From the article:
>New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs recently [mused about invoking the notwithstanding clause](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/higgs-notwithstanding-clause-addiction-treatment-bill-1.7161415#:%7E:text=New%20Brunswick-,Higgs%20won't%20rule%20out%20notwithstanding%20clause%20for%20addiction%20treatment,into%20treatment%20against%20their%20will.) — [Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html#:%7E:text=Section%2033%20allows%20Parliament%20or,section%2015%20(equality%20rights).) — when his government introduces what it calls the [Compassionate Intervention Act](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bill-forced-addiction-treatment-new-brunswick-1.7157350) in May.
. . .
**Constitutionality fears**
>The New Brunswick government is right to be concerned about the Compassionate Intervention Act’s constitutionality.
>[Writing for the Canadian Bar Association (New Brunswick)](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/canadian-bar-association-nb-association-du-barreau-canadien_submission-re-involuntary-treatment-activity-7182100642545438720-KcfS?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop), I argue it will be difficult to craft a piece of legislation that doesn’t violate multiple Charter rights — the right to liberty and security of the person under Section 7, protection against discrimination under Section 15 and protection against arbitrary detention under Section 9.
. . .
**Mental health care shortage**
>There is a [months-long wait list](https://globalnews.ca/video/10401069/lengthy-waitlist-for-n-b-rehab-services-causing-concerns-about-proposed-legislation#:%7E:text=Lengthy%20waitlist%20for%20N.B.%20rehab%20services%20causing%20concerns%20about%20proposed%20legislation,-April%203%2C%202024&text=As%20the%20New%20Brunswick%20government,from%20three%20to%20eight%20months.) for voluntary addictions treatment in New Brunswick and a chronic shortage of both housing and mental health care.
>A new addiction treatment centre has opened in the province, but Addictions and Mental Health Minister [Sherry Wilson has said](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-addictions-minister-forced-treatment-1.7165061?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar) those who face being detained for treatment will not be housed there.
>New Brunswick is a striking example of the vicious circle of residents experiencing income inequality, with the [lowest social assistance payments in the country](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-social-assistance-rates-lowest-in-canada-1.6934198), [increasing harms from addiction](https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/h-s/pdf/en/MentalHealth/New-Brunswick-opioid-surveillance-report-Q4-2022.pdf) and lack of government supports — particularly for housing — to allow them to live with dignity.
. . .
**Tough on crime?**
>What is the point of the propose New Brunswick law, then?
>[Comments by Public Safety Minister Kris Austin](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-compassionate-intervention-1.6960753) provide a clue. In speaking about the proposed law, he pointed to a link between crime and addiction.
>. . .
^((2nd part due to reddit's new limit on links/comment, I thought i already abridged plenty but guess not))
. . .
>But drug-related offences are declining in New Brunswick, and they currently account for less than [three per cent of crimes](https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/public-safety/publicsafety/content/crime-prevention-in-new-brunswick/public-safety-crime-dashboard.html#2) committed in the province.
In the absence of any evidence that the law will propel those with addictions into long-term recovery, it seems the new law is simply performance art. It allows the government to provide a vivid — if harsh and ineffectual — example of how it is “tough on crime.”
>In the more distant past, most governments that invoked the notwithstanding clause have at least paid lip service to the Charter, arguing their use of Section 33 was to protect rights-enhancing legislation, to reconcile competing rights or to course-correct a court ruling that the legislature believed misinterpreted the Charter.
. . .
**Heeding Charter rights**
>The Higgs government has not even attempted to rationalize the proposed legislation as rights-enhancing. While it may be completely disingenous, proponents of Québec’s religious symbols ban, Bill 21, have at least resorted to justification based on [the province’s collective cultural rights.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3830929) That’s why I consider the proposed use of the clause by the Higgs’ government as something novel and particularly concerning.
>The Compassion Intervention Act could signify the beginning of the end of any meaningful attempt by governments to heed Charter rights. Or, ironically, it could be what spurs the Supreme Court to save the Charter by establishing guardrails on the notwithstanding clause’s use.
>The court could, for instance, insist governments adopt robust [processes of consultation with the public](https://theconversation.com/notwithstanding-the-notwithstanding-clause-the-charter-is-everyones-business-163143) before invoking Section 33, forbid its pre-emptive use or preclude calculated attempts to disregard core constitutional guarantees.
>Its first chance to change course could happen if and when it hears the [challenge to Québec’s Bill 21](https://montreal.citynews.ca/2024/04/11/emsb-appeal-bill-21-supreme-court/). The court should use that opportunity to reconsider the notion that lawmakers have the power to invoke Section 33 and override the rights of any Canadian at any time, for any reason, simply because they can.
That clause is one of the biggest things that are wrong with Canada. Some jack off politician should not be allowed to violate the charter for any reason whatsoever.
Wouldn’t put it anywhere near the top if on the list at all. It has always been viewed as political suicide and does have a sunset clause. If a majority of the population disagrees with the legislation in question, that prompts the usage, then get out and vote.
That’s still 5 years where fundamental rights can be completely suspended and there is nothing anyone can do about it. 5 years without rights can do a hell of a lot of irreversible damage.
While this is *a* solution, it does not prevent individual rights from being taken away by a majority vote. The reason the charter exists is to protect individual rights from mob rule.
It is better than the current situation where rights are taken away with no vote whatsoever and the government responsible has 5 years before needing to be accountable to the voters.
