Madam Speaker, I understand the member's point. I agree with him that in the best interest of all Canadians this matter has to be dealt with in as expeditiously a manner as possible.
The member has given advice to the House with regard to what kind of timeline a reference to the supreme court would take. It is very clear that the supreme court has already dealt with the issue and it is very clear that the supreme court has upheld the same arguments already, so it would be an automatic process.
I ask rhetorically whether participating as an intervener and defending the laws of Canada before the B.C. appeal court would not have a shorter timeline than a reference to the supreme court. I do not know the answer to that question. I believe, though, that the justice minister is considering all those options.
I agree with the member that to invoke the notwithstanding clause is tantamount to admitting that the current laws of Canada are not constitutional and that we are basically desirous of overruling the charter. I believe that position is extreme. It is certainly premature. I believe it is one of the reasons we have to defeat the motion but continue to take the tightest line in getting our laws reinstated in a manner which is acceptable to all.