Notwithstanding on Guard for Thee

The Prime Minister will use a never-before invoked power to overrule the Supreme Court and strip Canadians of a constitutional right. Sounds pretty scary, if you say it like that. But is that what Pierre Poilievre is actually promising to do? I’m Jacob Boon and welcome back to The Run. The Conservative Leader has promised to bring back legislation to impose consecutive life sentences — not concurrent — for those who commit multiple murders. It was an idea that Poilievre’s mentor, Stephen Harper, introduced when prime minister, only for it to be shot down by the Supreme Court of Canada in 2022. The ruling of R. v. Bissonnette found that life in prison without the possibility of parole for extended periods violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms’ protection against cruel and unusual punishments. But in a candid and upfront campaign promise, Poilievre says he’ll bypass the courts if elected by invoking the notwithstanding clause. If so, he’ll become the first Canadian prime minister to use the controversial get-out-of-the-Charter-free card that allows governments to override court rulings for a five-year period. Over on his Substack, political scientist Jared Wesley says this bold manoeuvre raises two serious questions for Canadians: 1. Is consecutive life sentences for multiple murders a justified goal for our society? 2. Is achieving that goal worth overriding a Charter right? “As citizens, we can (and should) argue over the moral weight of life sentences, the role of rehabilitation, and the meaning of dignity. We can (and should) discuss whether Parliament should be allowed to override rights in this instance. That’s our duty when we are called upon to do so.” Poilievre’s supporters will say this is what the clause was designed to do. Critics will say this is a slippery slope for eroding the Charter. But whatever you believe, Wesley argues, Poilievre isn’t hiding what he’s going to do. He’s asking Canadians to choose. “This is not authoritarianism. It’s constitutional democracy,” says Wesley. “Poilievre is not attempting to suppress debate. He’s igniting it.”