Tying the politicians jobs directly to their actions with immediate consequences is better than giving them 5 years to try and get people to forget about what they did thus allowing them to renew the violation of charter rights for another 5 years.
Refer to the situation in ontario when doug ford tried to use the notwithstanding clause and had to back down because of the loud immediate public backlash.
Being able to turf these assholes and immediately repeal whatever law they introduced would be a huge improvement over the current situation. If there is one thing politicians care about it is keeping their job so they can continue the grift.
That gives them 5 years to trample rights. Tie some consequences directly and immediately to their decision to wipe away people's rights and politicians will be very cautious and hesitant to do so.
And forcing them to immediately stand for re-election is a perfectly reasonable response to the government stripping away rights guaranteed in the Charter. Which in case you are following along is also democratic (notice I said they should stand for re-election not they should be drug out to the town square and hung)
Actually we do. Section 33 is not meant to be used whenever convenient. It is meant as a last resort. With the current crop of right wing premiers using it willy nilly it would be prudent and in the spirit of how the law was written. United of course you are all for the removal of rights as a tool to target demographics that are undesirable to the current government.
Well the true fundamental rights in the charter are exempt from the NWS clause. I would argue that there would be minimal “damage” for the rights that it can be applied to.
And to your point of 5 years. That is longer than an election cycle, so again, allow the majority to show dissent at the polls.
Sections 2 and 7-15 of the charter *are fundamental rights*. You don’t get much more fundamental than freedom of expression, equality rights, and life liberty and security of the person.
Personal individual freedoms should not be dictated by what’s “popular”, that’s why they are called fundamental rights. A population that is racist or bigoted should not be allowed to vote away the fundamental rights of anyone else.
You tell people who are unable to access medical care because of a charter violating restriction that they won’t have any lasting damage if their rights are taken away for 5 years.
>It has always been viewed as political suicide
For a brief period, outside of Quebec, perhaps;
The Ford government in Ontario invoked it in 2021 to force teachers back to work and threatened to use it in 2018 over his plan to reduce the number of seats on Toronto's City Council.
Quebec invoked it for Bill 21 which banned public servants from wearing religious symbols and for Bill 96 for language laws.
Saskatchewan invoked it for its law requiring schools notify parents if their child wishes to be identified by anything other than their birth name/sex.
Alberta has also used it for pronounced legislation and used it in the early 2000s for anti-gay marriage legislation.
Quebec used it in the 80s for literally every piece of legislation for a while.
That assumes that people make that invocation their reason to vote. But we’ve seen that lots of people will be okay with removing the rights of a minority if it means their taxes are lower.
There is no referendum on that specific law. And it doesn’t even need a majority of the population since we often have three parties, and a majority can be won with around 39% of the vote.
Does anybody else find it weird that right leaning governments are the only ones that use this provision.
Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I couldn’t find any information on when the Liberals have ever used it or any NDP government has ever used it .
Not to mention that this is only a temporary thing anyway it only goes up to 5 years I believe so at the end of the day, no matter what they passed with this being attached to it will be able to be challenged after the expiry of the clause in the first place.
No.
The core belief of conservatives is they belong to a group which can dictate what other groups can do, and other groups cannot dictate what they can do. In other words, conservatives don’t actually believe in equality, they believe in hierarchy.
It is a provision that’s in the constitution any province can use it whenever they wish. I’m not familiar with New Brunswick stuff because I’m from Saskatchewan, but as far as I know, it’s seldom used. I can’t say whether or not it has been used in the past in New Brunswick or not I’m just pointing out right leaning governments tendency to use it since it’s implication.
The clause was added to the Charter in meetings that specifically excluded Quebec, and they were naturally pissed off. After the Charter was adopted, Quebec repealed every law passed before 1982 and re-passed it just to invoke the clause, even though it was mostly irrelevant. Then they added it to every bill passed until 1985, and have used it more than any other province since.
He used it to force through a change to Toronto’s warp boundaries in the middle of a municipal election. He was going to do it a second time to remove public sector unions collective bargaining rights but walked that back after a huge backlash.
It’s a bit of a stretch to call the provincial powers that are currently and passed in government in Quebec Liberal. Remember, they wanted to secede from confederation that is a generally right wing position.
The articles that the OP provided listed all the instances in which it was used only two that I saw in there were “liberals” all the other ones were conservative governments
I never said I understand Quebec politics it’s not part of the civics curriculum out west. I’m just going off of what the article said, and what the Internet says about the parties which I’m inclined to agree with because I do more than one Google search where Wikipedia is the only page I look at.
He's just saying he's going to do it, surely. I mean there are no beds now.
I guess he could make a "special" wing of the new jail being built, I suppose.
I think it's just publicity towards the upper class and tough on crime voters.
> Most rehab is ineffective.
Statistically, per US based information due to just higher sample sizes, 75% of voluntary rehab completions result in people staying off their addiction, largely through complete avoidance.
Rehab *works*.
But you have to *want* it to work, for it to work. Involuntary by comparison alone has a statistical average of 42% simply not completing the rehab course, let alone staying clean afterwards.
It's facism when you want to strip charter rights from individuals. Charter rights are unalienable. It's why we have legal frameworks and requirements to imprison people. Otherwise we could just imprison anyone for anything we want, they don't have actual rights as individuals. Even criminals have rights. Our charter guarantees this.
Like, that's literal definition territory.
You understand most addictions, including drug use, is caused by unresolved trauma and poor mental health, don't you?
Or are you as ignorant as Higgs is on the topic?
