Pierre Poilievre fled journalists who tried to obtain details on Tuesday about his equivocal remarks according to which he intends to toughen criminal laws with “any tool” at his disposal, leaving “up to the people” to judge whether this is in accordance with the constitution.
“I will protect Canadians against Justin Trudeau’s laws, and my proposals will be completely constitutional, to put the real criminals in prison,” the leader of the official opposition briefly responded in French.
Visibly annoyed, the Conservative leader hurried away from the representatives of the press, who were hot on his heels after a speech given in English at a conference bringing together the country’s major construction unions in Gatineau, Quebec. His team clarified that the leader would not accept any questions, instead shaking hands and posing for selfies with trade unionists present.
Pierre Poilievre, however, let slip some prepared answers, while refraining from specifying whether he is truly preparing, and to what extent, to use the override provision in his criminal justice reform projects, if his party is ever elected during the next elections. Using this provision would allow it to exempt its promises from certain articles of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, thus limiting the risk of them being torn to pieces by the courts.
“Make it constitutional”
The day before, in another speech to police officers punctuated with jokes, Pierre Poilievre suggested that he would not hesitate to use the notwithstanding provision, but without saying so clearly. Instead, he insisted on his intention to “make constitutional” his proposals to strengthen prison sentences.
“And by the way, [les meurtriers] will receive consecutive sentences, not concurrent sentences. Those who have committed multiple murders are only going to leave prison in a box,” he said to the applause of members of the Canadian Police Association, whose courage he praised at length.
“And all my proposals are constitutional,” he continued. We will make sure, we will ensure that they are constitutional. We will use whatever tool the constitution gives me to make them constitutional. I think you know exactly what I mean. »
After some laughter from law enforcement representatives, he added: “I will be a prime minister democratically elected by the people, who will be able to judge whether my laws are constitutional. »
In 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously decided to remove section of the Criminal Code 745.51, created by Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, which allowed the length of prison sentences to be added. According to the judges of the highest court in the country, section 12 of the Charter provides protection against cruel and unusual treatment and punishment, such as sentences longer than human life expectancy without hope of rehabilitation.
This decision had the effect of limiting the sentence of the murderer of the Quebec Mosque, Alexandre Bissonnette, to 25 years, since all his murder sentences are carried out at the same time – or concurrently – which Pierre Poilievre proposes to put an end to. .
Irresponsible, says Trudeau
These comments, although full of innuendo, aroused the anger of Liberal Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who saw them as a commitment to “overthrow the fundamental protections” included in the Charter.
“It’s irresponsible, and it’s not what we need,” argued Justin Trudeau, before accusing him of complacency with white supremacist groups – the same accusation that ignited the Commons. Tuesday, even causing Mr. Poilievre’s exclusion from the House.
Federal Justice Minister Arif Virani added that using the waiver was a “last resort”. In his opinion, the role of an aspiring prime minister is to be “in defense of the Canadian charter.”
The leader of the Bloc Québécois, Yves-François Blanchet, for his part defended the use of the notwithstanding provision. This tool provided for in the constitution was notably used preemptively by Quebec to protect its Law on State Secularism (“Law 21”) from challenges.
According to Mr. Blanchet, a possible use by the federal government of this exemption clause would complicate its arguments to oppose Quebec’s Bill 21.