Mr. Speaker, I thank the member for his intervention and also explaining to the House a little bit about the issue of a civil union.
This motion that now is before the House seems to be a little different than the apparent promise during the election campaign, which was simply to open the debate. I do not know who decided that was going to be the promise and what in fact it entailed. Even today in the speech of the House leader of the government, he relayed to the House and to the public that the motion before us was simply to open the debate. That is clearly not the case.
The issue really has to do with whether or not this motion is calling on Parliament to ask the government to introduce legislation in a legislative process that in fact is unconstitutional.
The question I have for the member is whether he could affirm to the House his understanding of the Supreme Court decision on the reference to the Supreme Court. My understanding is that the Ontario Court of Appeal said that denying same sex marriage was against the charter, that it was a violation of the equality provisions of the charter. That decision was followed by a number of provincial decisions. The Supreme Court itself ruled that it would not overturn those decisions, i.e. it effectively made it a violation of the charter and in fact unconstitutional.
It appears that no legislation could be introduced and not be unconstitutional. I wonder if that is the member's position.