Saturday May 4, 2024

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday May 4, 2024

The Notwithstanding Clause Should Not Be a Regular Strategy of Governing

The federal Conservatives’ proposal to utilize the notwithstanding clause to override Charter-protected rights and freedoms has sparked a heated debate. While Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre initially focused on criminal justice matters, the Official Opposition did not rule out its application to other policy areas. This article serves as a warning to Poilievre, urging him to reconsider using the notwithstanding clause as a regular strategy of governing. The potential consequences of such an approach, along with the context of recent discussions, must be carefully considered.

Opinion: Poilievre flirts with far right while media looks away

Earlier this week, Poilievre avoided clarifying how often he intended to use the notwithstanding clause when questioned by the media. His spokesperson later stated that their attention was focused on ensuring the imprisonment of the most dangerous criminals, such as mass murderers and child predators, to protect the safety of Canadians. However, the use of the notwithstanding clause has been increasingly invoked by provincial governments to restrict labor rights, freedom of expression, and religion. This raises concerns about the purpose and legitimacy of the clause, as well as its potential misuse.

Poilievre specifically mentioned his intention to override a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a law allowing for life sentences with no chance of parole. He referred to the case of Alexandre Bissonnette, who committed a heinous act by killing six Muslim worshippers in a Quebec City mosque in 2017. The Supreme Court ruled that sentencing mass killers, including terrorists, to whole-life sentences constitutes cruel and unusual punishment. Poilievre criticized this ruling, arguing that Bissonnette should remain behind bars for life. However, legal experts have pointed out that Poilievre’s comments misrepresent Bissonnette’s sentence, as the 25-year mark only represents the earliest eligibility for parole. They emphasize that the Charter was designed to protect the rights of unpopular minorities and prevent the government from engaging in cruel and unusual punishment.

News: Love the idea or hate it, experts say federal use of notwithstanding clause would be a bombshell 

Using the notwithstanding clause as a regular strategy of governing poses significant risks. It undermines the balance of power and judicial independence, as well as diminishes the importance of Charter-protected rights and freedoms. Regular reliance on the clause erodes public confidence and trust in the government’s commitment to upholding fundamental rights. Furthermore, it sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the government to override rights without sufficient justification. The notwithstanding clause was intended to be a limited and exceptional measure, and using it as a routine tool undermines the integrity of our democratic system.

Pierre Poilievre must heed this warning and carefully consider the potential consequences of using the notwithstanding clause as a regular strategy of governing. The context surrounding recent discussions, including the case of Alexandre Bissonnette, highlights the importance of protecting individual rights and maintaining the balance of power within our democratic system. Rather than diluting the purpose of the notwithstanding clause, Poilievre should seek alternative approaches that uphold the principles of justice, equality, and respect for Charter-protected rights. Our democracy’s strength lies in the preservation of checks and balances and the protection of individual rights for all Canadians. (AI)