In January, the Federal Court found that the Trudeau government’s use of the Emergencies Act to respond to the protests of the self-styled freedom convoy in 2022 was not properly justified — a decision the federal government is now appealing.
At the time, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre celebrated that ruling.
“Today, in a landmark victory for the freedoms of Canadians, the Federal Court ruled that Trudeau broke the highest law in the land,” he said in a prepared statement, apparently referring to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
“Common-sense Conservatives will protect the Charter rights of Canadians, and as prime minister I will unite our country and our people for hope and freedom.”
A few months later, Poilievre’s support for the Charter rights of Canadians seems less than absolute.
Last week, the Conservative leader appeared before a meeting of the Canadian Police Association and outlined — or at least hinted at — his plans to use the notwithstanding clause to safeguard his government’s laws from being overturned by the courts.
“All of my proposals are constitutional. And we will make sure — we will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional,” he said. “I think you know exactly what I mean.”
Would a Poilievre government use the clause to save mandatory-minimum sentences that the Supreme Court has found constitute cruel and unusual punishment? What if the court ultimately rules against the bail restrictions that Poilievre has said he would implement?
In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the previous Conservative government’s attempts to block a supervised drug consumption site in Vancovuer — Insite — violated the Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person. Would the Poilievre government use the notwithstanding clause to implement elements of its response to the opioid epidemic?
The framers of the Constitution assumes that everyone would act in good faith in using the Notwithstanding Clause. They didn’t consider the possibility of the rise of christofascists willing to use it to take away our hard earned rights and consolidate power.
Man, I was really hoping the next election would feature a normal Tory leader, who, if elected, would do things I disagree with then leave, and not a democracy-eroding bastard.
I was really hoping the next election would feature a normal Tory leader
Given the state of conservatism globally, I don’t think you will get your wish for quite some time.
Unfortunately you’re probably right.
They tried that and thought they lost because they weren’t conservative enough
Whatever trump would do poilievre would do. He has assembled a “base” of racists, misogynists, white supremacists, fascists, nazis and assholes. If you are expecting anything good from this mashup you are an idiot.
I think that’s a little over the top, and kind of cheapens how unhinged Trumpism is. What I’ve seen of Polievre makes me expect Harper 2.0, complete with authoritarian tendencies, which is bad but not quite the same as Trump.
Harper went as far as he could in the era. Trying to pull Trump-esque fascism would have gotten him removed by his own party.
But now we have a party of psychopaths who actively court that sort of behaviour, and a leader who will happily drive the country straight off a cliff to cement his own power. Meanwhile, Harper is still gleefully pulling the strings from his apocalyptic evangelical church.
The only real difference is that Poilievre/Harper are clever enough (and noy senile!) to keep their actual mechanics away from their bombastic noisemaking.
I’m not sure how closely you’ve been paying attention. Pierre has been making a point of publicly connecting with far right conspiracy protestors (ie Freedom Convoy, etc), and amplifying the “fuck Trudeau” meme, which is a carbon copy of the “fuck Joe Biden” movement ie it distracts from real issues while fanning the flames of the ‘us vs them’ rhetoric and ‘take our country back’ style of proto-violent hate.
And by the way, Harper was also happy to throw red meat to these groups, just in a more subtle and dog-whistley way.
Yeah, he was happy to do that, and he had a lot of say in the current Conservative strategy. He’s also been hanging out with Orban recently. Trump is on a whole other level, though; his one saving grace would be that he’s way dumber than either of those other guys.
I’m so tired of this “common sense” bullshit. Every conservative leader in the world is using that fucking term. Nothing of what they’re saying is common sense.
Defending people who were holding an entire city hostage and using violence against it’s residents because they either:
- wore a face mask
- were queer/gay
- complained of the incessant noise they were making day and night
- were people of a different ethnicity/non-white
Is not common fucking sense.
And the answer is: we won’t know until and unless he actually tries it. Talk is cheap, especially when it comes from politicians.
I think it’s pretty clear he’s going to use it the moment he can. Talk may be cheap, but he straight up said:
"…we will make them constitutional, using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional,” he said. “I think you know exactly what I mean.”
Yeah, there’s no reason to bluff about this one. “I won’t use this power I totally have” is the promise that would require trust.
Ford already did it. Legault already did it. Smith is planning in using it. What makes you think Pierre won’t?
I’m not saying he won’t. He might, but it depends on how well it plays to his base when the election rolls around, which isn’t going to happen tomorrow.
Nope.
What he SAYS about it come election time may require pandering, but once he is in power he will use the notwithstanding clause however and whenever he wants.
Nobody promises to be worse than they are. Nobody campains on abuse with the secret intent of being restrained and compassionate. When someone tells you that they intend to be horrific, you can guarantee that that’s the LEAST bad they will be.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
Last week, the Conservative leader appeared before a meeting of the Canadian Police Association and outlined — or at least hinted at — his plans to use the notwithstanding clause to safeguard his government’s laws from being overturned by the courts.
In 2011, the Supreme Court ruled that the previous Conservative government’s attempts to block a supervised drug consumption site in Vancovuer — Insite — violated the Charter right to life, liberty and security of the person.
The Supreme Court later ruled that forcing Bissonnette to serve his sentences consecutively — effectively eliminating his chance of ever being eligible for parole — “shakes the very foundations of Canadian law.”
Lisa Kerr, a law professor at Queen’s University, noted in an op-ed this week that being eligible for parole does not mean you necessarily receive it.
And deferring to the will of voters contradicts one of the primary reasons for codifying rights in the first place — to protect individuals and minorities from the whims of the majority.
federal carbon-pricing legislation and Poilievre’s position on the notwithstanding clause, Conservatives seem to be moving toward the view that premiers and prime ministers have wide latitude to decide which laws they must follow.
The original article contains 1,107 words, the summary contains 188 words. Saved 83%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
