Thank you for being here this morning, Mr. Minister. I am not as grateful to you for the situation we find ourselves in concerning an institution as important as the Supreme Court of Canada.
When Professor Dodek testified here this week, he raised quite an interesting point. He wondered how you could do these two things at the same time. I am sure you will tell me it is a matter of your authority to do so.
Bill C-4 has been tabled in the House of Commons. In your capacity as Attorney General of Canada and Minister of Justice, all government bills receive your seal of approval indicating that they are in compliance with the legislation, the regulations and the Constitution. I doubt that you let Bill C-4 through without having consulted all the people in your department and done all the usual checks.
At the same time, you are submitting a reference to the Supreme Court in which you ask about the government's jurisdiction.
That's the question you're asking the Supreme Court of Canada:
Can Parliament enact legislation that requires that a person be or has previously been a barrister or advocate of at least 10 years standing at the bar of a province as a condition of appointment as a judge of the Supreme Court of Canada or enact the annexed declaratory provisions as set out in clauses 471 and 472 of the Bill entitled Economic Action Plan 2013 Act, No. 2?
Back to Professor Dodek, how can you claim with Bill C-4 when it's filed in the House that it is in order, but at the same time ask the Supreme Court whether you are in order? I have a bit of a problem seeing some logic between the two.