MAP Forum

Other Conservatives were also swift to condemn the majority’s decision.

Ontario Premier Doug Ford called on the government to invoke the notwithstanding clause.

"These people are predators. Disgusting scumbags who prey on children belong behind bars for the rest of their miserable lives," he said on social media.

[...]

Calling the majority decision "outrageous,” Alberta Premier Danielle Smith also called for the notwithstanding clause to be used.

“The possession of child pornography is a heinous crime, and even a one-year minimum sentence is already far too lenient,” she wrote.

OTTAWA — Federal Justice Minister Sean Fraser has ruled out using the notwithstanding clause to reverse a recent Supreme Court ruling throwing out mandatory minimum sentences for crimes involving child pornography.

“We don’t intend to override the Constitution to fix the problem. There (are) other solutions that are apparent to us, and we’re doing the policy exercise to find the right path right now to protect our kids,” Fraser told reporters in Ottawa on Tuesday.

These were Fraser’s first public comments on Friday’s contentious 5-4 Supreme Court of Canada decision nullifying the one-year mandatory prison sentence for the possession and access of child sexual abuse images.

Manitoba Premier Wab Kinew stirred up controversy Monday in denouncing a Supreme Court of Canada ruling on child pornography and calling for offenders to be buried underneath prisons.

"Child sexual abuse images and video, this is like one of the worst things that anyone can do," Kinew told reporters.

"Not only should [you] go to prison for a long time, they should bury you under the prison. You shouldn't get protective custody. They should put you into general population, if you know what I mean."

It’s a reflection of the sorry state of Canadian justice: last Friday, the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that the one-year mandatory minimum sentences for the offences of possessing and accessing child pornography are unconstitutional. The case, Quebec (Attorney General) v. Senneville, involved two offenders who admitted to possessing 475 and 805 files, respectively, depicting children being sexually abused in horrific ways. Despite this, the court held, 5–4, that the mandatory minimums constituted “cruel and unusual punishment” contrary to Section 12 of the Charter.