Note that even some liberals are against this foolhardy promise. Note also how Martin promised to use it in a different case over a year ago. What a hypocrite!!

quote:

JOAN BRYDEN Tue Jan 10, 7:25 PM ET OTTAWA (CP) - Paul Martin will have to overcome objections from some provinces, constitutional experts and even some Liberal MPs if he's to deliver on his promise to prevent federal use of the notwithstanding clause. The prime minister lobbed the constitutional surprise into the televised leaders' debate Monday night, apparently hoping to catch Conservative Leader Stephen Harper off guard. But it came like a bolt from the blue for Liberal MPs too. "Nobody discussed it with me prior," said Toronto MP Derek Lee, the longest serving member of the Commons justice committee. Other Liberal MPs and senators whose support would be necessary to amend the constitutional clause complained that Martin's debate pronouncement "came out of left field," as one MP put it privately. They were confused about how such a change could be implemented and a number of MPs made it clear they'd oppose it. "I would support retention of the notwithstanding clause," said Mississauga South MP Paul Szabo. Lee said he's open to debating the idea but, in general, his view on constitutional matters is: "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." Constitutional law expert Peter Russell was even more blunt: "It would be foolish to throw it out, in my view." Moreover, Russell said Martin's plan might not even be legal. Tossing the half-baked idea into the debate in a bid to revive the Liberals' faltering campaign is "a strong argument for saying Paul Martin is not really equipped to govern," added Russell. "And I'm not a Conservative." The notwithstanding clause allows federal and provincial governments to pass legislation that overrides the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Such legislation must be renewed every five years. No federal government has ever used the clause, although several provinces have done so. Martin now wants to amend the clause to prevent the federal government from ever using it in future, although the provinces could still do so. Because he is proposing a change that would affect only the federal government, the Liberals contend the amendment could be done unilaterally, through a simple majority vote in the Commons and the Senate, without the need for provincial approval. Russell said a legal argument could be made that a unilateral amendment would suffice. But he noted that the notwithstanding clause was a "crucial part of the bargain" struck by former prime minister Pierre Trudeau in 1982 to persuade reluctant premiers to agree to patriate the Constitution with a charter of rights. Canada would "probably not" have a charter if Trudeau hadn't agreed to add the clause and, thus, Russell said provinces might have a legal argument to prevent Martin from unilaterally tampering with it now. Few premiers were willing to comment on the matter Tuesday but Nova Scotia's John Hamm said Martin's proposal amounts to an unwanted distraction from more pressing matters. "I don't think there's any appetite to get into a constitutional debate," said Hamm. "There's serious issues in health care, there's serious issues in post-secondary education. I think those are things Canadians really want to hear discussed." Saskatchewan NDP Justice Minister Frank Quennell called Martin's promise "unsettling." He cited the recent Supreme Court ruling on private health care as an example of when the notwithstanding clause could be used federally to protect universally funded medicare. "Parliament would have no recourse because the notwithstanding clause has been removed," Quennell said. "I have concerns about the Conservative party and I have concerns about what some Conservative politicians have to say about minorities, but I don't think the prime minister should have been playing politics with the Constitution." Russell said the clause is "a brilliant part of our constitutional law." "It's a very good safety valve and a check and balance on both the courts and legislatures." Szabo, who favoured using the notwithstanding clause to override court rulings legalizing same-sex marriage, noted that some issues involve conflicting rights. For instance, the equality rights of gays and lesbians conflict with the religious freedom of those who oppose same-sex marriages. In such cases, according to Szabo, the nothwithstanding clause ensures that politicians, not the courts, have the final say over the balance that is struck between those conflicting rights. Martin himself, only 13 months ago, told CBC Radio he'd consider using the notwithstanding clause should the courts ever order churches to perform same-sex weddings. "I would look at it if it was a question of affirming a (religious) right," he said at the time. Lee said he's always thought the clause is "a potentially useful check on any court that decided to be abusive of Parliament." Martin's arch-rival and predecessor, Jean Chretien, was instrumental in negotiating the patriation package as Trudeau's justice minister. He has always defended the controversial clause. Senator Jim Munson, Chretien's former communications director, said he couldn't speak for the vacationing former prime minister. But Munson said his own view is that the clause is "a safety valve and I don't quite understand why we are fiddling" with it. He also questioned the wisdom of reopening the constitutional file, saying: "Mr. Chretien was always reluctant to get back into the constitutional debate because he felt there was a country to run."

___________________

quote:

Originally posted by jester Everything in this country is illegal.

"Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery…" Winston Churchill

‎"If you have ten thousand regulations you destroy all respect for the law" - Winston Churchill