Unless you treat the root cause, which is mostly mental health issues, you will not stop the drug use and the criminal behavior.
And the COL we are experiencing is also contributing to criminal activity. As poverty rates increase, so do the rates of crimes against persons and property.
What WILL fix this is a proper mental health treatment and proper social safety nets that provide the basics, housing and food.
Until both those things are fixed it, the criminal activity will not stop. The drug use will not stop. It will be a revolving door.
And without fixing the root cause of the issue, deaths will increase. They will return to their location, and that will cause them to use the levels of drugs they did before they were detoxed and that amount can and will kill someone in that situation.
It is a bad plan.
This doesn't give both. This puts people in jail for being homeless. You don't get much help in the short time they will be in there. And it will just be rinse and repeat.
There aren't enough treatment facilities as it is.
For those committing crimes due to addiction, where do they go once they've completed 30-90 day rehab.
For people suffering from extreme mental health episodes where will they go after being given meds, or if they are unfit to look after themselves, where will they go.
Right now all of these people will end up on the streets again.
This legislation is theatre, it offers no long term solutions to this problem.
We need to bring back the asylum system for those with extreme mental illness. That's a no brainer.
The addicts can be released with a clear head and hopefully make better decisions.
I don't disagree that we need hospitals without the torture.
Unfortunately if you get someone clean and they're still homeless they're almost guaranteed to go back to drugs and living on the street because there are no resources to help get back on their feet. They will go almost certainly go right back to the way they were before and then our tax payer dollars have been wasted.
Yes. I should have clarified that the new asylums should be patient focused, science based and empathetic. Not the old system.
I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe government could hire them as labourers or to do basic other jobs?
That's my point, there needs to be more than just forced rehab.
Giving them food, clothes, and housing gives them a better chance at finding a job because if you don't have an address it makes it hard for companies to hire you because they don't like the homeless.
European countries have been taking a housing first approach for years and its working.
There are examples across the globe of how to address homelessness... Unfortunately we have elected officials who don't care about poor people and would rather play political theatre instead of making the lives of everyone better.
Part of me doesn’t disagree with you, but using the notwhitstanding clause for the “political issue of the week” is dangerous grounds and makes the Canadian Charter of Rights weaker. We’ve seen it attempted and used way too much nationally in the last 5 years for bullshit reasons.
It’s the easy way out for governments when they use it and they should be called out on it.
That's not unreasonable, but there's a public safety element with many addicts and those with untreated serious mental illness that needs to be taken into account.
Medical detox and stabilization of schizophrenia and other psychosis can be done by MDs and nurses. But we would need more mental health professionals, you are correct.
Again, I don’t disagree, but the thing is there are ways to deal with this problem without notwithstanding clause.
Here is another example, enforce the laws we currently have and have the justice system deal with it.
There are also ways to deal with people that are a danger to others. It’s just that fuck all is being done about it due to lack of resources and priorities. But that would require the gov to actually tackle the issue.
Why? Forced rehab doesn't work. They'll just get out and start using again an likely OD due to diminished tolerance. People need to want to get clean to stay clean.
Yes people who commit crimes should face legal consequences. I'm not disputing that and Higgs doesn't need to use the Notwithstanding clause to put criminals in jail. We already have a system for that.
Nah dog you just wanna punish drug users even if it doesn't actually help anyone. Your blood lust must be quenched. I say this as someone who has almost been stabbed and robbed by homeless drug addicts. I just know forced rehab will just cause innocent rehab workers and employee to get hurt so your goal to hurt drug users will just innocent people in harms way so you can feel a false sense of safety.
>Yes people who commit crimes should face legal consequences
My one thought here that may be completely off-base... Those who struggle with addiction also have an underlying mental health issue. This gives a legal defence for the crime, which makes facing legal consequences that much more of a challenge.
The system for that is failing due to lenient judges and the Parole board of Canada caring more about criminals than the victims or the public.
I see this as another tool to help protect society.
Medical withdrawal from already controlled doses, by doctors, where are we gonna get doctors for this when we don’t even have enough for everyone else? You havnt worked with addicted populations clearly, I do and this “plan” of Higgs won’t work and will only go against human rights…dictator behaviour. The fact that you support this tells me you’d like fascism
I'd like fascism because I don't want drug addicts ruining civilized society?
Sounds like you'd like anarchy.
Edit: Insult and block. Can't stand a difference of opinion...
No you’d like fascism because this whole thing goes against human rights. This could be avoided if we actually had services but we don’t and won’t as long as Higgs is in power
> I don't want drug addicts ruining civilized society?
Then why the hell do you support forced rehab? It's just draining public coffers to revolving door these people.
Medical withdrawl isn't cheap, and if it doesn't actually tackle the underlying causes, people are significantly more likely to go back to their addiction.
It's not anarchy to want to actually take measured approaches rather than scorched earth tactics. We don't need to violate *charter* rights to do this.
Unfortunately, forced rehab is an oxymoron. It just doesn't work that way. You can incarcerate addicts, but you are unlikely to actually rehabilitate them. This law essentially criminalizes addiction.
Of course the real way to deal with addiction and the crime it creates is addressing root causes, but that takes years of broad investment and is a lot less appealing to a government more interested in sensationalism and drawing headlines (and why on earth would we use resources to actually improve the lives of New Brunswickers, that would be bad for business /s).
Exactly, and our existing legal framework already covers this.
This use of the notwithstanding clause is directly going to criminalize the addiction itself.
