Mr. Speaker, I want to also lend my support to the argument made by the hon. member for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot.
This is very similar to the argument that was made with regard to the recent Ontario Court of Appeal decision with regard to the constitutionality of the definition of marriage.
In its decision and because of its decision it also decided that the change would be effective immediately on a matter which has clearly been so divisive and sensitive in Canada. Three judges changed the laws and changed them immediately thereby pre-empting Parliament's right to continue the work of the justice committee and its report.
I believe that this judicial activism has been breeding for some time. I believe that the points raised by the hon. member who raised the question of privilege bears some consideration. It does touch on the fundamental supremacy of Parliament, the issue of judicial activism and the rights and privileges of parliamentarians to do the work that they were elected to do.