Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
To pick up on where Blake ended and build on what David was saying, I think you have to look at the language included in these articles. I think there are very significant differences here. As David Graham mentioned, the article that he cited had the very key words “expected” and “may have” in terms of the point that he was making, but just quoting this Globe and Mail article from April 12 it's basically saying the bill “will exclude those who only experience mental suffering”, “The bill also won’t allow for advance consent”, and “there will be no exceptions for ‘mature minors’”.
Those are very definitive statements.
It may be a different writing style. I doubt it. David's a former journalist and I'm a former journalist and news director, though not to the esteem of my friend here. We have experience in this field. It's showing the writing style is very clear.
When you're writing like this it's basically saying we have information saying this. It is very much a matter of fact and not a guess, not it's expected, it may have, it may consider this.
I think there's something here. I think the committee needs to really study this. I don't think we should just brush this off. There are very clear points that the privilege was violated here. I hope the committee continues to look at that.
Mr. Bosc, do you see any issues of the committee asking the government to respond to what Mr. Christopherson was starting with? Do you see any problem with that? I just want to confirm before we move in this direction.