Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you for the variety of witnesses here.
I'm going to start with Mr. Castrilli. One of the things you said really hit home for me. That was the fact that we want to deal with the definitions in this legislation, as opposed to having them interpreted in courts. It's something that I've said at this committee numerous times as well. You did give some examples of things that need to be further understood before we just throw them into the courts for discussion at that point in time.
You did go into some detail here on some of the proposed amendments you talked about. You talked about the constitutional effect of dividing the schedule into two classes, part one and part two. You referred to a 2007 environment committee report.
I'm a bit of a skeptic on that. I'd like you to enlighten me a little more, please. If I asked four constitutional lawyers something, I think I would get six different answers at this point in time. I'd really appreciate hearing what you have to say about how we're going to have a constitutional battle.
Who are those people who are going to challenge this constitutionally? What would be the basis of the challenge?