Mr. Chair, perhaps I can respond to that for the Department of Justice.
The member's characterization made by an earlier witness that there would be a constitutional breach is precisely why the section does not do what it is alleged to do. If in fact it did create or give rise to a constitutional breach, that is precisely what the Minister of Justice, in his duties in looking at the charter compliance of legislation, would have caught. As the minister indicated when he appeared before this committee, this bill, like every other bill, goes through an intense level of scrutiny to make sure that in fact it is charter-compliant. In this case, that was done.
The suggestion that the bill is designed to actually have a judge violate the charter or be co-opted into violating the charter is not what the bill does. What the bill does is precisely the opposite. It puts the judge in the position of deciding whether or not the charter would be violated by the proposed measure. If it would be violated, that is the end of the matter. No one, including the judge, can authorize the measure.
That's just to correct the record.