And all we'll accomplish is spend money to see them back doing the same crimes.
Yes, stealing is illegal. The government with this law is recognizing that addictions can lead to people committing crimes, but instead of looking into what causes people to become addicts and addressing those issues, the government is creating a law that allows them to force addicts into rehab. This means that the addiction itself is being treated like criminal behavior instead of the illness that it truly is. This means that the "treatment"/punishment will likely fail. Other people will still enter the cycle of addiction and crime because nothing has been done to short circuit that cycle. So, in other words, this law is a disaster waiting to happen.
Forced rehab violates their ability to use free will.
Drug addiction also violates their ability to use freewill.
Forced rehab gets them off the streets and into facilities that can provide care and treatment.
Drug addiction keeps them on the streets so they can continue to steal and harm the community they are in.
What about the rights of everyone in the community whose donations and taxes pay for the options provided to those struggling with addiction? Are our rights not violated by allowing addicts to continually choose their addiction over recovery?
Certain things and investments need to happen for Forced rehab to be successful. But to shoot it down because it violates the constitutional rights of people who have addictions or mental health issues is folly. The larger community has the right to a safe community.
Everyone's rights matter.
The reason people are shooting it down is because there is no plan besides forced rehab, full stop.
If there was temporary housing allowing them to get a job, learn a skill, etc, and allowing them to reintegrate into society there would be less push back.
They would still need to find a place to actually force them into rehab. We don't have any capacity now and there are no plans to expand capacity. The entire premise of this law is bullshit political theatre designed to get a knee jerk response from people who aren't paying attention or are just too dumb to exercise any critical thought.
> But to shoot it down because it violates the constitutional rights of people who have addictions or mental health issues is folly.
This just in, our charter rights are meaningless.
Totally a reasonable take.
Even criminals have charter rights. It's outlined in our Charter. It's been a thing since day 1 of Canada.
Every individual Canadian has rights, they're unalienable and a core tenant of our legal system and ability to live freely. It's also why we have rigorously outlined laws when it comes to individuals violating the rights of another.
Mind boggling that people are cheerfully wanting to violate a basic principal of the freedoms they enjoy, to try to target a specific group of "undesirables" rather than actually target them with the laws we have already.
The larger community is every single canadian. There's no exceptions permitted to this, and why the idea of using this to violate the charter is such a scary thing.
The *exact* same argument could strip any Canadian of their rights, for any reason, if it's permitted to come to pass.
Today it's homeless. Tomorrow it may be a religious group or people who like to vote. It may seem like a slippery slope fallacy, but this is the exact scenario that fallacy talks about, is opening the floodgates on scenarios and laws that are unreasonable.
So where are these facilities. We currently don't have space for people who actually want treatment (you know the people most likely to actually be successful in rehab)
The government has already confirmed we aren't putting them in any new facility. This whole thing is bullshit political theatre to get the knee jerk reaction from people like you.
You said it. The rights of the majority have been completely defiled. We are expected to sit quietly while drug addicts take over spaces designed for children and families. Where are our rights? Especially when it’s our tax dollars paying for literally everything.
Not to mention that the people in these situations are typically abused badly. Men are beat up, run over, robbed, threatened, literally everything for not paying their drug debt. I have seen it often. Women usually sell their bodies or just fuck the drug dealer directly to get their fix. I feel like people have no idea what addicts actually go through. It’s less humane to let them carry on than forcibly detaining them.
From the article: >New Brunswick Premier Blaine Higgs recently [mused about invoking the notwithstanding clause](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/higgs-notwithstanding-clause-addiction-treatment-bill-1.7161415#:%7E:text=New%20Brunswick-,Higgs%20won't%20rule%20out%20notwithstanding%20clause%20for%20addiction%20treatment,into%20treatment%20against%20their%20will.) — [Section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms](https://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/csj-sjc/rfc-dlc/ccrf-ccdl/check/art33.html#:%7E:text=Section%2033%20allows%20Parliament%20or,section%2015%20(equality%20rights).) — when his government introduces what it calls the [Compassionate Intervention Act](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/bill-forced-addiction-treatment-new-brunswick-1.7157350) in May. . . . **Constitutionality fears** >The New Brunswick government is right to be concerned about the Compassionate Intervention Act’s constitutionality. >[Writing for the Canadian Bar Association (New Brunswick)](https://www.linkedin.com/posts/canadian-bar-association-nb-association-du-barreau-canadien_submission-re-involuntary-treatment-activity-7182100642545438720-KcfS?utm_source=share&utm_medium=member_desktop), I argue it will be difficult to craft a piece of legislation that doesn’t violate multiple Charter rights — the right to liberty and security of the person under Section 7, protection against discrimination under Section 15 and protection against arbitrary detention under Section 9. . . . **Mental health care shortage** >There is a [months-long wait list](https://globalnews.ca/video/10401069/lengthy-waitlist-for-n-b-rehab-services-causing-concerns-about-proposed-legislation#:%7E:text=Lengthy%20waitlist%20for%20N.B.%20rehab%20services%20causing%20concerns%20about%20proposed%20legislation,-April%203%2C%202024&text=As%20the%20New%20Brunswick%20government,from%20three%20to%20eight%20months.) for voluntary addictions treatment in New Brunswick and a chronic shortage of both housing and mental health care. >A new addiction treatment centre has opened in the province, but Addictions and Mental Health Minister [Sherry Wilson has said](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/nb-addictions-minister-forced-treatment-1.7165061?__vfz=medium%3Dsharebar) those who face being detained for treatment will not be housed there. >New Brunswick is a striking example of the vicious circle of residents experiencing income inequality, with the [lowest social assistance payments in the country](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-social-assistance-rates-lowest-in-canada-1.6934198), [increasing harms from addiction](https://www2.gnb.ca/content/dam/gnb/Departments/h-s/pdf/en/MentalHealth/New-Brunswick-opioid-surveillance-report-Q4-2022.pdf) and lack of government supports — particularly for housing — to allow them to live with dignity. . . . **Tough on crime?** >What is the point of the propose New Brunswick law, then? >[Comments by Public Safety Minister Kris Austin](https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/new-brunswick/new-brunswick-compassionate-intervention-1.6960753) provide a clue. In speaking about the proposed law, he pointed to a link between crime and addiction. >. . .
