Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question.
First, the decision was issued on January 13. As I understand, within the week the British Columbia attorney general appealed the decision. Within the following week, one week before parliament was recalled, the Attorney General of Canada joined the appeal in an intervener status to uphold the constitutionality of the case. I cannot think of any response that could be quicker. As to the issue of whether we should use, if you will, the nuclear bomb of the Constitution in order to blow up this possession, I think that is a gross overreaction. It is a conclusion that is not warranted under the circumstances. In my view it has no precedent value.
This is a decision of the trial court of British Columbia. It is a lower court decision. If it is upheld, their argument becomes much stronger. But in my view this has no precedent value. It has no precedent value in other provincial court jurisdictions. It has no precedent value on his fellow judges. It is simply a stand-alone decision. In my respectful submission it was a timely response on the part of the Attorney General of Canada and on the part of the Attorney General of British Columbia.
To invoke the notwithstanding clause of the Constitution in order to quash this offence is a disproportionate response to the offence that we all want to see corrected.