I'm not going to make any comment about constitutionality. I think that's beyond my remit. However, the court, in our reading, from a policy point of view, was pretty clear. The Government of Canada, through the Parliament of Canada, needs to express its intent and be clear in legislation over how it intends these rules to apply, particularly around the circumstances where there may not be direct conflicts with the provincial law, but they're close, or there may be gaps. We believe that is entirely constitutional.
The provisions that are here under what we call the three Ps—the preamble, purpose clause, and paramountcy—effectively reinforce long-standing interpretation. They just clarify Parliament's intent, subject to Parliament's voting, and that appears to be entirely consistent with asking an entity to follow one set of rules.