Mr. Speaker, the member opposite raised the column by Jeffrey Simpson which appeared in the Globe and Mail . I quote from a couple of paragraphs:
That court ruled in 1954 in Brown v Board of Education of Topeka that the so-called “separate but equal” doctrine used to justify segregation was unconstitutional because “separate educational facilities are inherently unequal”.
It is an interesting concept when applied to the fisheries here. Mr. Simpson went on to write:
Usually forgotten is that there were two Brown cases. The next year, after hearing evidence about how the 1954 ruling should be applied, the court gave school and political authorities breathing room to implement the first decision. The judges said authorities should act with “all deliberate speed” and required them to “make a prompt and reasonable start”.
They did not, in either the first or second Brown rulings, require that the next day the existing order of things be overturned. The court was obviously alive both to the important principles it enunciated and to the need for a period of adjustment.
Would that the Supreme Court of Canada had been so alive in the Marshall case.
Given these comments, would the member opposite not think it wise and prudent to go back to the court for a stay of judgment and a rehearing of the case to give some advise to the government?