I think Poilievre is also preying on people not understanding how our judicial system works. When someone is "eligible for Parole after 25 years" the key word is eligible. Our most heinous criminals will die in prison, but at a certain point, they have to right to go before the parole board, and I think that's a good thing.

No kidding. Something like this should only be used when some unforeseen events happens, or to protect against abuse or emergencies.

Using it to correct a personal opinion, or worse to try and gain some votes, is absolutely disgraceful.

It's pandering to the American exceptionalism that's been shoved down our throats for decades. Those Canadians who have no idea how things work here because they've been trained to American media and politics. They're everywhere, they're indoctrinated and they're an easy vote.

Slave labour.

The burden is on people who understand what the notwithstanding clause means to explain to the less educated how dangerous this game is.

Do any of your friends and family know what this clause means? Every time I bring up the topic outside of politically active circles, I get a blank stare.

This proposal is illustrative to what’s at stake here. I’ll write an opinion piece on this later today.

I wouldn't say that's the case. Doug Ford got huge push-back for using it, to the point he repealed a piece of legislation that invoked it. Similarly, I don't think Poilievre would experience "no real consequences".

Plus, as pointed out in the article, "The clause can only override certain sections of the charter." IANAL, but I'm sure this (and Poilievre's other proposals to invoke the clause) will be reviewed by the courts.

I'd like to do this illegal, immoral and unconstitutional thing, but I'd like to not get sued for it. One notwithstanding clause please!

Or at least make it require some very large proportion of votes to pass a bill with the clause in it.

Heres the cited reason by the conservatives on why he wants to do this, if you were curious:

https://www.conservative.ca/trudeaus-catch-and-release-policies-are-endangering-canadians/

Then heres the law itself, which cites racial injustice as to why it was needed:

https://www.canada.ca/en/department-justice/news/2021/12/mandatory-minimum-penalties-to-be-repealed.html

You can agree with that or not, as long as you realize theres a larger issue at play.

I'm also seeing lots of Liberal signs in Saskatchewan, a thing I never thought I would see.

Tough on crime doesn't work.

If someone shows you who they are: believe them.