Thoughts on BC Politics and More

The federal government has long objected to provinces using the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ “notwithstanding” clause, arguing it lets them trample over the rights of Canadians. But that view, flawed as it is, is nothing compared to Ottawa’s latest gambit on this issue, writes Andrew Roman.  Liberal Justice Minister Sean Fraser’s recent intervention in the case of Quebec’s Bill 21 asks the Supreme Court of Canada to declare limits on the use of the notwithstanding clause. This would amount to a backdoor amendment of the Constitution by the court, one that would give judges even more power and leave elected representatives even less scope to avoid or undo their harmful decisions.  More than just an attack on provincial autonomy, writes Roman, it threatens to upset the balance at the heart of Canada’s federal democracy ... CLICK HERE for the full story

Recent weeks have seen myriad commentators wonder if Canada’s elbows are “down” with respect to U.S. President Donald Trump’s provocations. Significant sympathy must be given to Prime Minister Mark Carney here in dealing with an unpredictable narcissist. Figuring out the best strategy is a mug’s game.  But no one should doubt that the PM does not want Canada to become America. Recent weeks have also seen immense scrutiny of Attorney General Sean Fraser’s written argument against the notwithstanding clause in the case English Montreal School Board v Attorney General of Quebec. This is continuing to prompt outrage from provincial political leaders and constitutional law scholars (particularly those in Quebec and western Canada), who assert that the argument advanced by Fraser risks destroying a constitutional settlement and provoking a national unity crisis. This in turn has led to commentary (notably from Andrew Coyne), countering these commentators. What perhaps is under-appreciate...