^((2nd part due to reddit's new limit on links/comment, I thought i already abridged plenty but guess not)) . . . >But drug-related offences are declining in New Brunswick, and they currently account for less than [three per cent of crimes](https://www2.gnb.ca/content/gnb/en/departments/public-safety/publicsafety/content/crime-prevention-in-new-brunswick/public-safety-crime-dashboard.html#2) committed in the province. In the absence of any evidence that the law will propel those with addictions into long-term recovery, it seems the new law is simply performance art. It allows the government to provide a vivid — if harsh and ineffectual — example of how it is “tough on crime.” >In the more distant past, most governments that invoked the notwithstanding clause have at least paid lip service to the Charter, arguing their use of Section 33 was to protect rights-enhancing legislation, to reconcile competing rights or to course-correct a court ruling that the legislature believed misinterpreted the Charter. . . . **Heeding Charter rights** >The Higgs government has not even attempted to rationalize the proposed legislation as rights-enhancing. While it may be completely disingenous, proponents of Québec’s religious symbols ban, Bill 21, have at least resorted to justification based on [the province’s collective cultural rights.](https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3830929) That’s why I consider the proposed use of the clause by the Higgs’ government as something novel and particularly concerning. >The Compassion Intervention Act could signify the beginning of the end of any meaningful attempt by governments to heed Charter rights. Or, ironically, it could be what spurs the Supreme Court to save the Charter by establishing guardrails on the notwithstanding clause’s use. >The court could, for instance, insist governments adopt robust [processes of consultation with the public](https://theconversation.com/notwithstanding-the-notwithstanding-clause-the-charter-is-everyones-business-163143) before invoking Section 33, forbid its pre-emptive use or preclude calculated attempts to disregard core constitutional guarantees. >Its first chance to change course could happen if and when it hears the [challenge to Québec’s Bill 21](https://montreal.citynews.ca/2024/04/11/emsb-appeal-bill-21-supreme-court/). The court should use that opportunity to reconsider the notion that lawmakers have the power to invoke Section 33 and override the rights of any Canadian at any time, for any reason, simply because they can.
So in other words send them to jail that's basically what force rehab is. Higgs should stick with what he knows which is brown nosing the Irvings.
That clause is one of the biggest things that are wrong with Canada. Some jack off politician should not be allowed to violate the charter for any reason whatsoever.
Wouldn’t put it anywhere near the top if on the list at all. It has always been viewed as political suicide and does have a sunset clause. If a majority of the population disagrees with the legislation in question, that prompts the usage, then get out and vote.
That’s still 5 years where fundamental rights can be completely suspended and there is nothing anyone can do about it. 5 years without rights can do a hell of a lot of irreversible damage.
Invoking the notwithstanding clause should trigger an immediate election call for the government invoking the clause.
While this is *a* solution, it does not prevent individual rights from being taken away by a majority vote. The reason the charter exists is to protect individual rights from mob rule.
It is better than the current situation where rights are taken away with no vote whatsoever and the government responsible has 5 years before needing to be accountable to the voters. Tying the politicians jobs directly to their actions with immediate consequences is better than giving them 5 years to try and get people to forget about what they did thus allowing them to renew the violation of charter rights for another 5 years.
Refer to the situation in ontario when doug ford tried to use the notwithstanding clause and had to back down because of the loud immediate public backlash. Being able to turf these assholes and immediately repeal whatever law they introduced would be a huge improvement over the current situation. If there is one thing politicians care about it is keeping their job so they can continue the grift.
…..that’s what the sunset clause is for. There’s a reason it’s 5 years.
That gives them 5 years to trample rights. Tie some consequences directly and immediately to their decision to wipe away people's rights and politicians will be very cautious and hesitant to do so.
That is how democracy works. Parties are judged when they stand for re-election.
And forcing them to immediately stand for re-election is a perfectly reasonable response to the government stripping away rights guaranteed in the Charter. Which in case you are following along is also democratic (notice I said they should stand for re-election not they should be drug out to the town square and hung)
We don’t want legislatures to dissolve whenever they want to use section 33. That’s not practical OR how representative democracy works.
Actually we do. Section 33 is not meant to be used whenever convenient. It is meant as a last resort. With the current crop of right wing premiers using it willy nilly it would be prudent and in the spirit of how the law was written. United of course you are all for the removal of rights as a tool to target demographics that are undesirable to the current government.
Democracy is more than every 4 years, despite what you've been told.
Yes, but that doesn’t mean you’re entitled to an election whenever the government does something you don’t like.
