Poilievre is ‘laying bare’ what he thinks of the Constitution: justice minister

What do you think when you heard those comments from Mr. Claudia talking about really hinting that he would use the notwithstanding clause to bring in changes in criminal law? Well, sadly, I wasn’t that surprised, except for the fact that he’s really laying it bare for all Canadians to understand. When he sort of makes comments like that of the Canadian Police Association, what he’s saying is that in terms of using every tool in the in the in his toolbox to ensure his view of criminal law, his view of his political ideology is enforced, what he’s talking about is invoking notwithstanding class. He’s making that crystal clear to Canadians. Should be able to understand that from what it is. What’s really a fundamental to appreciate is that the Charter protects various rates of various peoples. Sometimes it predicts group rights, sometimes it prevents individual rights, sometimes it predicts vulnerable communities. Sometimes it protects people who are interacting with the criminal justice system. He’s laid bare his intention to address his view of criminal law by trampling on Charter rates. In the context yesterday he was talking about things like presumptions of innocence, things like rights to bail. But I also think Canadians should be analyzing this for what it is and asking what other rights would he purport to override. Are we not next talking about women’s reproductive rights? Are we talking about the rights of the two S LGBTQ2 community? Like what else is there on the agenda? Because it’s becoming quite clear that for person who’s aspiring to the highest office in this land, what he’s very willing to do is follow slavishly ideology as opposed to showing the leadership. And leadership means defending our democracy and defending our constitution. What he said yesterday as well was that as Prime Minister he would be democratically responsible to the people and it would be the people who decided. Whether they believe his laws are constitutional, what do you think about that? I think that’s that is a that’s a bit of a. We are all accountable to the people that elect us. But what’s really, really important is that I as Justice Minister and the individual MP, certainly the cabinet and the Prime Minister, are accountable to all Canadians, not just the people that elect us right. So that’s fundamental right. I get elected with 4045% of the of the of the electrode and Park Delight park. I answer the call for all, 100% of my constituents. That’s what. That’s what Pierre Polyvan needs to do, should he ever aspire to that and achieve that lofty position. And what fundamentally the Charter is about is ensuring the protective of protection of minorities and minority rights. So this is not just about whether the people who elected me want to see this, it’s whether all Canadians want to see this. And I think Canadians take comfort from the fact that as the party of the Charter, that Charter has been maintained by the federal government and there’s never been a use of an outstanding clause to abrogate Charter rights under any government’s watch, including Conservative governments. We’ve had two for extended periods of time. No one’s dare to even move the idea of going as far as he wants to go, but he’s laying bare what he thinks of that document and what he thinks of the Constitution.