Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the minister accused us of distorting his words. He is the one who referred to the Russian invasion of Ukraine when justifying his opposition to the notwithstanding clause, not me. He is the one who sent a factum to the Supreme Court in which he used slavery and summary executions as arguments, not me. He is the one who claims that the notwithstanding clause could be used to ban places of worship, abolish trade unions and shut down newspapers.
Frankly, who is distorting reality? Is it the minister or those who defend the notwithstanding clause?