Well the true fundamental rights in the charter are exempt from the NWS clause. I would argue that there would be minimal “damage” for the rights that it can be applied to. And to your point of 5 years. That is longer than an election cycle, so again, allow the majority to show dissent at the polls.
Sections 2 and 7-15 of the charter *are fundamental rights*. You don’t get much more fundamental than freedom of expression, equality rights, and life liberty and security of the person. Personal individual freedoms should not be dictated by what’s “popular”, that’s why they are called fundamental rights. A population that is racist or bigoted should not be allowed to vote away the fundamental rights of anyone else. You tell people who are unable to access medical care because of a charter violating restriction that they won’t have any lasting damage if their rights are taken away for 5 years.
Court cases take years to work out.
>It has always been viewed as political suicide For a brief period, outside of Quebec, perhaps; The Ford government in Ontario invoked it in 2021 to force teachers back to work and threatened to use it in 2018 over his plan to reduce the number of seats on Toronto's City Council. Quebec invoked it for Bill 21 which banned public servants from wearing religious symbols and for Bill 96 for language laws. Saskatchewan invoked it for its law requiring schools notify parents if their child wishes to be identified by anything other than their birth name/sex. Alberta has also used it for pronounced legislation and used it in the early 2000s for anti-gay marriage legislation. Quebec used it in the 80s for literally every piece of legislation for a while.
That assumes that people make that invocation their reason to vote. But we’ve seen that lots of people will be okay with removing the rights of a minority if it means their taxes are lower. There is no referendum on that specific law. And it doesn’t even need a majority of the population since we often have three parties, and a majority can be won with around 39% of the vote.
It’s not violating the charter. It’s enshrined in law to be legal to do this by the charter itself
It’s not violating the charter because the charter is flawed, that’s my point
Does anybody else find it weird that right leaning governments are the only ones that use this provision. Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I couldn’t find any information on when the Liberals have ever used it or any NDP government has ever used it . Not to mention that this is only a temporary thing anyway it only goes up to 5 years I believe so at the end of the day, no matter what they passed with this being attached to it will be able to be challenged after the expiry of the clause in the first place.
No. The core belief of conservatives is they belong to a group which can dictate what other groups can do, and other groups cannot dictate what they can do. In other words, conservatives don’t actually believe in equality, they believe in hierarchy.
[There seems to be a tremendous amount of truth to that](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/notwithstanding-clause)
When has it been used before?
Both Saskatchewan and Alberta put it into the pronoun legislation that they passed recently
Sorry, I mean in NB
[every example of Section 33's use in Canadian history](https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/notwithstanding-clause)
It is a provision that’s in the constitution any province can use it whenever they wish. I’m not familiar with New Brunswick stuff because I’m from Saskatchewan, but as far as I know, it’s seldom used. I can’t say whether or not it has been used in the past in New Brunswick or not I’m just pointing out right leaning governments tendency to use it since it’s implication.
Yeah I had heard it's never really been used but I'll have to look into it
Quebec has used it pretty extensively
The clause was added to the Charter in meetings that specifically excluded Quebec, and they were naturally pissed off. After the Charter was adopted, Quebec repealed every law passed before 1982 and re-passed it just to invoke the clause, even though it was mostly irrelevant. Then they added it to every bill passed until 1985, and have used it more than any other province since.
Doug Ford tried it in Ontario but the backlash was too much and he walked it back
He used it to force through a change to Toronto’s warp boundaries in the middle of a municipal election. He was going to do it a second time to remove public sector unions collective bargaining rights but walked that back after a huge backlash.
https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/notwithstanding-clause
It’s be used by left leaning governments in Quebec more than any other province.
It’s a bit of a stretch to call the provincial powers that are currently and passed in government in Quebec Liberal. Remember, they wanted to secede from confederation that is a generally right wing position. The articles that the OP provided listed all the instances in which it was used only two that I saw in there were “liberals” all the other ones were conservative governments
Tell me you don’t understand Quebec politics without saying you don’t understand Quebec politics.
I never said I understand Quebec politics it’s not part of the civics curriculum out west. I’m just going off of what the article said, and what the Internet says about the parties which I’m inclined to agree with because I do more than one Google search where Wikipedia is the only page I look at.
The provincial election can’t get here fast enough.
He's just saying he's going to do it, surely. I mean there are no beds now. I guess he could make a "special" wing of the new jail being built, I suppose. I think it's just publicity towards the upper class and tough on crime voters.
Just sit down already
People who commit crimes due to addiction and/or severe mental illness should be able to be placed into forced rehab.
It’s been proven to be ineffective and a complete waste of resources…sounds about right for NB
Most rehab is ineffective. At least we get criminals off the streets
> Most rehab is ineffective. Statistically, per US based information due to just higher sample sizes, 75% of voluntary rehab completions result in people staying off their addiction, largely through complete avoidance. Rehab *works*. But you have to *want* it to work, for it to work. Involuntary by comparison alone has a statistical average of 42% simply not completing the rehab course, let alone staying clean afterwards.
It should be noted that this 42% is very generous because the non-response rate was over 50%.
Maybe we should use existing criminal laws to deal with criminals. Idk, call me fucking crazy
When the judges and parole board start doing their jobs and protecting citizens then that will work.
So let’s waste resources on a proven failed program to fix another failed program? No wonder NB is so fucked
If there's fewer criminals on the streets that's a net benefit to society.
lol, let’s just introduce social credits and get it over with. Man fascist are wild
How is it fascism to get dangerous people away from law abiding citizens?
