Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre says if elected he would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn Friday’s Supreme Court ruling striking down mandatory minimums for accessing or possessing child pornography.
Friday’s decision deeming those one-year prison sentences unconstitutional not only divided the court 5-4, but also received swift backlash from provincial and federal leaders.
Poilievre added to the growing condemnation in an interview with CBC News.
“This ruling is wrong and I would oppose the ruling and use the notwithstanding clause to overturn it,” he said in an interview broadcast on the CBC program. rosemary barton live Sunday.
“My future government will introduce mandatory prison sentences for possession of child pornography so that rubbish like this will disappear for a long time.”
Section 33 of the Charter, known as the notwithstanding clause, allows provincial or federal legislation to override certain Charter rights for a period of five years.
CBC News chief political correspondent Rosemary Barton speaks with official opposition leader Pierre Poilievre about a recent Supreme Court ruling against minimum sentences for child pornography. Poilievre says that if he were prime minister his government would use the notwithstanding clause against the ruling.
It is unclear when the next federal election will be called. Canadians went to the polls in April, but with Prime Minister Mark Carney’s Liberals forming a minority government, they could be toppled. if they don’t get enough votes about your next budget.
The Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on a Quebec appeal involving two separate cases involving child pornography offences.
In both cases, the men pleaded guilty to having hundreds of images of children, in one case as young as three years old, being abused. Both challenged the mandatory minimum sentences for their crimes, arguing that they were unconstitutional because they could lead to grossly disproportionate punishments.
The Quebec sentencing judge ruled in their favor and the Crown appealed all the way to the Supreme Court.
‘Lock them up and throw away the key:’ Poilievre
The issue before the Supreme Court was whether the one-year prison sentence for accessing and possessing child pornography set out in the Criminal Code violated the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which protects against cruel and unusual punishment.
The high court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate.
Writing for the majority, Judge Mary Moreau argued that there are a variety of circumstances that could lead to convictions for possession of or access to child pornography.
“They capture both the well-organized criminal who, over the years, has accumulated thousands of files showing prepubescent victims, and the young 18-year-old criminal who, one day, saves and views a file showing a 17-year-old victim and which was sent to the criminal without his request,” the decision said.
Moreau wrote that “in the age of digital communication” that last scenario “is not uncommon.”
Poilievre said that “the Supreme Court needs to move away from these imaginary scenarios.”
“His conclusion really should have been that the sentence should have been served much longer than the year and nine months that the two trash criminals received,” he said.
“Frankly, if I could as a parent, I would lock them up and throw away the key.”
Smith, Ford and Moe condemn the decision
Writing for the dissenting voices, Justices Richard Wagner and Suzanne Côté said they would have allowed the appeal.
“The censure of society and the law must be reflected consistently and rigorously in the sentences imposed on offenders guilty of sexual crimes against minors,” they wrote.
“By imposing harsher sentences, the justice system expresses the deep and legitimate indignation of society.”
Other conservatives were also quick to condemn the majority’s decision.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford called on the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause.
“These people are predators. Disgusting bastards who prey on children should be behind bars for the rest of their miserable lives,” he said on social media.
“The notwithstanding clause was designed to protect the will of the people.”
Calling the majority decision “outrageous,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith also called for the notwithstanding clause to be used.
“Possession of child pornography is a heinous crime, and even a minimum sentence of one year is already too lenient,” he wrote.
Saskatchewan Premier Scott Moe also weighed in.
“If you ever wonder why I am so adamant that elected legislators, and not unelected judges, should be the ones to make the laws read [this] history,” he published.
It is not the first time that Poilievre promises to use the controversial clause to overturn the Supreme Court’s decision.
During the spring campaign, he promised to invoke the clause to impose consecutive life sentences on multiple murderers. The high court ruled in 2022 that imposing consecutive life sentences violates the offender’s Charter rights.
The clause has been used at the provincial level, including by saskatchewan, Quebec and ontariobut no federal government has ever pulled the legal lever.
A spokesperson for Attorney General Sean Fraser’s office said they are “carefully” reviewing the implications of the ruling.
“Crimes that exploit or abuse children are among the most serious and reprehensible in our society,” spokesperson Lola Dandybaeva said in an emailed statement.
“Plain and simple: child abusers should face the harshest penalties allowed under Canadian law.”
Minimums may be “constitutionally vulnerable”
Friday’s decision joins a growing number of cases in which the Supreme Court has struck down mandatory minimums.
Moreau wrote that mandatory minimum sentences do not necessarily violate the Charter. However, “the sentence is constitutionally vulnerable because it leaves no choice but to impose an extremely disproportionate sentence on certain offenders,” he wrote.
The Canadian Center for Child Protection, which acted as an intervener in the case, said it was not surprised by the decision “given other jurisprudence on the constitutionality of mandatory minimum sentences in previous years.”
“The decision is useful because it recognizes the greater prevalence of [child sexual abuse and exploitation material] and its overall harm to victims and communities, including the growing threat of artificial intelligence technology,” he said in a statement.
