Build Canada LogoBuilder MP
← Back to bills

Bill Tightens Rules on Rights-Limiting Laws

An Act to amend the Constitution Act, 1982 (notwithstanding clause)

Summary

  • The bill adds new constitutional rules that apply when the federal Parliament seeks to use the notwithstanding clause (section 33) to override Charter rights.
  • It applies only to the federal government (including for Yukon and the Northwest Territories), not to provinces.
  • Any such bill must include a preamble with reasons and the responsible minister must table a statement outlining which Charter rights (s.2, s.7–15) are affected and why the infringement cannot be justified under section 1.
  • It bans time-allocation/closure on these bills and disallows Committee of the Whole consideration, forcing fuller, more transparent deliberation before any federal rights override.

Builder Assessment

Vote No

Overall, the bill does not advance Build Canada’s pro-growth agenda and adds procedural friction that can reduce governmental agility and efficiency. While it may enhance transparency and rights protection, its practical economic benefits are indirect and limited.

  • It introduces new hurdles (no time allocation, added statements) that can slow federal law-making, conflicting with efficiency and agility.
  • It does not target productivity, exports, investment, or tax competitiveness.
  • Any rule-of-law signaling benefit is modest given the federal government has not historically used the notwithstanding clause.
  • To better align: replace a blanket ban on time allocation with a minimum debate period; add an economic/competitiveness impact statement; include sunset and post-implementation review requirements; provide a narrow emergency exception with strict safeguards; and ensure mobility rights (s.6) impacts are assessed alongside s.2 and s.7–15.

Principles Analysis

—

Canada should aim to be the world's most prosperous country.

Primarily a constitutional-process bill; any economic effects are indirect and uncertain.

✗

Promote economic freedom, ambition, and breaking from bureaucratic inertia (reduce red tape).

While it may bolster rights protection, it adds procedural hurdles and forbids time-limiting debate, which can entrench legislative inertia rather than break it.

—

Drive national productivity and global competitiveness.

No direct link to productivity; possible rule-of-law benefits are outweighed by unclear or minimal practical impact on competitiveness.

—

Grow exports of Canadian products and resources.

No provisions affecting trade, export infrastructure, or market access.

—

Encourage investment, innovation, and resource development.

Could marginally signal rule-of-law stability, but the federal use of s.33 is already rare; net effect on investment or resource development is unclear.

✗

Deliver better public services at lower cost (government efficiency).

Banning time allocation and adding procedural requirements likely increase legislative time and administrative cost for a narrow class of bills.

—

Reform taxes to incentivize work, risk-taking, and innovation.

No tax measures or incentives are included.

—

Focus on large-scale prosperity, not incrementalism.

This is a constitutional-process change with limited bearing on broad-based economic prosperity.

Did we get the builder vote wrong?

Email [email protected]

S-218

PartySenate
StatusAt second reading in the Senate
Last updatedMay 28, 2025
TopicsLegal and Constitutional
Parliament45