I would like to follow up with the memo from Torys. I do appreciate your having footnotes. Not everyone provides us footnotes or where they got their information.
It seems your argument is significantly buttressed by the works of Peter Hogg, who testified here today and completely disagrees with you. He said this bill is, in fact, constitutional and a valid use of the criminal law power.
Doesn't that render this opinion moot at this point, if you're basing it on one particular scholar who fundamentally disagrees with you?