Mr. Chair, if I could address the member's question, yes, I agree with your characterization. I don't believe it meets the constitutional muster, as it's currently drafted. In fact, it basically does the same thing.
People will rely on the preamble, or they'll say things. But when you actually have to weigh in a court.... It could happen at numerous levels, but if it makes its way back up to the Supreme Court, the court will have to apply the constitutional and fundamental principles of justice, which require them to weigh and balance the risk and harm and the objectives. The objectives are so broadly stated that, in my opinion, the challenge will likely be successful on those grounds.
Minister MacKay had mentioned on Monday that people are going to challenge it just because they want to challenge it. We don't enter into litigation lightly. We go in based on human rights and constitutionality. Quite frankly, diminishing those rights and weighing life, liberty, and harm, death of individuals, with something written in law that's not constitutional is an easy decision to make. We spent months at it in Bedford.
I think it's safe to say that a number of allies will probably do it again if it's passed through this way, and on the same basis that we challenged it in the first place. Legislation should meet the constitutional muster. It should be something that you know is going to succeed. In this case, it is my opinion it's highly challengeable and it would be likely successful that it might be seen as a constitutional breach.