S-218, An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1982 (notwithstanding clause), would amend the Constitution Act, 1982 by adding rules for federal bills that use the Charter’s notwithstanding clause. Its stated goal is to set conditions that Parliament must meet before passing such a bill. This is a proposed amendment; the supplied material does not establish that it is in force.
The rules would apply to Parliament and the Government of Canada on matters within Parliament’s authority, including matters relating to Yukon and the Northwest Territories—not to provincial governments.
A bill invoking the clause would have to start in the House of Commons and be introduced by a minister. It could be introduced only after the Supreme Court had found either that the bill would infringe a specified Charter right, or that the Act or provision covered by the declaration infringes one.
The bill would have to include reasons for the declaration. The minister would also have to table a statement describing the bill’s possible effects on those rights and why any infringement could not be justified under section 1 of the Charter.
Neither House could limit the time for considering the bill by motion, and neither could consider it in a Committee of the Whole. A Commons motion for third reading would need support from two-thirds of the House’s membership and from members of at least two groups made up solely of members of the same recognized party.
People in Canada: The bill would not itself invoke the notwithstanding clause or change an individual’s rights. It would add conditions to the federal process for passing a bill that invokes it.
Federal ministers and Parliament: Ministers would have to meet the bill’s introduction, preamble and statement requirements. The House of Commons would face the additional third-reading threshold; both Houses would face the limits on time-allocation motions and Committee of the Whole consideration.
Provincial governments: The proposed section says it applies only to the Parliament and government of Canada. It does not set these conditions for provincial legislatures.
The supplied material does not state the bill’s status, when it would start, or how the proposed constitutional amendment would be brought into force.
It does not explain who would seek a Supreme Court reference, how long a ruling might take, or how the ruling process would work in practice.
The bill does not set out timelines, oversight or reporting beyond the required ministerial statement.
The term “groups” in the third-reading rule is not further explained in the supplied text.
The full current Constitution Act, 1982 and related rules were not supplied, so the proposed requirements’ fit with the full existing legal process cannot be verified here.
The bill appears intended to require a court finding about a rights infringement before the federal government introduces a bill using the notwithstanding clause.
A required statement and reasons could make the rights impact and the government’s justification more visible to Parliament.
The limits on time-allocation motions, Committee of the Whole consideration and the third-reading threshold could provide more parliamentary scrutiny before such a bill passes.
One concern is that a prior Supreme Court finding would become a gate to introducing the bill, potentially limiting Parliament’s ability to use the clause without that finding.
The two-thirds threshold and support from members of at least two recognized-party groups could make passage depend on the House’s party makeup as well as the bill’s merits.
The bill does not explain the reference process or set a timeline for a court ruling, leaving uncertainty about how quickly the required finding could be obtained.