(LifeSiteNews) — The last living person in the room when Canada’s Constitution and Charter of Rights and Freedoms was signed in 1982 warned that the current Liberal government of Prime Minister Mark Carney is trying to “hijack” the Charter and urged Canadians to fight back.
Former Newfoundland Premier Brian Peckford, who was present when the Charter was agreed upon 44 years ago, sat down with Brian Lilley of the National Post to raise his concerns.
In the interview, Peckford told Lilley that the federal government is out of line for asking the Supreme Court to change Canada’s notwithstanding clause. The government is doing so to challenge Quebec’s Bill 21, or the secularism law. The notwithstanding clause, which was a vital part of the 1982 Charter, allows provincial governments the right to override.
In section 33 of Canada’s Charter of Rights, there is what is known as the notwithstanding clause, which allows provincial governments to, in effect, override parts of the Charter for a five-year timeframe when legislation is passed.
It is meant as a check to balance power between the court system and the government elected by the people. Once it is used, as passed by the legislature, a court cannot rule that the legislation to which the notwithstanding clause applies should be struck down under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Peckford’s view is that the Carney government is acting unconstitutionally and must be stopped.
“The federal government does not have the power, nor does the court. They’re out of line,” Peckford said to Lilley.
He said that the Supreme Court should “say to the federal government, we’re not even going to entertain your factum because this goes against everything, every constitutional principle that we have.”
Last fall, the federal government submitted a factum to Canada’s Supreme Court that called for limits to be placed on the notwithstanding clause.
“The temporary character of the use of s. 33 confirms that it cannot be used to cause an irreparable impairment of the rights and freedoms guaranteed by ss. 2 or 7 to 15 of the Charter. Such use would amount to indirectly amending the Constitution. It follows that the courts must retain jurisdiction to review, on a case-by-case basis, whether the use of s. 33 violates this limit,” the Carney government’s factum submission reads.
In the case, Justice Suzanne Côté said clearly to the government, “You are asking us to make a constitutional amendment.”
Peckford said that the government’s actions in this court case are “insidious.”
“The federal government is now about trying to usurp and change the constitution illegally or unconstitutionally,” he told Lilley.
While Carney has recently claimed his government was not looking to place “limits” on the notwithstanding clause, questions remain.
Peckford was a vocal opponent of COVID-19 mandates and even fought the government in the courts, but he failed to advance his cause.
While it is true that the notwithstanding clause could be used by governments for good or bad, some provinces, such as Alberta, have recently used it to stop the courts from trying to override a provincial law banning ‘transgender’ surgery for minors.