This article originally appeared in the National Post. Below is an excerpt from the article.
By Stéphane Sérafin, April 16, 2025
If elected, Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre has now confirmed that he would invoke Section 33 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, also known as the notwithstanding clause or the Parliamentary supremacy clause, to ensure that multiple murderers remain ineligible for parole.
Reactions to this announcement from Poilievre’s political opponents have been entirely predictable. Responding on X, Liberal MP Anthony Housefather for instance charged that:
“Using the notwithstanding clause shields overriding a Charter right in a manner not reasonable in a free & democratic society. Parliament has never done this. Nor should it. It is a slippery slope. Do it once & tomorrow it will be used to override a right important to you.”
There is little reason to doubt that authors of statements like these believe that they offer a compelling argument against the use of Section 33. After all, who wants politicians, even elected politicians, to overrule the courts on issues that are important to them? Is a slippery slope not at least a possibility, if federal legislators begin to make regular use of Section 33?
Unfortunately, this argument supposes that the Charter truly serves to protect “rights” that are important to the average Canadians, but that is an assumption that can no longer be taken for granted. Although the text of the Charter certainly guarantees rights to everyone, judicial interpretation has over time undermined its universal character, transforming it from a traditional rights instrument that guarantees equal rights to all persons, into an instrument of rights distribution that rewards decidedly unaverage litigants at the expense of virtually everyone else.
***TO READ THE FULL ARTICLE, VISIT THE NATIONAL POST HERE***
Stéphane Sérafin is an assistant professor at the University of Ottawa’s Faculty of Law, Common Law Section and a Senior Fellow at the Macdonald-Laurier Institute.
The author of this piece has worked independently and is solely responsible for the views presented here. The opinions are not necessarily those of the Macdonald-Laurier Institute, its directors or supporters. The Macdonald-Laurier Institute is non-partisan and neither endorses nor supports candidates or political parties. We encourage our senior fellows to comment on public policy issues, including during election campaigns, but the publication of such expert commentary should not be confused with the institute taking a position for or against any party or candidate.
