Mr. Speaker, it is a very interesting question and a very interesting topic. I certainly think, and this is where the member and I will agree, that the courts of this land can deal with cases such as this. The case she makes is compelling for a royal commission, a royal inquiry for sure. That is a governmental decision. That is not what I am here to argue about.
I am here to argue that she and I, the member for Trinity—Spadina and myself, can at least agree that the charter is a good thing, that it should be used properly, that it should continue to flourish and that judges have the discretion to properly implement it. That is what she and I can agree on.
What she and I probably do not agree on is perhaps whether today it had to be us bringing this motion to bring the government to heel when comments like this were made by the government. This is from the Prime Minister:
I agree that serious flaws exist in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and that there is no meaningful review or accountability mechanisms for supreme court justices.
That is not a vote of confidence in the charter. Why is it that we are standing here finally bringing the government to account on its inability to stand up and say, “We believe in the charter. We believe in our judges”?