Pierre Poilievre isn’t planning to use the notwithstanding clause to pass his crime bill. The point of his crime bill is to use the notwithstanding clause
The comparison to the US seems to misunderstand what’s going on in both the US case and the hypothetical Canadian one. They join of a court is to apply the law as it is written to the case at hand. I know Australian courts are better at this than American ones, and I suspect Canada is closer to Australia in this respect as well.
Sometimes, different laws have conflicting messaging about how they should apply. The court’s job then is to decide which takes priority. If something conflicts with a codified constitution, almost always the constitution wins out. But when two pieces of ordinary legislation conflict, it can be more complicated.
A recent example comes out of the UK. A bill was passed allowing for deportations of asylum seekers to Rwanda. An earlier price of legislation forbade sending asylum seekers to unsafe places on human rights grounds. The court’s declared that Rwanda was unsafe, thus forbidding the deportations. They decided the human rights law superceded the asylum deportation law.
That’s where notwithstanding clauses come in. That’s a clause in a piece of ordinary legislation that tells the court very specifically which legislation takes primacy when they conflict, especially if a court might be inclined to otherwise decide the other way. The exception being that if ordinary legislation would not be allowed to amend an Act (such as a codified constitution), a notwithstanding clauses in a different Act would usually not be lawful.
In the UK example, they passed what is essentially a notwithstanding clauses that said “Rwanda is a safe country for legal purposes”.
And all of that is basically what’s being talked about in Canada. It might be immoral, but none of it is unlawful.
The US is a completely different story. Their Congress hasn’t passed shit. There is no notwithstanding clause for the courts to apply. The executive is just unilaterally deciding to ignore courts. There’s no legal basis for this. Congress passes legislation, the executive extremes execute that legislation, and the courts interpret whether actions are in keeping first with the Constitution and second with legislation. It’s a crisis when the executive just decides to ignore the judiciary. That would be true in Canada as well.
The difference is that, in Westminster system countries like Canada and the UK, the executive (usually) comes from the legislature. And it certainly at least has the confidence of the legislature. So if the executive wants to go against a court order, it has the ability to get the law changed. That’s not defying a court order, it’s changing legislation so that the previous court order no longer applies. Icky, but not unconstitutional, because that’s literally how laws work.
(Though incidentally, I think it would be a good idea to codify in the constitution that special notwithstanding clauses are unlawful, and that legislation must be applied equally across cases. I’m not sure if that would be feasible without undesirable consequences though.)
The comparison to the US seems to misunderstand what’s going on in both the US case and the hypothetical Canadian one. They join of a court is to apply the law as it is written to the case at hand. I know Australian courts are better at this than American ones, and I suspect Canada is closer to Australia in this respect as well.
Sometimes, different laws have conflicting messaging about how they should apply. The court’s job then is to decide which takes priority. If something conflicts with a codified constitution, almost always the constitution wins out. But when two pieces of ordinary legislation conflict, it can be more complicated.
A recent example comes out of the UK. A bill was passed allowing for deportations of asylum seekers to Rwanda. An earlier price of legislation forbade sending asylum seekers to unsafe places on human rights grounds. The court’s declared that Rwanda was unsafe, thus forbidding the deportations. They decided the human rights law superceded the asylum deportation law.
That’s where notwithstanding clauses come in. That’s a clause in a piece of ordinary legislation that tells the court very specifically which legislation takes primacy when they conflict, especially if a court might be inclined to otherwise decide the other way. The exception being that if ordinary legislation would not be allowed to amend an Act (such as a codified constitution), a notwithstanding clauses in a different Act would usually not be lawful.
In the UK example, they passed what is essentially a notwithstanding clauses that said “Rwanda is a safe country for legal purposes”.
And all of that is basically what’s being talked about in Canada. It might be immoral, but none of it is unlawful.
The US is a completely different story. Their Congress hasn’t passed shit. There is no notwithstanding clause for the courts to apply. The executive is just unilaterally deciding to ignore courts. There’s no legal basis for this. Congress passes legislation, the executive extremes execute that legislation, and the courts interpret whether actions are in keeping first with the Constitution and second with legislation. It’s a crisis when the executive just decides to ignore the judiciary. That would be true in Canada as well.
The difference is that, in Westminster system countries like Canada and the UK, the executive (usually) comes from the legislature. And it certainly at least has the confidence of the legislature. So if the executive wants to go against a court order, it has the ability to get the law changed. That’s not defying a court order, it’s changing legislation so that the previous court order no longer applies. Icky, but not unconstitutional, because that’s literally how laws work.
(Though incidentally, I think it would be a good idea to codify in the constitution that special notwithstanding clauses are unlawful, and that legislation must be applied equally across cases. I’m not sure if that would be feasible without undesirable consequences though.)