I want to resist the temptation to reiterate a couple of the things that were said in the written brief that was filed.
In its decisions and opinions on this particular subject, the Supreme Court said the government must not simply reiterate the submission that it has given to a commission when issuing the reasons for deviating from the commission report itself.
To that extent, it would certainly be an observation a third party may have that underscores the difficulty we have in trying to pull out the three paragraphs in the response that explain the reasons or purport to explain the reasons that the government deviated on the basis of an economic and financial position and could not implement the commission recommendations. We view it as a collateral point that supports the conclusion as opposed to the reason itself.
I want to very briefly comment on the other issue that has been bandied about a little bit, which is the use of comparators.
From a Canadian bar perspective, I want to emphasize that the fact of the matter is that judges must be lawyers. The fact of the matter is that the issues that courts are called upon to decide are more and more important, and sometimes this is the subject of negative comment.
We think it's a mug's game. We'd urge this committee not to get into a particular comparator at this stage. The issue at this point is one of process and whether the response has been true to the process itself.
I hope that helps you, Mr. Comartin.