Thank you.
Professor Cyr, I want to ask you this question in English, because I want to read the testimony of Professor Dodek and invite you to respond to it.
Last Tuesday, he said this:
It's also highly unusual for a government to, in effect, be challenging its own legislation. I believe this raises the question as to how the Attorney General of Canada, as the legal adviser to the Governor in Council, can both vouch for the legality of clauses 471 and 472 at the same time as he is questioning them in his advice to the Governor in Council directing the reference on the very same subject. The two simply cannot co-exist. Either the government believes that it is within its power to enact clauses 471 and 472, or it is uncertain and requires the advice of the Supreme Court. I believe that this odd state of affairs puts the members of this House in an untenable position. They are being asked to vote in favour of two provisions with the assurance by the government that such provisions are legal, indeed constitutional, while at the same time the government is questioning that very advice by directing a reference to the Supreme Court.
I presume you heard what the minister had to say. What is your reaction, sir?