由此 - 22 - A B C 68. In the judgment of Lamer CJ and La Forest, Sopinka and McLachlin JJ at 1021 it was said: “Transitional Period D If, based on the reasons given above, s. 542(2) is simply declared to be of no force or effect pursuant to s. 52(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, it will mean that as of the date this judgment is released, judges will be compelled to release into the community all insanity acquittees, including those who may well be a danger to the public. Because of the serious consequences of finding s. 542(2) to be of no force and effect, there will be a period of temporary validity which will extend for a period of six months.” E F G H B C D E F G H 69. Wilson J agreed at page 1037. I J A I 70. In Schachter v Canada [1992] 2 SCR 679, where the Supreme J Court of Canada concluded that certain legislation conferring statutory K L benefits was unconstitutional because it was “under-inclusive”, Lamer CJ for the majority of the court said at page 716: “The logical remedy is to strike down but suspend the declaration of invalidity to allow the government to determine whether to cancel or extend the benefits.” M N 71. Q R S T L M N At page 715: O P K O “A court may strike down legislation or a legislative provision but suspend the effect of that declaration until Parliament or the provincial legislature has had an opportunity to fill the void. This approach is clearly appropriate where the striking down of a provision poses a potential danger to the public (R. v. Swain, supra) or otherwise threatens the rule of law (Reference Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] 1 S.C.R. 721). It may also be appropriate in cases of underinclusiveness as opposed to overbreadth. For example, in this case some of the interveners argued that in cases where a denial of equal benefit of the law is alleged, the legislation in question is not usually problematic in and of itself. It is its underinclusiveness that is P Q R S T U U V V