Or if you like: PM PM's PM.
What the hell was that all about? Not the debate -- I concur with Andrew Coyne and Chantal Hebert, who both gave a clear victory to Harper.
I'm talking about Martin's bizarre (I'm tempted to think that he made it up off the cuff, but nothing the man does is spontaneous) boast that he'd eliminate the Notwithstanding Clause altogether.
Eight provinces (all but Ontario and New Brunswick) opposed Trudeau's proposed Charter of Rights because it transferred so much power to judges, especially the Supreme Court. They thought that this empowerment of the judiciary conflicted with Canada's longstanding tradition of parliamentary democracy and that it would undermine the capacity of the provinces to be self-governing. They feared that federally-appointed superior court judges would use the Charter to unfairly strike down provincial policies. Their acceptance of the Charter in November, 1981 was conditional upon Trudeau's acceptance of the legislative override power.
In particular, Premiers Lougheed (Alta.), Blakeney (Sask.) and Lyon (Man.) were adamant that the Notwithstanding Clause was integral to passage of the Constitution. Without its inclusion the Constitution Act, 1982 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms would never have come into force. Any attempt to eliminate it -- by subterfuge, amendment or fiat -- will be seen especially by the West as a dealbreaker.
You might not like a leash on untrammelled judical activism, Prime Minister; that only leaves the alternative of judges' heads stuck on pikes before Parliament, or whatever institution succeeds it.