Thank you for that question. It's an interesting process question.
First of all, I'm surrounded by a great group of lawyers, both in the Department of Justice and on my political team. We're generally quite attuned to this.
In this kind of case, we were given a road map by the Supreme Court of Canada. The notwithstanding clause is possible. It is part of the Constitution. I believe it's meant to be used only as a last resort—that's what the framers wanted in 1982—and only when there aren't other options, because with the notwithstanding clause, you're infringing on people's rights. Here, they gave us two ways to do it without infringing on people's rights, and we took one of them.
This particular clause also had the advantage of having been studied since the Daviault case in 1993. There was a body of existing opinion out there that we knew of from people who had already felt that it was, in particular, unconstitutional, so we had a head start.
Once that happens, the usual processes within the justice department and the consultation process allowed us to come up with something using the Supreme Court road map fairly expeditiously.