Mr. Speaker, I do not know if my colleague, the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, has ever had an intervention in the House that has not been substantive and well thought out, and tonight is no exception.
He began his speech the same way he ended it, talking about the honesty of the motion and what would be needed by Parliament in terms of an assertion in order to roll back same sex marriage. There is plenty to debate in there.
I do not think I agree with him on how our country is legally structured. In terms of a constitutional democracy versus a parliamentary democracy, one does not necessarily override the other, but that debate was had twenty-four and a half years ago.
I believe my colleague will understand that this is a constitutional democracy. As a consequence of that, because of these legal decisions, he said if the Prime Minister were honest, the motion would say explicitly that the notwithstanding clause would have to be invoked in order to undo same sex marriage.
My question is straightforward for my colleague. Does he believe in using the notwithstanding clause with regard to the issue of same sex marriage?