Why Pierre Poilievre’s Notwithstanding Clause Talk Is Deeply Concerning
So here’s the thing — when we talk about the "notwithstanding clause" in Canada, we’re not just throwing around some technical constitutional term. We’re talking about a mechanism that gives governments the power to override certain Charter rights. That’s big. It’s section 33 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it’s designed to be used rarely — basically like a fire axe behind glass. Break only in a real emergency.
But lately? It’s being picked up far too casually. And now, Pierre Poilievre, the federal Conservative leader, is pledging to use it at the national level — something no federal government has done since the Charter came into force over 40 years ago. His proposal? To reintroduce a sentencing law for multiple murderers, one that was previously struck down by the Supreme Court as cruel and degrading.
Let me be clear: Canadians are absolutely entitled to feel frustration over our justice system. There’s real pain, especially in cases involving serial offenders where sentencing feels inadequate. But overriding the Charter — our shared guarantee of fundamental rights like freedom of expression, religion, equality, and fair trials — just to make a point or signal you're "tough on crime"? That’s reckless.
Also Read:- Tyler Seguin Makes Triumphant Return Against Predators Just in Time for Playoffs
- Cole Palmer's Vanishing Spark: What's Gone Wrong at Chelsea?
Using the notwithstanding clause to pre-empt judicial oversight sends a dangerous message. If a government can override someone else’s rights for political gain, then whose rights are truly safe? It might sound good in a soundbite, but it erodes a safeguard meant to protect all Canadians, not just the ones in the headlines.
This isn’t hypothetical. Quebec has used the clause to enforce language laws. Doug Ford tried to use it to strip education workers of their right to strike. Saskatchewan used it to enforce policies targeting trans youth in schools. Now, Poilievre wants to do it federally — not in response to an urgent crisis, but to bring back a law already ruled unconstitutional.
Amnesty International and many others are sounding the alarm. They see this as a dangerous precedent — one that risks normalizing the use of this "nuclear option" for ordinary political objectives. And once that glass is broken, how do you stop the next government from reaching for the axe too?
This is more than just policy. It’s about the kind of country we want Canada to be. Do we want a government that upholds rights, even when it’s politically inconvenient? Or one that tears them down the moment it polls well?
We should be debating crime and justice, absolutely. But not by bulldozing the very rights that define us as a free and democratic society.
Read More:
0 Comments