clause

Saturday April 19, 2025

Pierre Poilievre's plan to invoke the notwithstanding clause threatens Canadian democratic norms and sets a dangerous precedent for federal governance.

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Saturday April 19, 2025

Poilievre’s Notwithstanding Gamble: A Risky Precedent for Canada

The concerns regarding Pierre Poilievre's casual use of the Notwithstanding clause include the potential undermining of the balance of power, diminishing the importance of Charter rights, the risk of misuse and abuse, and setting a dangerous precedent for future governments.

May 4, 2024

In a political landscape increasingly characterized by divisive rhetoric and the erosion of democratic norms, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre’s pledge to invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms is a troubling signal. His proposal to use this powerful constitutional tool to impose consecutive life sentences for multiple murderers may tap into populist sentiments, but it sets a dangerous precedent that should disqualify him and his party from gaining the reins of power.

December 14, 2022

The notwithstanding clause, or Section 33 of the Charter, allows federal and provincial governments to override certain Charter rights temporarily. Traditionally, its use has been confined to provincial matters, such as Quebec’s secularism laws, where it has already sparked controversy. No Canadian Prime Minister has ever used this clause at the federal level, and for good reason. It represents an extraordinary measure intended for exceptional circumstances, not a tool for advancing populist agendas.

December 6, 2022

Poilievre’s willingness to be the first Prime Minister to wield this clause reflects a concerning alignment with tactics seen south of the border under Donald Trump. Trump’s efforts to undermine the judiciary and politicize the courts have led to a weakening of the checks and balances that are foundational to American democracy. Canadians should be wary of similar trends taking root here.

News: Poilievre’s pledge to use notwithstanding clause a ‘dangerous sign’: legal expert

Critics, including legal experts and political leaders, have voiced strong opposition to Poilievre’s plan. They warn that normalizing the use of the notwithstanding clause for routine legislative purposes could erode the Charter’s protections and lead to further politicization of fundamental rights. This slippery slope could extend beyond criminal justice, potentially threatening academic freedom, reproductive rights, and other areas where individual liberties might clash with political agendas.

Pierre Poilievre faces challenges adapting his strategy against the fresh leadership of Mark Carney, as Canada's political dynamics shift from opposition to unity.

March 15, 2025

Public sentiment, as reflected in reader comments and broader discourse, reveals deep apprehension about Poilievre’s intentions. The use of the notwithstanding clause is seen not only as an overreach but also as an indication of Poilievre’s authoritarian tendencies—a “trumpy” approach that prioritizes personal opinion over established legal norms. Such a path risks alienating those who value the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary.

News: Poilievre says he’ll use notwithstanding clause to ensure multiple-murderers die in prison

While both Trump and Poilievre use populist slogans and insults to galvanize supporters, Poilievre has thus far avoided Trump’s more extreme policies, opting to focus his populist messaging on economic concerns.

November 9 2024

Poilievre’s tough-on-crime rhetoric may resonate with certain voter bases, but the implications of his proposals extend far beyond immediate policy goals. They strike at the heart of Canada’s democratic values and the delicate balance of power that protects citizens’ rights. As we approach the upcoming election, it is crucial for Canadians to consider the long-term consequences of granting power to a leader willing to circumvent the Charter for political gain.

In a time when global democratic institutions face unprecedented challenges, Canada must stand firm in upholding its principles. Poilievre’s promise to invoke the notwithstanding clause is a stark reminder of the stakes at play. It is a promise that, if fulfilled, could fundamentally alter the landscape of Canadian governance. For this reason, it stands as yet another compelling argument.

“Notwithstanding Clause” no doubt instantly triggers eye glazing in vast swaths of Canadians, a nation where many voters remain unaware of its implications until they feel the impact firsthand. Pierre Poilievre, echoing Trump, is using populist outrage to justify potentially overriding judicial independence with the notwithstanding clause, signalling a troubling shift towards authoritarianism. What might have been seen as fear-mongering before an election becomes irrelevant once a movement takes power. When these accusations no longer trigger instinctive reactions, they solidify into harsh realities. Just look south for proof of this. Timbit Trump’s promise to enforce life sentences by bypassing court decisions raises concerns about future threats to constitutional rights, drawing unsettling parallels with recent U.S. politics. Today, Poilievre targets criminal sentencing, but despite denying admiration for Trump, he emulates many strategies from the Trump playbook, suggesting he might next challenge academic freedom, women’s rights, or other constitutional protections. This commitment to undermining judicial independence to consolidate power is the pivotal issue of this election, as it echoes the U.S. pattern of filling the judiciary with like-minded judges and defying court rulings, reflecting a desire to centralize authority. Sure, just what democracy ordered: another leader eager to override court decisions with his own, thanks to the trusty notwithstanding clause. Vote for this at your peril.

Check out my making-of animated editorial cartoon for April 19, 2025, below! If you haven’t yet, please subscribe to my Substack newsletter, where I share weekly editorial cartoons every Saturday morning. Substack is a crucial platform for me amidst the uncertainties of being a staff cartoonist, especially given recent layoffs and newspaper closures affecting our field. As long as I hold my position, subscriptions will remain free. Thank you for your support! This “note” helps craft my weekly posts and showcases animated versions of my cartoons. Enjoy!

YouTube: Easter Bunny Rejection  https://youtu.be/jDyQEaocYGc

– The Graeme Gallery

Read on Substack

Friday June 11, 2021

Editorial Cartoon by Graeme MacKay, The Hamilton Spectator – Friday June 11, 2021

The Canadian Charter’s notwithstanding clause is increasingly indefensible

It isn’t happening in Quebec, but in Ontario, so there will be more of a fuss than would otherwise be the case.

September 14, 2018

But there will be less of a fuss than the last time the Doug Ford government threatened to use the notwithstanding clause to override constitutionally guaranteed rights. The next time it happens, there will be less still. And there will be a next time, and a next time after that, and another, and another – precisely because the political costs of doing so diminish with each use.

This is how the clause is being normalized. This is how, in consequence, the Charter of Rights is being eviscerated. It is already more or less a dead letter in Quebec, where the override has been invoked over the years by governments of every party. Once upon a time it might have caused something of a stir, at least outside the province, as when Robert Bourassa used it to uphold the ban on English-language signs in 1988.

September 21, 2019

But having paid no discernible price for invoking the clause to protect Bill 21, legislation that effectively bars the hiring of religious minorities across much of the public service, Quebec’s CAQ government was quick to do the same with regard to Bill 96, its new and harsher language law. A rights “guarantee” that cannot protect minorities from overt harassment and discrimination – a guarantee that applies only as when the government of the day decides it should – is not much of a guarantee at all.

July 28, 2018

And now it is happening elsewhere. Mr. Ford’s first attempt to use the clause, over a 2018 bill that would have cut the size of Toronto city council in half – in the middle of a municipal election – may have collapsed in confusion, but now the Premier is back for another try. This time the casus belli is Bill 254, legislation passed earlier this year that would, among other things, double the length of time before an election campaign during which third-party advocacy groups would be subject to spending limits.

As before, the Premier has supposedly been provoked to action by a judge’s ruling, overturning the legislation on Charter grounds. But as before this is not really the issue. The government could have appealed either ruling to a higher court, and even had it lost there, it could have rewritten either bill in ways that addressed its purported intent, without unduly limiting Charter rights. (Globe & Mail)