According to a motion by the NDP, the increasing use of the no-objection clause by the provinces to achieve their political goals could be the subject of an urgent debate in parliament.
• Also read: Law 21: When François Legault inspires Doug Ford
• Also read: The Serious Dilemma of the Deviation Clause
After it was used by Quebec for the law respecting the state’s secularism, Ontario has decided to invoke this clause in the constitution to stop the outbreak of a nationwide teachers’ strike starting Friday as part of negotiations between the union and the provincial government .
Ontario Premier Doug Ford’s decision was the straw that broke the camel’s back for Matthew Green, an Ontario NDP MP who also opposes Quebec’s use.
In a letter to the Speaker of the House of Commons, Mr Green states that “there is a clear interest for this House to debate the violation of constitutional rights and the implications this will have for everyone in Ontario and in all countries”.
“This recent use of the disregard clause by a provincial government is a further step in a disturbing trend in which provincial governments are increasingly willing to flout the constitutional rights of their citizens,” Green wrote to spokesman Anthony Rota.
In the person of Justin Trudeau he meets an ideological ally.
“The idea of repealing or suspending these fundamental rights is coming up more and more frequently in different governments, so that worries me a lot,” the prime minister said during a press scuffle on Tuesday morning.
Justice Minister David Lametti also condemned Ontario’s “very serious and very undemocratic” decision on Wednesday morning.
The no-objection clause — also known as the no-objection clause — provides for the suspension of certain rights contained in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada’s Constitution.
President Anthony Rota will soon have to decide whether or not to accept the holding of an urgent debate. The decision is his alone, but in the end a number of criteria must be met.