Poilievre & the Notwithstanding Clause

The Conservatives have invited us to debate our rights. Will we take it seriously?

Pierre Poilievre has announced that, if the Conservatives form government after this election, he would reintroduce legislation requiring consecutive life sentences for multiple murderers. To do so, he would invoke the notwithstanding clause to protect that law from being struck down.

Photo by Jason Hafso on Unsplash

While the policy is old (Poilievre plans to reinstate a Harper-era law), the pledge to use the notwithstanding clause is rare. It makes this not only about sentencing, but about rights, democracy, and how Canada governs itself.

Unlike recent musings by provincial premiers to invoke the notwithstanding clause, this isn’t a preemptive power play. It is a clear response to a 2022 Supreme Court ruling that struck down such consecutive sentences as unconstitutional. Rather than quietly redraft the law after the election or rail against the judiciary, Poilievre has put his cards on the table. He said plainly that he would use the constitutional tools available to reassert Parliament’s will. And he’s putting it to voters to endorse his plan in this election.

In a country where politicians often dodge tough constitutional questions, this level of transparency is a welcome change. It demands a serious response.

The Challenge to Canadians

In May 2022, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled in R. v. Bissonnette that sentencing multiple murderers to life in prison without the possibility of parole for extended periods (effectively beyond their lifespan) violated Section 12 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment. The Court found consecutive sentences to be “incompatible with human dignity.”

The ruling meant that, even for the most horrific crimes, life sentences must run concurrently (at the same time). A person convicted of multiple murders may now be eligible for parole.

Poilievre’s proposed legislation would reverse that outcome, offering judges the authority to issue consecutive sentences once again. (Note: At this point, Poilievre’s plan would not require judges to impose consecutive terms. He has suggested mandatory minimums in other contexts.)

To ensure the law is not struck down by the courts, Poilievre promises to use the notwithstanding clause.

This raises two serious questions for Canadians to consider:

1. Is the policy goal—consecutive life sentences for multiple murderers—justified?

2. Does it justify overriding a Charter right?

Consecutive Life Sentences

Advocates of consecutive sentences argue that justice should be proportional. One life taken equals one life sentence. When someone takes multiple lives, concurrent sentencing flattens that distinction. It tells victims’ families that their losses are not individually recognized by the justice system.

Consecutive sentences, in this view, reflect the magnitude of the crime and preserve public confidence in justice. They also serve a symbolic function: each life matters equally, and the law should say so.

Critics of consecutive sentencing (including the Supreme Court) argue that imposing parole ineligibility periods that exceed human lifespans serves no practical purpose. It shifts the system toward pure retribution, denying even the faintest hope of rehabilitation. It treats the most heinous offenders not just as dangerous but as irredeemable. This violates human dignity, the bedrock of Canada’s rights framework.

Others point to the fact that such crimes are relatively rare, meaning the actual impact of Poilievre’s proposed legislation may be quite limited in scope. Historically, Canada sees an average of around 25 multiple murders per year, meaning that over the initial five-year window of a notwithstanding clause invocation, the law might apply to just over 125 individuals. These are rare but high-profile cases, often involving mass shootings, serial killings, or domestic tragedies. Given the relatively small number of offenders affected, critics question whether this targeted policy justifies the unprecedented use of Section 33 at the federal level, one that potentially sets a new norm for rights overrides. Proponents, however, argue that the symbolic and moral weight of such cases is precisely why a decisive legislative response is warranted.

The Constitutional Lens: Section 33 in Action

Section 33 allows Parliament or provincial legislatures to pass laws that operate “notwithstanding” certain Charter protections, including the right not to face cruel and unusual punishment (among others). Such laws must be explicit and are limited to five-year terms, renewable only through legislative re-approval. The clause has been used at the provincial level numerous times, but never by a federal government.

Poilievre’s move would be the first, which is why we should examine it closely on its merits.

Supporters of using Section 33 argue that the clause was designed precisely for such situations: when a judicial ruling removes an option that Parliament believes reflects the public’s moral expectations, the legislature should be able to respond. There is no constitutional crisis here: simply a democratic disagreement and “dialogue” between branches of government.

Opponents worry about normalization. Critics charge that, if governments begin invoking the clause more regularly, the Charter’s protective role may be eroded over time. Even if the override is temporary (e.g., if it goes un-renewed or is struck down for other reasons), its impact on rights, and on vulnerable groups in other cases, could be lasting.

The threat of normalization is real, to an extent. Several provincial and territorial governments have threatened to invoke the notwithstanding clause recently, including Ontario, New Brunswick, Quebec, and Alberta. Some have even passed legislation doing so. It’s worth noting, however: all but one of those laws were repealed or struck down by the courts (on other grounds) before they could come into force.

As of 2024, only one other province outside Quebec has effectively employed the notwithstanding clause. Saskatchewan did so in 2023 to pass a law requiring parental consent for students under the age of 16 to change their preferred name or pronouns at school. The rest of the non-Quebec incidents came to naught, although they have pointed to a definite trend in terms of the willingness of premiers to publicly advocate breaching Charter rights.

Other skeptics point to the fact that, last year, Poilievre hinted that he may be willing to use the notwithstanding clause to shield other parts of his tough-on-crime agenda from being overturned. If he has other plans beyond consecutive sentencing (e.g., mandatory minimums), he should make those known now so that voters can weigh in on the plans.

A Moment of Constitutional Clarity

For now, Pierre Poilievre does not appear to be hiding his intent. He is offering Canadians a clear choice: support a return to consecutive sentencing for multiple murderers, even if it means overriding Charter protections, or reject it in favour of the Court’s current standard.

This is not authoritarianism. It’s constitutional democracy.

Poilievre is not attempting to suppress debate. He’s igniting it.

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.

But we cannot pretend that there is an absolute ban on abrogating Charter rights, let alone debating the merits of a proposal to do so. Doing so runs against the principles and rules outlined in the constitution, itself.

The notwithstanding clause was never meant to be easy. It was meant to force precisely this kind of reckoning.

Poilievre has done his part. Now it’s up to the rest of us.