freedoms

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

Poilievre’s Notwithstanding Gamble: A Risky Precedent for Canada

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

---