Poilievre says he’d invoke notwithstanding clause to overturn ruling on child porn sentences

Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says if elected he’d use the notwithstanding clause to overturn Friday’s ruling from the Supreme Court striking down mandatory minimums for accessing or possessing child pornography.

Friday’s decision deeming those one-year prison sentences unconstitutional not only split the bench 5-4, but has received swift backlash from provincial and federal leaders.

Poilievre added to the mounting condemnation in an interview with CBC News. 

“This ruling is wrong-headed and I would oppose the ruling and I would use the notwithstanding clause to overturn it,” he said in an interview airing on CBC's Rosemary Barton Live Sunday.

“My future government will introduce mandatory prison sentences for possession of child pornography so that dirtbags like this go away for a very long time.” 

Section 33 of the Charter — known as the notwithstanding clause — allows for provincial or federal legislation to override certain Charter rights for a five-year period.

It’s 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 brought down if they don’t get enough votes on their upcoming budget.

The Supreme Court was asked to weigh in on an appeal from Quebec 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 of them challenged the mandatory minimum sentences for their crimes arguing they were unconstitutional because they could lead to grossly disproportionate punishment.

The sentencing judge in Quebec decided in their favour and the Crown appealed all the way up to the Supreme Court. 

The question 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 top court said it was only weighing the constitutionality of the mandatory minimum sentences, and not whether the sentences imposed on the two men were appropriate. 

Writing for the majority, Justice Mary Moreau argued there’s a range of circumstances that could lead to convictions of possession or access to child pornography.

“They capture both the well‑organized offender who, over the years, has accumulated thousands of files showing prepubescent victims, and the young 18‑year‑old offender who, one day, keeps and views a file showing a 17‑year‑old victim that was sent to the offender without them having requested it,” the decision read.