I guess you could ask yourself whether the Europeans have done it. Maybe Céline wants to say something about how well they have navigated the necessity of integrating these considerations.
I think the European system already lends itself to this necessity of dialogue. This trialogue is the three entities that represent the three basic political powers in the European Union—and I'm mangling this—and they have to get together and agree.
I think that we might have to imagine something like that. I know no one likes that idea, but I think a conversation has to occur among the provinces and the federal government. It also probably has to involve local communities. It's all hands on deck.
I take the point that we can't regulate everything with one general framework, but we do need a general framework to set things up.
There are some out-of-bounds things. Let's say, "Kids—out of bounds." Just period, right? We can do blanket prohibitions. We do it, right? It can be done, but you have to target those things, and then for other things we need to make sure that the patchwork fits together.
I'll share one concern I have and then I'll stop. My concern is that if we are not co-operative in the federation, what is going to happen? There will be a set of litigation, founded on the division of powers, like we had 25 years ago in environmental law where large economic interests who have the money to do it will say, “this isn't federal jurisdiction”, and then provinces will want to say, “this isn't provincial jurisdiction", and it will take years to sort out.
If there's agreement, you can make sure there are no holes and that Canadians are protected.