Debate Reflections, Long Weekend Politics, and the Dangerous Normalization of Overriding Charter Rights

April 16, 2025

It’s Wednesday night, and I’ve just finished watching the French-language leaders’ debate. I won’t get into a full breakdown of who said what, but here’s the takeaway: no one walked away as a clear winner, and no one fully lost either. If anyone slipped slightly, it may have been NDP leader Jagmeet Singh, but even then, it wasn’t catastrophic.

Prime Minister Mark Carney held the line. He didn’t say anything that would turn Quebecers away and just as importantly, nothing that would cost him support. His tone was measured, his points were consistent, and he avoided the kind of misstep that could fuel a narrative shift.

Pierre Poilievre, similarly, did what he’s done throughout this campaign energize his base, stay on message, and be slightly confrontational. But he didn’t move the needle. Tomorrow night’s English-language debate will be critical if Poilievre wants to reset the trajectory of this election.

---

Why the Long Weekend Matters More Than the Debate

This coming weekend is a long weekend. Families will be gathering, friends will be catching up and politics will inevitably be on the table. Conversations around who to vote for and why, are likely to take over kitchen tables and campfire chats across the country.

And I suspect one topic will come up more than any other:
Pierre Poilievre’s plan to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

It’s a policy proposal that sounds tough like a crackdown on crime. But it’s far more dangerous than many realize. That’s why I want to give you the clearest, most persuasive way to talk about this issue not just with your family, but with anyone who values democracy, even if they vote differently than you.

Here’s what people need to understand:
This is not about protecting criminals. It’s about protecting the Charter. Full stop.

Pierre Poilievre is using extreme and rare criminal cases, people like Paul Bernardo, to justify his plan. But we must take those examples off the table. Because the Charter doesn’t just apply to the people we like it applies especially to the people we don’t.

To uphold the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we must apply it equally to all. That’s the point. That’s what protects all of us from overreach, from abuse, from the slow erosion of democratic institutions.

---

A Global Warning, and a Canadian Parallel

Take the case of Kilmar Obrego Garcia. This is a US constitutional case but the principle stands. Even if he were a gang member (and this is hypothetical), the debate around his rights isn't about him. It’s about due process. Because when you start denying basic rights to one person, you’ve just built the case for denying them to many.

And here in Canada, it’s the same. If a prime minister can override the Supreme Court’s rulings for one group of people, they can do it for any group.
If they can impose cruel and unusual punishment on someone else, they can impose it on you.

---

This Is Why the Charter Matters

The Charter exists to restrain power, not to grant it. The judicial branch exists to check Parliament, not to serve it.

The notwithstanding clause was meant as a rare, emergency tool not a political battering ram. But Poilievre has made it clear: he will use it pre-emptively and broadly, to override constitutional protections if the courts get in his way.

That’s not just dangerous. That’s a fundamental threat to Canadian democracy.

So when you’re sitting with your uncle or your coworker or your neighbour this weekend, and they say,
“Well, I don’t want criminals getting off easy,”
ask them this:
“Do you want a government that decides who gets rights and who doesn’t?”
Because if one person can lose their Charter protections, then so can all of us.