Thank you for that.
I don't think it completely answers my question or my concerns, and these are concerns that every member of this committee should have.
I wholeheartedly feel that without direction within the statute itself, within the bill itself, to look at factors to consider when you're going to deviate and without specific language that does not look at or consider reasonable hypotheticals, in my view, we're going to be increasing the level of litigation, because I can't foresee any defence counsel worthy of his or her practice not taking a further constitutional challenge of all those offences that have been resurrected by Bill C-16 that had been previously ruled to be contrary to section 12. Why wouldn't a competent defence lawyer bring yet another constitutional challenge?
All I've been hearing all day long today and part of last Wednesday is that this is to avoid the whole use of increased litigation. It's all the more reason for my Liberal colleagues to look at the utility and the significance of Mr. Baber's amendment, so we can take a look at closing a loophole that currently exists in Bill C-16 that has the potential of opening up litigation floodgates. That's all I'm asking for consideration of from my colleagues opposite.