Mr. Minister, this is no mundane matter we are talking about. This is the Supreme Court of Canada. Would it not have been more prudent to proceed differently?
Last August, after the first stage of the work of the committee reviewing the government's list, you said yourself that there could be a problem of interpretation. I really want to believe that there are solid legal opinions. You are a lawyer, I am a lawyer and we both know full well that, for three legal opinions that say one thing, another three may say something else. It is not easy to decide how to interpret this. In your interpretation, any lawyer who has been a member of the Quebec Bar for at least 10 years would be eligible. So I wonder why the legislation has the added mention of the Federal Court of Appeal and the Superior Court. The texts become quite useless.
That said, you yourself said that there was a potential problem of interpretation and the sections might perhaps have to be amended. I even accept that you have the right to do so, and, together with all the other experts, we will see whether it will be a constitutional change. If the government had the right to bring in an amendment, why did it not go that route instead of creating this absolutely awful mess that has engulfed everyone, especially the Supreme Court and the hon. Justice Nadon?