Mr. Speaker, I appreciated the very succinct and thorough talk by my colleague on this motion.
I was interested to hear him briefly refer to a document the justice minister had written that clearly articulated her position. I was looking at a quote from Hansard that seemed to conflict with what the justice minister had said according to the previous speaker.
If I understood the previous speaker, he was saying the justice minister supports the current definition of spouse and marriage and was willing to defend that in court. But when I looked through Hansard there was a clear question asked on this case to the justice minister and the answer we got back was along the lines of the judiciary has the job to interpret and apply the law. The two seem very contradictory to me. One is status quo and one lets the courts do as they will.
I was wondering if my colleague would be willing to address that issue and if he could offer some explanation as to why that might be going on and maybe how a Reform government would approach this issue.