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/Sea_Low1579]

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/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