Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre speaks during a news conference in Vancouver, on Feb. 5.ETHAN CAIRNS/The Canadian Press
Conservative Leader Pierre Poilievre says a government led by him would jail major fentanyl dealers for life and the legislation would be backed with an unusual Charter of Rights and Freedoms legal argument.
Mr. Poilievre announced Wednesday his proposal to deter the domestic manufacture of fentanyl with a mandatory minimum sentence of life in prison – 25 years without the chance of parole. Such a punishment is reserved for only a few crimes, including high treason and first-degree murder.
The deadly drug fentanyl is at the centre of a historic trade battle between Canada and the United States. President Donald Trump has threatened to impose 25-per-cent tariffs on Canadian imports unless Canada cracks down on fentanyl at the border, among other measures.
Fentanyl trafficking, under existing law, can already be punished with life in prison, and sentences are often more than 10 years.
The Conservative law would impose the mandatory sentence of 25 years without parole on people who make and sell 40 milligrams of the potent opioid fentanyl. It is an amount Mr. Poilievre said could kill 20 people, describing it as mass murder.
“This penalty that I propose is proportionate to the crime,” he told reporters in response to a question about the Charter. “If you kill dozens of people, you should go away for life.”
He suggested his proposed law would invoke Section 7 of the Charter, which protects the right to life, liberty and security of the person. He said judges would “be obliged” to respect Section 7 given the many Canadians who are harmed or killed by fentanyl.
“What I am proposing is necessary to uphold the Charter,” Mr. Poilievre said. “Here’s how I interpret the Charter: that law-abiding people have the right to expect their children will not die in back alleys.”
Mr. Poilievre’s plan to impose a mandatory minimum sentence puts him in disputed legal territory – but his legislative approach appears different from what Stephen Harper employed when he was Conservative prime minister from 2006 to 2015.
Mr. Harper tripled the number of crimes subject to a minimum sentence, to 72. The laws were strict, with no judicial discretion. This made them vulnerable to Charter challenges.
The Supreme Court of Canada does not oppose stiff sentences for serious crimes but struck down several of Mr. Harper’s minimums for being overly broad. That included for possession of a loaded prohibited firearm in 2015. The top court’s rationale was rooted in a violation of Section 12 of the Charter, the right not to be subjected to cruel and unusual punishment.
The top court, however, has also upheld mandatory minimums, such as in 2023 for armed robbery.
Mr. Poilievre has said he would be the first prime minister, if elected, to use Section 33 of the Charter, the notwithstanding clause. He would focus on criminal sentencing issues. Section 33 can override the section on cruel and unusual punishment.
On Wednesday, when asked whether he would use the notwithstanding clause to defend his proposed law against fentanyl dealers, Mr. Poilievre didn’t address its possible use.
Legal experts on Wednesday had a range of views on Mr. Poilievre’s strategy. The proposed law, if enacted and challenged in court, would require the federal Justice Department to come up with a new approach to Section 7, compared to previous governments.
Geoffrey Sigalet, director of the University of British Columbia Research Group for Constitutional Law, said Mr. Poilievre “may be willing to dare to the courts to invalidate the law” with his invocation of Section 7 and security of the person.
“It will depend on how the law is crafted,” Prof. Sigalet said.
Cheryl Webster, a criminology professor at the University of Ottawa who focuses on sentencing and deterrence, said overly tough punishments are not effective.
“There is virtually no credible or consistent empirical evidence supporting the belief that harsher criminal sanctions deter crime,” Prof. Webster said.
Gerard Kennedy, an assistant professor of law at the University of Alberta, said lawyers for an alleged fentanyl dealer would have “more than a plausible case,” based on court rulings in recent years, to argue that life in prison is a cruel and unusual punishment, a violation of the Charter’s Section 12.
He said the Conservatives’ proposal focuses on the severity of dealing fentanyl, which is a factor when courts consider Section 12.
With reports from Mike Hager and The Canadian Press