PART II: Is s. 33 a useful tool or a loaded gun?

Part II of previous debate on the s. 33 notwithstanding clause with Leonid Sirota (AUT Law School), Maxime St-Hilaire (Université de Sherbrooke) and Geoff Sigalet (Stanford Law School). How should historical circumstances, in this case the intentions of parties to the adoption of the Charter, affect how we construe the proper use of its provisions in contemporary circumstances? Should s. 33 be limited to use in "exceptional circumstances"?