In the submission of the Attorney General of Alberta (AGA) to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. there is a phrase used that I want to explore further, especially with regards to S33 (The Notwithstanding Clause) of The Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter).
That phrase is "parliamentary sovereignty", and I think the Alberta submission embodies a very flawed understanding of it.
With some 60 or more intervenors in English Montreal School Board, et al. v. Attorney General of Quebec, et al. before the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC), there is a ton of material to delve into - that's far beyond this writer's time and scope of knowledge. However, there are lines of reasoning that I do wish to explore in some more depth - especially as regards the nature of S33, and how its application might be limited in the future.
In particular, I want to examine arguments put forward by:
This is, of course, far from a complete list of interesting submissions, but a representative sampling of the ones I found the most relevant to the issue of legislatures applying S33 (The Notwithstanding Clause) pre-emptively to shield legislation from scrutiny. Let's dive in.
S33 (The Notwithstanding Clause) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms (The Charter) is a "nuclear weapon" that can be used to override the guarantees in the rest of the Charter. The original purpose and intent of it was to provide a tool that legislators could use when the conflict between the common good and individual rights was so intractable that there was no other real option other than to limit the Charter Rights of individuals in a way that exceeds the boundaries of "reasonableness" set out in S1 of the Charter.
In my lifetime, I have only seen one instance where the application of S33 has had a solid and ultimately reasonably justified application, and that is with respect to Québec's language and culture law (known at one time as Bill 101 - decades ago). The justification for that law and the use of S33 to shield it was fairly straightforward: The province of Québec exists as a unique linguistic and cultural island surrounded by an otherwise overwhelmingly anglophone cultural mosaic in the rest of North America. Therefore, it was deemed "reasonable" to allow Québec to limit the use of English and other languages within the province. Given the circumstances, I can actually agree with that reasoning even though it does place non-francophone Québecers in a more difficult situation in a number of respects. (Note: This does not mean that I agree with all of Québec's applications of S33, merely that the reasoning in this particular case made sense)
So, over at Skeptic, we find an article criticizing "experts" (read academics, researchers, etc) for being "too political".
Put kindly, this is complete stupidity - from people who should be much more adept at delving into the psychosocial history involved. Instead, they descend into the usual tropes of accusing academics and researchers of "being condescending", and "not listening to the concerns", blah blah blah. Of course, this is all the fault of those meanies who call themselves "progressive", right? Wrong.
So, late yesterday, Premier Sith Smith blinked on her ban of 2SLGBTQ books from schools. I have opinions. This follows on the heels of the Edmonton Public School Board (EPSB) publishing a rather lengthy list of books that would have to be banned based on the province's guidelines. Of course, Premier Smith got upset that not only did the book include 2SLGBTQ titles, but also included Ayn Rand's "Atlas Shrugged" (among others). Clearly, she says, the school boards didn't understand the intent of the Government's guidelines.
So, apparently Pierre Poilievre thinks that a certain nurse's comments about transgender people are an example of "free speech and free thought".
Let's talk about that for a moment. Ms. Hamm belongs to a regulated profession (voluntarily), and she made these comments very publicly while citing herself as an "authority" because she is a nurse.
Over at Skeptic.com(*), we find an article titled "The Contradiction at the Heart of Gender Debates". This is one of those cases of the author writing something which is so far out of their expertise that they completely mischaracterize things. To be fair to the author, their bio states that they are a PhD Geologist - that's nothing to sneeze at. But, it doesn't exactly make them overly qualified to opine on the issues around gender dysphoria and its treatment.
*Skeptic.com wants you to be a paid subscriber to comment.
In the submission of the Attorney General of Alberta (AGA) to the Supreme Court of Canada (SCC) in English Montreal School Board, et al. v...
