Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a very simple question of the justice minister. The only people saying that traditional marriage is unconstitutional are in fact the Liberals due to the Prime Minister's radical obsession with it.
In 1996, in a majority decision, Justices Iacobucci and McLaughlin stated that, in the absence of statute law, if Parliament enacts a statute law that differs from the court's view, it does not follow that would be unconstitutional. We have a lot of case law and common law in this country that when there is an absence of statute law, Parliament can fill that void by passing a statute and that it would not necessarily be unconstitutional if it differs from what the court may envisage in that absence.
Parliament could just as easily pass a statute law respecting the traditional definition of marriage and put forward that compromised position of civil unions without it being unconstitutional. We have lots of case law that proves that.