Right Hook JJ McCullough, OP Columnist I agree with Paul Martin. You may want to pause for a second and re-read that sentence again, to savour this rare moment. Alas, it’s true, the Prime Minister has finally proposed something I can support, thus altering my opposition to the Liberal Party from the previous 99.9 percent to the now record low of 99.8. This massive shift came following Martin’s unex- pected revelation during the second English language debate last week. Seemingly out of nowhere, the Prime Minister suddenly declared that immediately upon being re-elected, his Liberal government would initiate an amendment to remove the Canadian constitution’s much-maligned notwithstanding clause once and for all. The clause in question has become somewhat of a hot potato in this current election cycle, but this is nothing new. Ever since it was included in Trudeau’s repatriated constitution back in 1982, the article in ques- A TOTS TRI tion has been one of the most controversial legal quirks in modern Canada. Though it is rather fashionable to forget this fact today, at the time of repatriation the cre- ation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was not a universally popular idea. Many worried that the inclu- sion of certain permanent, constitutionally enshrined rights would permanently limit the powers of elected lawmakers, as it had in the United States. Thus the notwithstanding clause was hastily thrown in to address these fears. In essence, the clause now allows any gov- ernment of the day to make temporary laws that openly violate Charter rights, such as the right to free speech, gender equality, religious freedom, or safety from cruel and unusual punishment. In retrospect, including this clause seems like a rather odd act for any free and democratic society. Either con- stitutional rights are permanent or they’re not; they can- not hover somewhere in between and be suspended whenever politicians find it convenient. This paradox apparently became obvious quickly after 1982, because none of our Prime Ministers since then have ever dared to actually wse the notwithstanding clause—no doubt fearing the public backlash that could occur if they became the first Canadian leader to. suspend basic human rights for political purposes. This tense stalemate has in turn rendered the clause impotent and ignored. So why then all the fuss over Martin’s proposal to abol- ish it? The rhetoric for keeping the notwithstanding clause is actually a lot like the rhetoric for keeping the office of Governor General—sure, it may not do much now, but we might theoretically need its powers someday. opinions 7 To Hell with the Notwithstanding Clause Conservatives in particular have been particularly keen to defend the clause on the basis that it supposedly rep- resents an effective check on the much-despised politi- cal activism of the Supreme Court of Canada. In theo- ry, they write, the notwithstanding clause cou/d be used at some time in the unspecified future if, for example, the high court decreed that something really objection- able, like child pornography, should be legalized on the basis of the Charter right to free speech. The parlia- ment could then veto the Supreme Court by using the clause, and upload the ban anyway. Of course, these sorts of scenarios assume that the Charter rights are not being suspended, per se, but rather some sort of per- verted judicial interpretation of them. While the activism of the Supreme Court is a very real phenomenon, the notwithstanding clause is simply not an effective check on its power any more than the Governor General is an effective check on the Prime Minister. As long as using the notwithstanding clause remains an enormous political taboo, it can never, and will never, be utilized for any meaningful purpose. A check, by definition, must actually be used on a frequent basis if it is to be effective. Simply speculating that it “could be” is not good enough. Instead, those con- cerned with the power of the Supreme Court (and the judiciary in general) should support the implementation of reform to the judicial branch itself, such as allowing for MPs to interview and collectively vote on all prospective federal court justices prior to their installa- tion. As it stands now, the notwithstanding clause is simply continued on pg. 10 | Conservative faults are plain Left Overs lain Reeve, OP Loser The Liberals have had a horrible campaign. Now, granted I’m only 23, but this is by far the worst P’ve seen from the party that is supposed to contain the best campaigners in the country. While the Conservatives have come out with a promise a day, the Liberals have been assaulted by a scandal a day. From the laughable “beer and popcorn” to the truly troublesome “income trust,” the Liberals have done just as much to assist the Conservative climb up the polls as the Conservatives have. The Conservatives have done a good job of keeping the muzzle on their more “outspoken” candidates, while the Liberals have repeated- ly delivered mixed messages. A notable recent example is the absence of Martin’s promise to remove the notwith- standing clause in the Liberal platform. This suggests a There Is No Hidden Agenda: to see ramshackle, reactionary, and desperate campaign com- pared to the controlled, methodical campaign the Torries have managed. The sad fact is that the Liberals have some decent policies. They have just done a horrible job of commu- nicating them. That being said, I do not support the Liberals. My reasoning for not supporting them, howev- er, is not because of corruption or accountability; it is because they simply don’t have the best policies for Canada. I tend to think that unless you are rich or reli- gious, your vote lies with the NDP. They simply have the best platform for ordinary lower- to middle-class Canadians; there is no denying that. While on the topic of corruption, there is one thing worth mentioning. While Conservative ads will have you believe that corruption is a Liberal trait and not a Conservative trait, the real culprit here is 13 years of unchecked power. Some Liberals felt themselves invinci- ble; now they know they aren’t. But let’s not assume that the Conservatives—with a much more notorious tradition of patronism, corruption, and friendliness with lobby groups—would be any less corrupt in a majority govern- ment situation. As I write this, I’m reading about a Conservative candidate facing charges of smuggling booze and a Benz into Canada from America. Is this indicative of the whole party? No, just like the mistakes of a few Liberals do not discredit their whole party. But it does make you wonder why Harper wants to tighten bor- der controls. How else will his candidates get their cheap booze? There are many reasons not to vote Conservative. As far as policy goes, I think most of their policies are pretty misguided, though some, like senate reform, show prom- ise. Something worth noting is this, however: most Canadians do not approve of Conservative social policy but are probably banking on a minority government to keep the Torries in line socially, should they form govern- ment. However, a minority would also mean many Conservative promises will not happen. And they’ve made a lot of them. They will no doubt, should they be the governing party in the next campaign, blame their inability to deploy their promises on the other parties, and will demand a majority to get things done for Canada. But are we ready to accept an unchecked Conservative majority in order to get their handouts and tax cuts? I don’t think so Canada. Many make reference to the Conservative’s “secret agenda.” I, for one, don’t see any of the accusations of religious influence, favouritism towards the wealthy, American influence, or social regression to be hidden; they are blatantly obvious. Just look at the Conservative candidate spread. Candidates Darrel Reid and Cindy Silver both have past links to the religious right pressure group Focus on the Family, others, such as Cheryl Gallant or Randy White, have continuously made statements aimed at bring- ing religion into politics. Gallant, during the 2004 cam- paign, placed beheadings in Iraq on the same plane as abortion, while Reid insisted it is every Christian’s obliga- continued on pg. 10