SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Ontario Assembly Bill

Ontario Bill 37

43rd Parl. 1st Sess.
November 15, 2022
Notwithstanding Clause Limitation Act, 2022
  • This Act, called the Notwithstanding Clause Limitation Act, was passed in 2022 in the Province of Ontario. It limits the use of a provision in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms called the notwithstanding clause. The notwithstanding clause allows the government to override certain rights and freedoms protected by the Charter. However, this Act states that a bill in the Legislative Assembly of Ontario cannot include a declaration using the notwithstanding clause, unless certain conditions are met. These conditions include addressing an urgent and critical situation that endangers the lives, health, or safety of Ontarians, amending a law that has been found to violate the Charter, and only using the notwithstanding clause for the specific provision that has been found to violate the Charter. The Attorney General is required to provide a report justifying the use of the notwithstanding clause and explaining why other alternatives were considered inadequate. Additionally, any bill with a notwithstanding clause declaration must be approved by at least two-thirds of the members of the Legislative Assembly. This Act comes into effect once it receives Royal Assent.
  • H1
  • H2
  • H3
  • RA
  • Yea
  • Nay
  • star_border

SteelmanSpren in Favour

  • One steelman argument in favor of Bill 37 2022, the Notwithstanding Clause Limitation Act, could be as follows: The use of the notwithstanding clause is an important tool for governments to address urgent and critical situations that pose a serious threat to the lives, health, or safety of the people. By limiting the use of the notwithstanding clause to such circumstances, this bill ensures that the government can take necessary actions to protect Ontarians in times of crisis. Furthermore, this bill requires the Attorney General to provide a detailed report justifying the use of the notwithstanding clause in a free and democratic society. This report ensures transparency and accountability, as it outlines the reasoning behind the declaration and the alternatives considered before resorting to the notwithstanding clause. This requirement encourages the government to carefully consider other options and only use the notwithstanding clause as a last resort. Additionally, the bill mandates that any bill containing a declaration under the notwithstanding clause must receive the approval of at least two-thirds of the elected members of the Legislative Assembly. This high threshold ensures that the use of the notwithstanding clause is not taken lightly and requires broad support from elected representatives. By implementing these limitations and safeguards, the Notwithstanding Clause Limitation Act strikes a balance between protecting individual rights and allowing the government to respond effectively to urgent and critical situations. It ensures that the notwithstanding clause is used responsibly and in a manner consistent with the principles of a free and democratic society.

SteelmanSpren Against

  • Steelman Argument Opposing Bill 37 2022: Bill 37 2022, also known as the Notwithstanding Clause Limitation Act, seeks to restrict the use of the notwithstanding clause in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While it may appear to be a measure aimed at protecting individual rights, there are valid concerns from a right-wing perspective about the potential negative consequences of this legislation. Firstly, the use of the notwithstanding clause is an essential tool for protecting provincial autonomy and the rights of the people of Ontario. By limiting the use of this clause, the government is effectively undermining the ability of the province to make decisions that are in the best interest of its citizens. It is important to recognize that the federal government should not have unchecked power over provincial matters, and the notwithstanding clause provides a necessary check on federal overreach. Secondly, the bill's requirement for an urgent and critical situation of a temporary nature to justify the use of the notwithstanding clause is problematic. This provision could potentially limit the government's ability to respond swiftly and effectively to emerging crises. In times of emergency, such as natural disasters or public health emergencies, it is crucial for the government to have the flexibility to take immediate action without being hindered by legal constraints. Furthermore, the bill's requirement for a two-thirds majority approval in the Legislative Assembly to adopt a bill containing a declaration under the notwithstanding clause is undemocratic. This provision effectively gives a minority of elected representatives the power to block legislation that may be necessary for the well-being of the province. It undermines the principle of majority rule and can lead to gridlock and inefficiency in the legislative process. Lastly, the bill's provision for the Attorney General to provide a report justifying the use of the notwithstanding clause and detailing alternative considerations is unnecessary and burdensome. This requirement adds an additional layer of bureaucracy and can potentially delay the passage of important legislation. It is important to trust the elected representatives to make informed decisions without excessive bureaucratic interference. In conclusion, while the intention behind Bill 37 2022 may be to protect individual rights, it is important to consider the potential negative consequences from a right-wing perspective. Limiting the use of the notwithstanding clause can undermine provincial autonomy, hinder the government's ability to respond to emergencies, and introduce undemocratic barriers to the legislative process.
First Reading
  • Nov. 15, 2022, noon
  • In Progress
  • Read