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?

  • AutoTL;DR@lemmings.worldBEnglish
    2·
    6 months ago

    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!