I have read a number of rulings where appear courts and Superior Court justices have attempted to define the criterion of simple rationality, what is reasonable.
But where a compensation policy is concerned, it's more complex. There is a need to consider a number of political and economic issues. It's essentially political. Indeed, the Supreme Court clearly stated that the compensation policy was a political matter; we may try in vain to depoliticize it by having an independent commission process, but the fact remains that it is fundamentally a political choice. In a democratic system, this choice ultimately rests with Parliament.
Now, can Parliament make mistakes in expressing a different opinion? It's quite possible. But ultimately, there is the electorate. Now, you will say that what we're talking about around this table will certainly not be an election issue, but the fact is that this is where our democratic process comes into play.
Finally, as a democrat, I am inclined to say that this decision is one for parliamentarians to make. If they believe that the rationale provided is not adequate, they should do what the Canadian Bar Association has done. The next time, give us more information, or more to go on with respect to your rationale. If the judges ended up being dissatisfied with this legislation and decided to go to the Federal Court, and then on to the Supreme Court, on an issue like this, I have a hard time believing that the actions of this government would be deemed to be unconstitutional, in the sense that its answer was not consistent with the rationality test demanded by the Supreme Court. That, at least, is how I see it.