Yes. As I recall, and I don't have those briefing notes in front of me, he somewhat limited that statement in a subsequent discussion. I could be wrong on that, but quite frankly, I'm not going to get into an argument on that point. You can examine what we in fact have put into our comments. I think you will see that we have not repudiated the vast majority. We've raised certain issues.
We don't deny, for example, that the issue of cabinet confidences should be redone. We're simply suggesting, is there a better way? Is the injury-based test appropriate for solicitor-client privilege? Is it appropriate for cabinet confidences? We're not suggesting that there doesn't need to be reform. The question is, how do we do it most effectively?
I think the comments I've made here today give you a pretty good indication of what my concerns are. I think we're prepared to move on this bill, but I don't want to move ahead blindly. Political statements that are made have to be analyzed, and I have to give proper advice to any government that comes into power. I simply cannot say that if it was a political statement made, we now have to do it regardless of what the implications are.
We know, for example, in the context of constitutional law, that a bill cannot come forward in some respects unless there is an undertaking or a comment by the Attorney General in respect of constitutionality, or at least some analysis of that. So political statements, when implemented, have to be implemented into the appropriate constitutional context in order to make it law.