Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has proposed using the notwithstanding clause to allow judges to impose consecutive life sentences for mass murderers, a practice that has been deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada. This proposal has sparked debates about respect for court precedent and the rule of law in Canada, with some legal experts expressing concerns about the potential impact of using the notwithstanding clause in this case. If Poilievre is elected prime minister and follows through on his plan, it would mark the first federal use of the controversial notwithstanding clause in Canada.
Poilievre has stated that he respects Supreme Court decisions and the Charter, emphasizing that the notwithstanding clause would be used to combat crime. The Conservatives argue that future governments should be held accountable for their decisions regarding the notwithstanding clause, as it sunsets after five years. Canadian criminal law currently mandates life imprisonment with no possibility for parole for 25 years for first-degree murder, with parole eligibility set at 10 to 25 years for second-degree murder. The proposal to allow consecutive life sentences for mass murderers stems from previous legislation enacted under former Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s government in 2011.
Following the 2011 legislation, several offenders received consecutive life sentences, with parole eligibility periods stacking on top of one another. However, the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously upheld an appeal in 2022, ruling that denying offenders a realistic possibility of parole violated the prohibition of “cruel and unusual punishment” in the Charter. The ruling effectively nullified the 2011 law, reducing parole ineligibility periods to the standard 25 years. Legal experts are divided on whether consecutive sentences are necessary, with some arguing that judges should have discretion in considering sentences based on individual cases.
Debra Parkes, a law professor at the University of British Columbia, contends that Canada already has stringent standards for sentencing convicted murderers. She suggests that removing the possibility of parole through consecutive sentencing could hinder prisoners’ rehabilitation prospects. While some Canadians support parole for specific circumstances, they may oppose it in a broader context. Families of victims of mass murderers have also spoken out about their experiences advocating against parole for offenders. Poilievre’s proposal to reinstate consecutive life sentences for mass murderers using the notwithstanding clause has sparked concerns about its potential impact on Canada’s constitutional norms.
The notwithstanding clause, which enables legislation to override certain sections of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms for a specified period, has been primarily used at the provincial level. Legal experts differ on the implications of using the notwithstanding clause at the federal level, with some viewing it as a necessary part of Canada’s constitutional framework. However, others caution that invoking the notwithstanding clause could set a precedent that undermines the separation of government and the courts. With the potential for legislation invoking the notwithstanding clause to sunset after five years, the issue remains sensitive and subject to political consequences.
Despite the legal complexities surrounding the notwithstanding clause, the use of this instrument remains a contentious issue in Canadian politics. The potential implications of Poilievre’s proposal to reinstate consecutive life sentences for mass murderers using the notwithstanding clause raise questions about the balance between legal precedent and political decision-making. As discussions continue about the role of the notwithstanding clause in Canadian law, the ongoing debate underscores the importance of upholding constitutional norms and the rule of law.
