QUEBEC CITY, May 5, 2005 (LifeSiteNews.com) – Government leaders are loath to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Constitution, claiming it is meant only as an extreme measure – yet Quebec yesterday used the clause as a temporary stop gap against new education legislation.
The notwithstanding clause was written into the Constitution so that lawmakers who oppose the decisions of judges have recourse to override the rulings.
Martin himself admitted, in debate in the House on Bill C-38 in February, “Because same sex marriage is already legal in most of the country, the only way – the only way – to again make civil marriage the exclusive domain of opposite sex couples is to use the notwithstanding clause.”“The notwithstanding clause is part of the Charter of Rights,” Martin continued. “But there is a reason that no prime minister has ever used it. For a prime minister to use the powers of his office to explicitly deny rather than affirm a right enshrined under the charter would serve as a signal to all minorities that no longer can they look to the nation’s leader and to the nation’s Constitution for protection, for security, for the guarantee of their freedoms.”
Quebec’s provincial government invoked the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution Wednesday to temporarily avoid abiding by a legislative ruling that strips the province of denominational religious schools. The notwithstanding clause was used so that the province would have until 2008 to implement the change.
REAL Women of Canada’s Gwen Landolt told LifeSiteNews.com Thursday, “Use of the notwithstanding clause is very legitimate. The Liberals are afraid” that by invoking the clause, “they would down-grade the power of the courts – the credibility of the courts is at stake. It’s about time we do question the credibility of the courts,” she emphasized. “Legalization of same-sex ‘marriage’ does not reflect the wishes of the Canadian people. The Liberals find it convenient to say ‘we want what the courts say.’”
In a letter to Prime Minister Paul Martin in January, Aloysius Cardinal Ambrozic defended the use of the notwithstanding clause for the same-sex “marriage” issue, explaining clearly the purpose of the clause. “Some will argue that the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is wrong in principle,” he said. “I must respectfully disagree. The notwithstanding clause was inserted into the Charter to recognize parliamentary supremacy and the need for democratic oversight for courts.”
“No Canadian can say that courts always get things right,” Cardinal Ambrozic emphasized. “Judges are not elected and are ultimately not accountable for their decisions. Fundamental social change should only occur with the consent of the people through their democratic institutions. This understanding of the role of Parliament led to the inclusion of the notwithstanding clause in the Charter. Its use in the context of same-sex marriage would be most appropriate.”
Read Cardinal Ambrozic’s letter.
See related coverage:
The New Game of Charter Politics: Homosexual Marriage ‘Right’ is Judge-Made Affair
Supreme Court Judges Want to Ensure Court Control of Canada’s Social Re-Engineering
tv