One of the other arguments that was laid out for us...well, we had two variations on the same argument. One came from the former Treasury Board minister, our new environment minister, Mr. Baird. He said we should not be paying money so that people can challenge government decisions. That was the very basis of his argument.
The argument we heard from, for example, our friends at REAL Women is that it's Parliament, not the courts, that decides the rights of people in this country. They laid out, as an example, their firm, undying opposition to same-sex marriage rights. I would think they would actually probably feel very comforted now that Parliament has twice voted to recognize those rights. Perhaps their concerns might be alleviated, in that Parliament has agreed on those rights.
On the question of whether the courts need to intervene to protect rights that Parliament is either unwilling to recognize or unwilling to put into law and practice, can you comment on how you see the role of the courts in having to defend minority rights in the vacuum of leadership at either parliamentary federal or provincial levels?