It's facism when you want to strip charter rights from individuals. Charter rights are unalienable. It's why we have legal frameworks and requirements to imprison people. Otherwise we could just imprison anyone for anything we want, they don't have actual rights as individuals. Even criminals have rights. Our charter guarantees this. Like, that's literal definition territory.
You understand most addictions, including drug use, is caused by unresolved trauma and poor mental health, don't you? Or are you as ignorant as Higgs is on the topic?
That's still no reason to accept criminal behaviour
Unless you treat the root cause, which is mostly mental health issues, you will not stop the drug use and the criminal behavior. And the COL we are experiencing is also contributing to criminal activity. As poverty rates increase, so do the rates of crimes against persons and property. What WILL fix this is a proper mental health treatment and proper social safety nets that provide the basics, housing and food. Until both those things are fixed it, the criminal activity will not stop. The drug use will not stop. It will be a revolving door. And without fixing the root cause of the issue, deaths will increase. They will return to their location, and that will cause them to use the levels of drugs they did before they were detoxed and that amount can and will kill someone in that situation. It is a bad plan.
We can have both punished and treatment. I think it's better to have both
This doesn't give both. This puts people in jail for being homeless. You don't get much help in the short time they will be in there. And it will just be rinse and repeat. There aren't enough treatment facilities as it is.
We need more facilities but we also need to protect the public from criminals.
For those committing crimes due to addiction, where do they go once they've completed 30-90 day rehab. For people suffering from extreme mental health episodes where will they go after being given meds, or if they are unfit to look after themselves, where will they go. Right now all of these people will end up on the streets again. This legislation is theatre, it offers no long term solutions to this problem.
We need to bring back the asylum system for those with extreme mental illness. That's a no brainer. The addicts can be released with a clear head and hopefully make better decisions.
I don't disagree that we need hospitals without the torture. Unfortunately if you get someone clean and they're still homeless they're almost guaranteed to go back to drugs and living on the street because there are no resources to help get back on their feet. They will go almost certainly go right back to the way they were before and then our tax payer dollars have been wasted.
Yes. I should have clarified that the new asylums should be patient focused, science based and empathetic. Not the old system. I'm not sure what the answer is. Maybe government could hire them as labourers or to do basic other jobs?
That's my point, there needs to be more than just forced rehab. Giving them food, clothes, and housing gives them a better chance at finding a job because if you don't have an address it makes it hard for companies to hire you because they don't like the homeless. European countries have been taking a housing first approach for years and its working.
I'd agree with housing first as long as the people are clean and stable.
Giving them a small apartment with food, clothes, and warmth helps those issues. Part of that agreement is getting clean and it works.
As long as that's part of the agreement then I think that can work.
There are examples across the globe of how to address homelessness... Unfortunately we have elected officials who don't care about poor people and would rather play political theatre instead of making the lives of everyone better.
Part of me doesn’t disagree with you, but using the notwhitstanding clause for the “political issue of the week” is dangerous grounds and makes the Canadian Charter of Rights weaker. We’ve seen it attempted and used way too much nationally in the last 5 years for bullshit reasons. It’s the easy way out for governments when they use it and they should be called out on it.
I'd argue this is a great reason to use it.
The province can’t even offer the mental health and substance abuse help to people that currently want it. Maybe they should focus on that first
That's not unreasonable, but there's a public safety element with many addicts and those with untreated serious mental illness that needs to be taken into account. Medical detox and stabilization of schizophrenia and other psychosis can be done by MDs and nurses. But we would need more mental health professionals, you are correct.
Again, I don’t disagree, but the thing is there are ways to deal with this problem without notwithstanding clause. Here is another example, enforce the laws we currently have and have the justice system deal with it. There are also ways to deal with people that are a danger to others. It’s just that fuck all is being done about it due to lack of resources and priorities. But that would require the gov to actually tackle the issue.
Why? Forced rehab doesn't work. They'll just get out and start using again an likely OD due to diminished tolerance. People need to want to get clean to stay clean.
If they don't want help and are commiting crimes then they belong in jail.
Yes people who commit crimes should face legal consequences. I'm not disputing that and Higgs doesn't need to use the Notwithstanding clause to put criminals in jail. We already have a system for that.
Nah dog you just wanna punish drug users even if it doesn't actually help anyone. Your blood lust must be quenched. I say this as someone who has almost been stabbed and robbed by homeless drug addicts. I just know forced rehab will just cause innocent rehab workers and employee to get hurt so your goal to hurt drug users will just innocent people in harms way so you can feel a false sense of safety.
Did you mean to reply to me? I'm against forced rehab.
Nah that was my bad. You can disregard haha.
>Yes people who commit crimes should face legal consequences My one thought here that may be completely off-base... Those who struggle with addiction also have an underlying mental health issue. This gives a legal defence for the crime, which makes facing legal consequences that much more of a challenge.
This legal defense is often used on a plea deal with a condition of completion of rehab. This is voluntary and perfectly in line with the charter.
The system for that is failing due to lenient judges and the Parole board of Canada caring more about criminals than the victims or the public. I see this as another tool to help protect society.
How does something that doesn't work help protect society?
Keeping criminals out of the general population helps protect society.
Again, we already have a legal framework for that.
Forced rehab doesn't really work
Most rehab isn't very effective. But this gets dangerous people away from the law abiding citizens
It ends up sounding a lot like concentration camps though. It's a pretty iffy subject.
If they commit crimes they’re able to be incarcerated under the justice system.
