The notwithstanding clause is complicated. There are a lot of unsubtle takes about it here on both sides. I can't subscribe to them. But the fundamental issue with s. 33, in my mind, has always been this: On a plain reading of its terms, s. 33 would allow a provincial legislature to suspend, for five years less a day, the right of Jews (or Muslims or Christians or Sikhs etc) to practice their faiths--and to renew that suspension every five years indefinitely.

On Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada released its much-anticipated decision in R v McGregor. The majority affirmed that R v Hape remains the "governing authority on the territorial reach and limits of the Charter"—but went ahead and conducted a full s. 8 analysis. [1/8] Hape held that "Were Charter standards to be applied in another state's territory without its consent, there would by that very fact always be interference with the other state's sovereignty" (para 84). Note: *always*. [2/8]

I was fortunate to know Bill Graham a little. How I got to know him, and what he did for me, show what sort of person he was. /1

https://twitter.com/SusanDelacourt/status/1556795053753901061

In 1999 I was an intern on Parliament Hill on a six-month assignment with Daniel Turp MP of the Bloc Québécois. Daniel was the Bloc's foreign affairs critic, and Bill was chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee. /2

Kent J’s decision in Thomas and Saik’uz First Nation v. Rio Tinto Alcan Inc. is a remarkable consideration of UNDRIP, colonialism, the discovery doctrine, and the questionable legitimacy of the Crown’s assertion of sovereignty. Here are a few outtakes. bccourts.ca/jdb-txt/sc/22/… After an account of colonial history beginning in 1493, Kent J conclues at paras 177–8:

The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples is the biggest development in Canadian public law since 1982. Weirdly, though, hardly anyone is talking about it. Thread. In November 2019, BC enacted the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples Act. Section 3 says the BC govt, in consultation and cooperation with BC Indigenous peoples, must take all measures necessary to ensure the laws of BC are consistent with the Declaration. /2

Here’s a thread on Bill C-5, the government bill requiring newly appointed judges to take seminars on sexual assault law. It seems admirable, but it’s a questionable innovation that, in the long run, could undermine confidence in the judiciary instead of increasing it. Here’s the press release for C-5. The bill is similar to, but not the same as, Rona Ambrose’s private member’s bill C-337 that failed to make it through Parliament in the last session.
canada.ca/en/department-…

The Supreme Court of Canada has said that the Charter should be interpreted according to international human rights treaties to which we are a party. Does this presumption narrow the scope of s 33, the #notwithstandingclause? Thread. [1/14] Art 4(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 permits states to derogate from rights protected by it, but only “In time of public emergency which threatens the life of the nation and the existence of which is officially proclaimed”. [2/14]