Conservative Party of Canada Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks in the House of Commons in Ottawa on May 1.Blair Gable/Reuters
A day after declining to put any limits on how the Conservatives would use the notwithstanding clause if they form government, the party now says Leader Pierre Poilievre would only use the tool to override Charter-protected rights when it comes to matters of criminal justice.
No federal government has ever invoked the clause, but Mr. Poilievre says he would change that.
Until Friday, neither he nor his party outlined any limits to when and how he would use the clause, which has been called the “nuclear option” because it gives a government the power to override constitutionally protected rights. When it was crafted, it was believed that elected officials would use it sparingly, but its use has been on the rise provincially.
“A common-sense Conservative government will only use the notwithstanding clause on matters of criminal justice,” Mr. Poilievre’s spokesperson Sebastian Skamski said in a statement to The Globe and Mail on Friday.
“It is unconscionable that any government would allow a mass murderer like the Quebec mosque shooter to ever be released from prison. He murdered six innocent worshippers in an act of hate and the only way he should ever leave prison is in a box.”
His statement provided the clarity Mr. Poilievre’s office declined to give on Thursday when The Globe first asked for details around the context in which the Conservative Leader planned to use the clause.
On Thursday, his office initially did not answer four direct questions about Mr. Poilievre’s plans, including if he would only use the clause in the realm of criminal justice, or in other areas as well. The Globe also asked if the Conservative Leader thought there were any Charter-protected rights that a government should not override with the notwithstanding clause.
His office first sent a statement that did not answer the questions, and then sent a second statement later Thursday saying only that the Conservatives’ “focus” was on criminal-justice matters.
The Charter of Rights and Freedoms was only patriated once the notwithstanding clause was included. The clause gives governments the power to suspend certain rights guaranteed by the Charter for up to five years. Its purpose is to give elected officials (and thereby voters) the option of having the final say on rights, rather than the courts.
Mr. Poilievre first pledged to use the notwithstanding clause during his leadership campaign in 2022, when the Supreme Court struck down a lengthy sentence for Alexandre Bissonnette, who killed six worshippers at a Quebec mosque in 2017. Mr. Poilievre repeated the promise again this week during a speech to the Canadian Police Association and in a later scrum with reporters.
Specifically, Mr. Poilievre said he would override the Supreme Court ruling that struck down a law permitting life sentences with no chance of parole. Mr. Bissonnette initially received an automatic life sentence, with no parole eligibility for 40 years. During the top court’s hearings on the case, Chief Justice Richard Wagner called Mr. Bissonnette’s punishment a “death sentence by incarceration.”
The Supreme Court ultimately ruled that sentencing mass killers, including terrorists, to whole-life sentences is cruel and unusual punishment.
Experts told The Globe this week that what Mr. Poilievre has promised runs counter to the Charter’s mandate to protect minorities (even unpopular ones) and translates to a promise by the government to engage in cruel and unusual punishment.
More than eight years into government, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s Liberals are badly trailing the Conservatives in public-opinion polling. If an election were held now, the polls show that Mr. Poilievre would win decisively.
The NDP and Liberals have strongly criticized Mr. Poilievre’s pledge to invoke the clause. Justice Minister Arif Virani said he was troubled by the “disdain” the Conservative Leader shows to Canadians’ fundamental rights.
NDP MP and justice critic Randall Garrison said Mr. Poilievre’s comments were “incredibly concerning” and motivated by “short-term political gain.”
But pollster Nik Nanos said a tough-on-crime agenda is a “political winner generally and especially among conservative-minded voters.”
He said using the notwithstanding clause could be seen as a “signal of political seriousness and determination” and would only pose a risk if police opposed its use.