Poilievre says he’d pass a law that overrides a Charter right. That would be a first for a PM

In a surprising turn of events, Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre has raised the issue of the notwithstanding clause in the current election campaign. This move has sparked a significant debate among political observers and legal experts, as Poilievre has promised to become the first prime minister to actually invoke the clause while in office.

The notwithstanding clause, also known as Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, allows premiers or prime ministers to override judicial rulings that determine certain legislation would violate sections of the Charter. Poilievre’s pledge to use the clause revolves around imposing consecutive life sentences on individuals convicted of multiple murders, a move that has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2022.

This announcement marks a groundbreaking shift in Canadian politics, as no federal government has ever used the notwithstanding clause to pass a law. While some provinces, such as Quebec, Saskatchewan, and Ontario, have utilized the clause in the past, the federal government has refrained from doing so. Poilievre’s decision to invoke this clause has stirred up controversy and debate among legal experts, political analysts, and the general public.

Critics of Poilievre’s stance argue that using the notwithstanding clause could potentially trample on established rights and freedoms guaranteed by the Charter. Organizations like the Canadian Civil Liberties Association have expressed concerns about the growing use of the clause to override civil liberties and human rights. They have called for all federal party leaders to commit to a public consultation on the notwithstanding clause within six months of forming a new government.

In response to Poilievre’s announcement, Liberal Leader Mark Carney and NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh have both rejected the use of the notwithstanding clause. Carney expressed concerns about the potential erosion of fundamental rights, while Singh emphasized the importance of upholding the Charter without invoking the clause.

Despite the opposition from some political leaders and advocacy groups, supporters of Poilievre’s decision argue that using the notwithstanding clause is necessary for criminal law reform. They point to the limitations imposed by judicial rulings on certain legislation, such as mandatory minimum sentences, as a reason to invoke the clause.

The debate surrounding Poilievre’s pledge to use the notwithstanding clause highlights the complex and nuanced nature of Canadian constitutional law. As the election campaign continues, the issue of the clause is likely to remain a point of contention and discussion among Canadians, legal experts, and political observers.