Meinung: Die Abweichungsklausel ist weit verbreitet. Ist es Zeit für die „thermonukleare“ Option?
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/opinion/article-quebec-notwithstanding-clause-charter-rights-alberta-legault-smith/?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter
5 Kommentare
Can’t get past the paywall but if the ‘thermonuclear’ option is disallowance that’s really funny lol and I think it’s an interesting thought but despite any merits the Liberals would never take that risk (it’s a significant one)
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again:
The NWC should invoke a referendum – if the legislation is that important to some kind of provincial or national emergency then a referendum should be the tool to ratify it. If it won’t pass the referendum, then you know the MPs/MLAs/MNP/MNA can’t abuse it.
If Disallowance is on the table if has to be an Act of Parliament directing the Privy Council to issue an Order in Council. It *can not be* in 2025 *what it is*: a unilateral act of the Federal Executive Council. It only has both logical and democratic legitimacy if it is introduced as a Act of Parliament requiring full debate and committee study.
If the logic is 1) there exists a „centre“ with the power to disallow things as „not Canadian“ there for it can only come from the House of Commons of all of Canada and not the Federal Executive Council. Disallowance is imo not dead letter but it is absolutely dead as a unilateral power of the Federal Executive Council.
Disallowance moving to the Crown in Parliament, narrowing the Notwithstanding Clause to making preemptive use unlawful, and mandating a „reference rebuttal“ of the Supreme Court are imo clear debugging needed.
*The people are sovereign* through Parliament in Canada, therefor elections are sovereign, *not legal text*. The Sovereign reigns, but does not rule. De facto in Canada „the people“ are arguably more sovereign then *any other model*. Let’s not break anything. (The Swiss being the only other real contender)
Of the options floated in this article, [Bill S-218](https://www.parl.ca/DocumentViewer/en/45-1/bill/S-218/first-reading) is definitely the more feasible of the two. Disallowance of any bill would instantly start the mother of all legal fights between the frds and whichever province it was used on, no matter how justified the disallowance was.
The nothwithstanding clause should straight-up be repealed, but in lieu of that, at the bare minimum, it should require a 2/3rds supermajority of MLAs to vote in favour of it so that it is far less likely to be abused like it has been. It is absolutely ridiculous that premiers like Smith and Ford are able to casually decide to subvert our rights with simple majorities like it’s ordinary legislation.