Mr. Speaker, when my colleague said that he had thought during my remarks I said to myself “This is an improvement over the past”.
When I listened to his remarks I could see that it was not particularly elevated thought. I did not say that the notwithstanding clause absolutely had to be used. I said consideration had to be given to using the notwithstanding clause, which is part of the charter.
Could the member listen to what I have to say? I listened to his insipid remarks. He should give me time to talk, perhaps it will help him think better. Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to you. It is true, it is more interesting than what this firebrand has to say.
We hear this member say “You will be depriving ordinary citizens of their rights”. The Hell's Angels and the Rock Machines are not ordinary citizens. For a former policeman to not know this, I have to say he must have been just as effective as he has been as a member of parliament, and that is not saying much. That sort of remark is unacceptable.
If anyone has been fastidious about respecting individual and collective human rights in the past, we have. We do not intend to use it for pleasure. We say “Should we use that, an existing clause”. We say that because it exists.
If this is the Liberals thinking it is like that of their leader, who does not know that the criminal code is under federal jurisdiction. However, the member will never repeat these things as the Prime Minister does, because it is clear from listening to him that he will never be a minister.