Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I want to apologize to the committee and to the witnesses for my tardiness in being here, but as you know, Mr. Chair, I was caught on a privilege motion that kept me in the House until I could get here.
Professor Garant, I don't think there's anybody sitting at this committee table who has any doubt that the constitutional authority in this country lies with the government--with Parliament ultimately, I suppose--in terms of determining judicial salaries. I think the brief you gave us confirms all of that. But with due respect, it seems to miss the point that is set out in the CBA's brief, that there are three basic criteria that have generally been accepted in terms of analyzing the government response to the commission's report. You haven't addressed that other than in an indirect fashion.
There are three basic points. One, the government has to have rational reasons for departing from the commission's recommendations. Two, the government, again, to reject the commission's recommendations, must also have a reasonable factual basis. And three, the process has to show respect for the commission process.
I think what we heard from the commission yesterday, certainly on the latter point, was that they felt totally disrespected by the process we put them through and agreed with the CBA that the government had not given rational reasons or a reasonable factual basis for that.
So I would ask you, where do you see the government's position as being valid when you apply, in particular, the first two criteria?