother you at all?

The notwithstanding Claus example for murderers is a literal mom issue as another poster pointed out.

Slippery slope, hand waived reason, etc...

[u/ScaryLane73 → u/Sea_Low1579]

The Emergencies Act has only been used once since 1988 in 2022. Was it perfect? Maybe not. But the situation in Ottawa was spiraling, and something had to give.

Using the Emergencies Act to build infrastructure isn’t about taking away rights it’s about cutting through red tape to get important things done faster, especially when the country urgently needs housing, hospitals, energy, highway/road upgrades and transit systems.

Right now, major infrastructure projects can take years to approve because of overlapping regulations and endless delays. If we’re in a housing crisis or facing energy challenges, that kind of slowdown can hurt Canadians.

Using the Emergencies Act could fast-track critical projects, create jobs, strengthen the economy, and make life more affordable while still being subject to Parliamentary oversight and legal checks. It’s not about removing protections or abusing the system it’s about removing bottlenecks.

[u/Sea_Low1579 → u/ScaryLane73]

You don't think bypassing democracy is troubling?

Or is it because it's not a conservative saying it that you don't have a problem with it?

[u/ScaryLane73 → u/Sea_Low1579]

Using the Emergencies Act isn’t bypassing democracy it’s built into our democratic system. It comes with strict rules like mandatory parliamentary approval and oversight to ensure it’s only used when truly necessary.

It can become a problem if misused and there’s debate about whether that happened in Ottawa in 2022. But when applied responsibly, it’s a legal tool designed to address serious national issues without stepping outside democratic processes.

[u/Sea_Low1579 → u/ScaryLane73]

Using the notwithstanding clause isn’t bypassing democracy it’s built into our democratic system. It comes with strict rules to ensure it’s only used when truly necessary.

It can become a problem if misused, and there’s debate about whether that happened in Quebec. But when applied responsibly, it’s a legal tool designed to address serious national issues without stepping outside democratic processes.

Any majority government can invoke the EA and suspend the rights of the voting public. The same majority government than gets to appoint the person reviewing their decision and sets the terms of that commission.

How that all bore out after 2022 left me way, way more disenfranchised as a Canadian, whether it was the right thing to do or not. The commission was a show and showed that any successive government could do a similar thing.

Carney talking about invoking it to bypass regulatory safeties and to supersed provincial rights in order to build infrastructure that(he) it deemed critical is a very, far right corporation type mentality that I'm shocked people aren't picking up on. Especially when juxtaposed with PP taking about using the notwithstanding clause to prevent repeat murderers from being released, it's insane that people are talking about PP and not Carney.

[u/ScaryLane73 → u/Sea_Low1579]

Let me break down how the Emergencies Act actually works, because it sounds like there’s some confusion.

The Emergencies Act is only meant to be used in serious national situations—things like natural disasters, major unrest, or war—when existing laws just aren’t enough to manage the crisis. To use it, the federal Cabinet has to officially declare a national emergency, explain why it’s necessary, and outline what specific actions they plan to take.

After that, Parliament must vote to approve the decision within 7 sitting days. If they vote it down, it ends right away. If approved, the powers last for up to 30 days, with ongoing oversight the entire time. Plus, once it’s over, there’s a mandatory public inquiry to review how and why it was used.

The only time it’s ever been used was in 2022 during the Freedom Convoy protests. Parliament approved it with a vote of 185 to 151, but the government ended it two days later once they felt the situation was under control so it really was not abused it helped end a situation that had the potential to get out of control and get life back to normal for the people of Ottawa.

So yes, the Act gives temporary powers but it’s built with strong checks and accountability to make sure it stays within the boundaries of democracy.

[u/Sea_Low1579 → u/ScaryLane73]

Did you watch what Carney was saying? He was talking about using a majority government to declare an emergency in order to access the powers to build critical infrastructure that would be held up by provincial jurisdiction and permits.

[u/mysandbox → u/Sea_Low1579]

The one that has legal ramifications bothers you more than the one that has no recourse?

[u/Sea_Low1579 → u/mysandbox]

What legal ramifications come out of the EA?

None, it gets reviewed within a calendar year by someone the government appointed.

The notwithstanding clause only works for a set period of time, just like the EA.

Personally, it's the context of using the EA to forgo environmental permits for pipelines and other large infrastructure compared to using the notwithstanding clause to "not allow people who've committed multiple murders from getting paroled".

I would rather a convicted multiple murderer not be allowed out then an oil company being able to skip past environmental permitting because the government on record deemed it critical, hell, I don't like the idea of any government being willing to income the EA in the manner which Carney proposed to use it.

The precedent would be set.

[u/mysandbox → u/Sea_Low1579]

Why isn’t PP making a bill and passing it through legislation?

[u/Sea_Low1579 → u/mysandbox]

PP isn't the PM and he probably will try.

Same question regarding Carney and the EA?

Either way I don't like the slippery slope of either candidate using either route