It is very wise then, very subtle. But is it constitutional? I don't think so. Why would someone be allowed to do indirectly what that person cannot do directly?
In our case, even if it is very subtle, it is important enough for getting a reaction, for bringing us to reacting to the situation and saying that it goes too far. This is something that in our view needs a formal constitutional amendment. That's the point.
At the same time, I know what the aspirations of many people are. I know that. In our society, the Constitution is above everything, and that Constitution should be respected. There are things that we can do together, without the need for a constitutional amendment. We are ready to do so. We are ready to participate in a Canadian project. But when we feel that the Constitution applies, we need to show respect to that Constitution.
If we accept that piecemeal approach, that one-bite-at-a-time approach, what will be next? Will it be the distribution of powers between the federal government and the provinces? Would it be the Supreme Court of Canada? What would be next? At some point there are different things that we cannot accept, because the consequence in the long term would be too damaging to the Canadian federation.