The chattering class is in a flap again about Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre said he was prepared to use Section 33 of the Charter — the “notwithstanding clause” — to keep some of the most egregious murderers in jail. He made the point when delivering a speech to the Canadian Police Association.Poilievre has often been bold enough to say things that make the elites choke. And sensing the possibility to stir controversy, the media pounced after Poilievre’s speech. After all, no federal government has ever actually used the clause, although it has been threatened in past years. Section 33 does exist for a reason however. Commonly known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’, it is referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament and provincial Legislatures alike to temporarily override Sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter. The vernacular term is that it is government's 'nuclear option,' although Quebec uses it frequently. The underlying message is that the Supreme Court does not write scripture and that on occasion it may make a mistake. In the Canadian Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy, Parliament is supreme, and there is no ‘balance of powers’ notion, as in the American republican system. Thus goes the argument that on some matters, citizens (through Parliament) must have the final say.Given Poilievre's directness about the notwithstanding clause, the Liberals strongly criticized and derided the Conservatives for what they said was their disdain for fundamental rights. Predictably, the NDP also said they were concerned. The shock, the horror... some so-called legal experts are 'aghast!'When questioned, Poilievre tried to avoid being put in a box and sought to keep options open. Eventually, the Conservative Party said that a Conservative government would only consider using the notwithstanding clause on matters of criminal justice.The political point in Poilievre’s speech was that it was wrong for the Supreme Court to decide that sentencing mass killers, including terrorists, to whole-life sentences was cruel and unusual punishment and thereby not permissible. Contrarians impugn motives and make the old tired claim that Conservatives have a secret agenda. The smear is that Poilievre has a dictatorial mindset that disrespects the Canadian Constitution.Concerning bail (custody awaiting trial) the false argument says that denying bail release because an offender has a serious criminal record is unfair, as all are considered innocent until proven guilty. Certainly, that's how things have been under the Liberals, and that's what's concerning many Canadians, not just Poilievre. As the operation of the Criminal Code regarding bail has been opened up, safety on the street deteriorated. While the Liberals made some amendments to tighten the system, it does not appear to be enough and the Supreme Court has said that for most alleged crimes, release on bail at the earliest reasonable opportunity with minimal conditions remains the default position.Evidence on the street however is that too many offences are committed by offenders out on bail. The obvious conclusion (that is evidently not obvious in the Supreme Court of Canada) is therefore the administration of the rules under which they were released needs to be adjusted.In response to public outcry, the Liberals were forced in 2023 to make some adjustments to their previous opening up of the rules. There is however, another layer to all this.The province don't like to admit it, but the unspoken driver of issues around bail provisions is money. It is expensive to keep offenders in jail awaiting trial. Therefore, provinces have been using whatever loopholes are available under the Supreme Court rulings to keep costs down and make the community pay for increased violence, rather than the government pay for custody. It is a cruel risk choice that governments make, at the expense of public safety when they put a price on safety. The Conservative promise is merely to adjust the bail system to restore public confidence.The Conservative Leader has appeared in countless public rallies across the country and has been enthusiastically received. He especially receives applause when he talks about Canada’s failed law on granting an accused bail (catch and release) and on the sentencing and custodial administration of terrorists or murderers such as Paul Bernardo. Poilievre has asserted that the proposals are constitutional, and his administration would use whatever tools the Constitution allows.So should the present government. But they won't. And the provinces won't make them...
The chattering class is in a flap again about Pierre Poilievre. Poilievre said he was prepared to use Section 33 of the Charter — the “notwithstanding clause” — to keep some of the most egregious murderers in jail. He made the point when delivering a speech to the Canadian Police Association.Poilievre has often been bold enough to say things that make the elites choke. And sensing the possibility to stir controversy, the media pounced after Poilievre’s speech. After all, no federal government has ever actually used the clause, although it has been threatened in past years. Section 33 does exist for a reason however. Commonly known as the ‘notwithstanding clause’, it is referred to as the override power, and it allows Parliament and provincial Legislatures alike to temporarily override Sections 2 and 7–15 of the Charter. The vernacular term is that it is government's 'nuclear option,' although Quebec uses it frequently. The underlying message is that the Supreme Court does not write scripture and that on occasion it may make a mistake. In the Canadian Westminster model of Parliamentary democracy, Parliament is supreme, and there is no ‘balance of powers’ notion, as in the American republican system. Thus goes the argument that on some matters, citizens (through Parliament) must have the final say.Given Poilievre's directness about the notwithstanding clause, the Liberals strongly criticized and derided the Conservatives for what they said was their disdain for fundamental rights. Predictably, the NDP also said they were concerned. The shock, the horror... some so-called legal experts are 'aghast!'When questioned, Poilievre tried to avoid being put in a box and sought to keep options open. Eventually, the Conservative Party said that a Conservative government would only consider using the notwithstanding clause on matters of criminal justice.The political point in Poilievre’s speech was that it was wrong for the Supreme Court to decide that sentencing mass killers, including terrorists, to whole-life sentences was cruel and unusual punishment and thereby not permissible. Contrarians impugn motives and make the old tired claim that Conservatives have a secret agenda. The smear is that Poilievre has a dictatorial mindset that disrespects the Canadian Constitution.Concerning bail (custody awaiting trial) the false argument says that denying bail release because an offender has a serious criminal record is unfair, as all are considered innocent until proven guilty. Certainly, that's how things have been under the Liberals, and that's what's concerning many Canadians, not just Poilievre. As the operation of the Criminal Code regarding bail has been opened up, safety on the street deteriorated. While the Liberals made some amendments to tighten the system, it does not appear to be enough and the Supreme Court has said that for most alleged crimes, release on bail at the earliest reasonable opportunity with minimal conditions remains the default position.Evidence on the street however is that too many offences are committed by offenders out on bail. The obvious conclusion (that is evidently not obvious in the Supreme Court of Canada) is therefore the administration of the rules under which they were released needs to be adjusted.In response to public outcry, the Liberals were forced in 2023 to make some adjustments to their previous opening up of the rules. There is however, another layer to all this.The province don't like to admit it, but the unspoken driver of issues around bail provisions is money. It is expensive to keep offenders in jail awaiting trial. Therefore, provinces have been using whatever loopholes are available under the Supreme Court rulings to keep costs down and make the community pay for increased violence, rather than the government pay for custody. It is a cruel risk choice that governments make, at the expense of public safety when they put a price on safety. The Conservative promise is merely to adjust the bail system to restore public confidence.The Conservative Leader has appeared in countless public rallies across the country and has been enthusiastically received. He especially receives applause when he talks about Canada’s failed law on granting an accused bail (catch and release) and on the sentencing and custodial administration of terrorists or murderers such as Paul Bernardo. Poilievre has asserted that the proposals are constitutional, and his administration would use whatever tools the Constitution allows.So should the present government. But they won't. And the provinces won't make them...
