I appreciate that explanation very much.
I think Carter was pretty clear that it anticipated Parliament actually acting on the decision, and anticipated that it would probably put in place a legislative framework, which we're here doing.
I note as well that we heard evidence, and I think it's pretty clear, that the only way to make sure this thing is charter-proof is to use the notwithstanding clause. Clearly the government's not going to be doing that.
Of course we want to anticipate future cases to make sure that this will be compliant with Carter and with the Charter of Rights. That's very important, and I believe the explanation is reasonable in that regard. We're not going to be able to make this charter-proof and I think the amendment therefore is not consistent with regard to meeting the aims described in order to respond to Carter.
For that reason, I would vote against the amendment.