I thought that the Supreme Court had ruled that most back to work legislation was unconstitutional under Section 2 of the Charter. Given how loudly Goes was criticized for trying to take away teachers Charter rights using the Notwithstanding Clause I can’t imagine the Liberals trying it.
i think the notwithstanding clause is a provincial thing, not a federal thing. Its a concession the feds had to make in order to change the constitution in the 80’s
With the patriation of the Canadian Constitution in 1982, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms brought many changes to the constitutional structure of the country. One of these was the inclusion of a notwithstanding power in Section 33. This section, often referred to as the “notwithstanding clause,” allows federal, provincial and territorial parliaments and governments to temporarily override or supersede certain Charter rights.
Any one of them can use the Notwithstanding Clause to violate our constitutional rights.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: !canada@lemmy.ca
I thought that the Supreme Court had ruled that most back to work legislation was unconstitutional under Section 2 of the Charter. Given how loudly Goes was criticized for trying to take away teachers Charter rights using the Notwithstanding Clause I can’t imagine the Liberals trying it.
i think the notwithstanding clause is a provincial thing, not a federal thing. Its a concession the feds had to make in order to change the constitution in the 80’s
Any one of them can use the Notwithstanding Clause to violate our constitutional rights.