Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleague for his contribution to this evening's discussion and reflect on a couple of things.
What I personally found most troubling, as somebody who sat on the Emergencies Act parliamentary committee after the declaration, is that we know about extreme far-right movements. We know about what happened at the Coutts, Alberta border crossing, and we know about the group that was found there and about the weapons cache. That group was Diagolon; weapons and ammunition were found there, and that resulted in charges being laid of conspiracy to commit murder against the RCMP.
That is the exact same group that the Leader of the Opposition was engaging with intentionally just a few weeks ago on the east coast of this country, and I think it really begs a lot of questions about whether someone stands for and with law enforcement or whether they stand with the people who have been charged with potentially doing harm to law enforcement.
The second point is that I have also heard assertions that we are misinterpreting what the member for Carleton said about the notwithstanding clause and in fact, if he used it, that it would only be in a restricted manner.
First of all, I do not necessarily believe that, given the voting and track record of the Leader of the Opposition in terms of restrictions on women's rights, including women's rights to choose and recent voting patterns about women's access to free contraception. Second, I would say that the proof in writing is already on the wall, as in other instances where Conservative or right-leaning leaders of provincial governments around this country have either invoked or threatened to invoke the notwithstanding clause in areas that do not relate to criminal justice law.
I think about the usage by Scott Moe with respect to the LGBTQ community or about the threatened usage by Danielle Smith against trans kids. I did not hear a peep from the Leader of the Opposition about the inappropriateness of such an invocation of the notwithstanding clause, which really leads me to question, and I hope Canadians watching right now at this late hour are questioning, how much further it would go if it was invoked for the first time ever by a federal leader, should the member for Carleton assume the mantle of leadership in this country, and how many other rights would be subjugated.
These are really pressing concerns, and they should not be partisan, because they are about fundamental things like our basic rights and freedoms in this country. The member for Vancouver Granville put it quite clearly when he talked about how we do not get to do a grocery-style selection of which rights we are going to defend and which freedoms we are not going to defend. It is an entire package. It is called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and it is important to stand up for all of the rights therein, even at times when it might not be popular, because ultimately those rights protect vulnerable people and vulnerable minorities from a potential tyranny of the majority. That is not the kind of Canada I want to live in. That is not the kind of Canada most Canadians want to live in.
What Canadians identify with, independent of their political stripe and independent of their voting patterns, are certain hallmarks about what defines us as Canadians, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms is one of those key defining documents. That is why I stand behind it. That is why I always will stand behind it. My colleagues stand with me in that regard. I wish the official opposition would as well.
