Poilievre hints at using notwithstanding clause to pass laws

What are your comments yesterday? Tell us about your view of the courts. Could you clarify on the Nova scanning plaster? Pure Polyv is getting a lot of attention for plans to alter the rules of justice, including changing how violent criminals are punished. Multiple murderers will stay in maximum security and by the way, they will have consecutive, not concurrent sentences. Multiple murders will only ever come out of jail in a box. Monday, he suggested to a police conference he was ready to make many changes. And if those changes violate the Constitution, we will make them constitutional using whatever tools the Constitution allows me to use to make them constitutional. That tool is the notwithstanding clause, the override switch for all the other charter rights invoked by some provinces over the years. No federal government has ever used it. It hasn’t been used in 40 years. And to think that it would be used in this particular case, to impose what a court has already deemed to be cruel and unusual punishment towards prisoners. Is really just, I mean, surprising, shocking. Pierre Polyev just proposed to override the fundamental freedoms and protections of Canadians. That’s not right and it’s not responsible. Pollyv argues democracy will act as a check democratically accountable to the people, and they can then make the judgments themselves on whether they think my laws are constitutional. He wouldn’t say how often he wants to lean on that override switch. How often are you willing to use the notwithstanding clause to change instead of answering? Polyev points to the Quebec City mosque shooter who killed 6 people. The Supreme Court ruled he couldn’t face more than one life sentence. Palliev would change that rule. It will be consecutive sentences, so it’ll be six life sentences. And we’re going to, we’re going to make sure that it is jail, not bail. It’s going to be hard time for a hard crime. The courts that decided that, Sir. So what does that say about your view of the courts? It says that my view is that I will decide in my platform. Thank you. OK, Catherine, a lot going on in Ottawa today. Can you help us make sense of where things stand now, starting with what we saw in question period? Both the Liberals and the Conservatives believe that they can use this to their advantage. You saw Kate with a reference to fundraising there. The Conservatives though at odds with the Speaker and he is basically the referee so we can expect more bumps in the road. Remember that all of this started with a question about decriminalization. Thousands of Canadians are dying of overdoses and yet political leaders are name calling in terms of polyps justice policy. He tried to bat away reporters questions today, but this is a policy he’s likely to lean in on. He believes more Canadians are worried about crime than are worried about the notwithstanding clause. There are serious questions about how fundamentally he is prepared to change the norms of justice in this country. Adrian All right, Catherine Cullen, host of CBC Radio’s The House in Ottawa.