The notwithstanding clause and Bill 21
Jonathan Montpetit explains here the relationship between the notwithstanding clause and Bill 21. It isn’t a dry exercise but has consequences for how Quebec will be, especially in the pre‑emptive manner in which it has been used.
Update: Montpetit continues the theme with an examination of the CAQ intention to use the notwithstanding clause to extend French language laws – and basically do what it likes.
GC 08:15 on 2021-04-21 Permalink
“As Blanchard explains, it doesn’t matter what rights are overridden by the clause; all that matters is that proper procedure is followed when invoking it, which Quebec did.”
I’m sure that’s true from a legal perspective, but it’s still a chilling statement. I should matter a great deal when rights are overridden.
Kate 09:06 on 2021-04-21 Permalink
The CAQ is fond of writing complicated laws that do a number on normal rights. Here’s a post from last year where I point to an analysis of an earlier CAQ bill. They like to write meta-stuff in making it difficult or impossible to challenge the law, pretty much daring the court system to draw a line. It’s a nasty way to govern.
Kevin 09:52 on 2021-04-21 Permalink
Every single invocation of the notwithstanding clause is an admission that rights are being violated. That’s why it has a five-year term limit.
GC 09:55 on 2021-04-21 Permalink
I understand that, Kevin, but it’s still disturbing.
Joey 10:27 on 2021-04-21 Permalink
The five-year limit also ensures that cynical, divisive political parties get to benefit from the surfacing of wedge issues designed to motivate xenophobic citizens to get out and vote on a cyclical basis.
Kevin 10:36 on 2021-04-21 Permalink
@GC
It’s telling that of all the laws invoking the clause in the rest of the country, in almost every case, the law was ultimately dropped or courts decided the clause was not needed.
Meezly 12:26 on 2021-04-21 Permalink
Blanchard said that Quebec properly invoked the procedure, but later says that it was invoked preemptively to prevent the court from blocking it if it violates human rights. So in effect, he exposed the loopholes of what the notwithstanding clause permits.