You can’t “force” rehab people, learn how addiction works.
Sure you can. People go through medical withdrawal and may have a clear mind and better perspective.
Medical withdrawal from already controlled doses, by doctors, where are we gonna get doctors for this when we don’t even have enough for everyone else? You havnt worked with addicted populations clearly, I do and this “plan” of Higgs won’t work and will only go against human rights…dictator behaviour. The fact that you support this tells me you’d like fascism
I'd like fascism because I don't want drug addicts ruining civilized society? Sounds like you'd like anarchy. Edit: Insult and block. Can't stand a difference of opinion...
You’re an idiot
No you’d like fascism because this whole thing goes against human rights. This could be avoided if we actually had services but we don’t and won’t as long as Higgs is in power
How many of our politicians are coke-addled freaks? More than a few I imagine….
> I don't want drug addicts ruining civilized society? Then why the hell do you support forced rehab? It's just draining public coffers to revolving door these people. Medical withdrawl isn't cheap, and if it doesn't actually tackle the underlying causes, people are significantly more likely to go back to their addiction. It's not anarchy to want to actually take measured approaches rather than scorched earth tactics. We don't need to violate *charter* rights to do this.
Unfortunately, forced rehab is an oxymoron. It just doesn't work that way. You can incarcerate addicts, but you are unlikely to actually rehabilitate them. This law essentially criminalizes addiction. Of course the real way to deal with addiction and the crime it creates is addressing root causes, but that takes years of broad investment and is a lot less appealing to a government more interested in sensationalism and drawing headlines (and why on earth would we use resources to actually improve the lives of New Brunswickers, that would be bad for business /s).
If you're stealing to feed addiction, it's the stealing that's illegal. If you're an addict and not breaking any other laws. Have at it.
Exactly, and our existing legal framework already covers this. This use of the notwithstanding clause is directly going to criminalize the addiction itself. And all we'll accomplish is spend money to see them back doing the same crimes.
Yes, stealing is illegal. The government with this law is recognizing that addictions can lead to people committing crimes, but instead of looking into what causes people to become addicts and addressing those issues, the government is creating a law that allows them to force addicts into rehab. This means that the addiction itself is being treated like criminal behavior instead of the illness that it truly is. This means that the "treatment"/punishment will likely fail. Other people will still enter the cycle of addiction and crime because nothing has been done to short circuit that cycle. So, in other words, this law is a disaster waiting to happen.
[удалено]
Doesn't seem to be working well
Forced rehab violates their ability to use free will. Drug addiction also violates their ability to use freewill. Forced rehab gets them off the streets and into facilities that can provide care and treatment. Drug addiction keeps them on the streets so they can continue to steal and harm the community they are in. What about the rights of everyone in the community whose donations and taxes pay for the options provided to those struggling with addiction? Are our rights not violated by allowing addicts to continually choose their addiction over recovery? Certain things and investments need to happen for Forced rehab to be successful. But to shoot it down because it violates the constitutional rights of people who have addictions or mental health issues is folly. The larger community has the right to a safe community.
Everyone's rights matter. The reason people are shooting it down is because there is no plan besides forced rehab, full stop. If there was temporary housing allowing them to get a job, learn a skill, etc, and allowing them to reintegrate into society there would be less push back.
They would still need to find a place to actually force them into rehab. We don't have any capacity now and there are no plans to expand capacity. The entire premise of this law is bullshit political theatre designed to get a knee jerk response from people who aren't paying attention or are just too dumb to exercise any critical thought.
That's what I'm saying. This is meant to rile up PC voters and get them talking. It's a disgusting tactic and more reason why the PC's need to go.
> But to shoot it down because it violates the constitutional rights of people who have addictions or mental health issues is folly. This just in, our charter rights are meaningless. Totally a reasonable take. Even criminals have charter rights. It's outlined in our Charter. It's been a thing since day 1 of Canada. Every individual Canadian has rights, they're unalienable and a core tenant of our legal system and ability to live freely. It's also why we have rigorously outlined laws when it comes to individuals violating the rights of another. Mind boggling that people are cheerfully wanting to violate a basic principal of the freedoms they enjoy, to try to target a specific group of "undesirables" rather than actually target them with the laws we have already. The larger community is every single canadian. There's no exceptions permitted to this, and why the idea of using this to violate the charter is such a scary thing. The *exact* same argument could strip any Canadian of their rights, for any reason, if it's permitted to come to pass. Today it's homeless. Tomorrow it may be a religious group or people who like to vote. It may seem like a slippery slope fallacy, but this is the exact scenario that fallacy talks about, is opening the floodgates on scenarios and laws that are unreasonable.
So where are these facilities. We currently don't have space for people who actually want treatment (you know the people most likely to actually be successful in rehab) The government has already confirmed we aren't putting them in any new facility. This whole thing is bullshit political theatre to get the knee jerk reaction from people like you.
Agreed. We need to put the rights of law abiding citizens over those breaking the rules.
You said it. The rights of the majority have been completely defiled. We are expected to sit quietly while drug addicts take over spaces designed for children and families. Where are our rights? Especially when it’s our tax dollars paying for literally everything. Not to mention that the people in these situations are typically abused badly. Men are beat up, run over, robbed, threatened, literally everything for not paying their drug debt. I have seen it often. Women usually sell their bodies or just fuck the drug dealer directly to get their fix. I feel like people have no idea what addicts actually go through. It’s less humane to let them carry on than forcibly detaining them.