I believe that you are misinterpreting the Supreme Court's decision. I recognize that there might be [inaudible: editor's note], but what you say goes to the very heart of our difference of opinion. The Supreme Court did not tell us what to do; it told us that the act was not appropriate and that it was not consistent with the requirements of Clause 7. It sent the whole thing back to us in order for us to do the appropriate work. The Supreme Court is refusing to legislate. I have several times felt, through its decisions, that the Supreme Court is tired of seeing the legislator slough off all of the difficult issues by sending them its way. Very clearly, the Supreme Court did not tell us what to do; it gave us examples of attempts at solutions that were tried elsewhere. There is nothing... I understood the word mandated as meaning that this is what we must do. The Supreme Court did not tell us what to do in this case; it is important that we be aware of this. If this Bill is not amended, the Supreme Court will send it back to us stating that it is not consistent with the requirements of Clause 7.
On December 7th, 2007. See this statement in context.