Bail reform: Attorney general slams Pierre Poilievre for hinting he would use notwithstanding clause

Pure Polyev demonstrated very clearly to the Canadian public what his true intentions are with respect to the notwithstanding clause and how easily he would use it. And I think in that respect, I didn’t say this in French, but I think it’s very it’s very important on something as fundamental as Canadians constitutional rights to show the leadership. In fact that is exactly what he is not showing. He’s showing that he is effectively quite willing to follow the lead of many premiers in this country who decided to use or threaten use the knowledge. And what I also said in French is that I think if you want to clear cut case of how this would impact people’s lives, you look no further than the case of Mr. Zamir in Toronto. A man who was accused of having killed a police officer and when he was granted bail, people with elected office, including the Premier and two mayors in the Greater Toronto Area, all declared that that was a tragedy and an injustice. Declaring how could such an individual be possibly granted bail bill is constitutionally protected under section 11. Would encourage Mr. Polly to take a look at that document. Do not withstand the clause exists in our Constitution. It’s been there since 1982. That’s a matter of law and that’s clear on the facts. The notwithstanding clause has never been used by a federal government and in my respectful perspective, that’s actually a good thing. What we believe strongly, what we’ve said repeatedly, I’ve said it, my predecessor said it, the Prime Minister said it, Other ministers have said it is that the clausewithstanding clause should be our last option, not the first option. We should have a dialogue between the courts and governments before it is ever invoked. Also, we believe very strongly that the charter, that the charter rights, including the protections of people who are vulnerable, need to be maintained. What you have in in context of people who are accused, including people who are accused of very significant crimes like murder, is that their Charter rights hang in the balance. It is not popular sometimes to defend people’s charter rates, including those who are accused of criminality, but it is absolutely critical in a democracy.