Let me clarify my response in English.
We would not formulate a legal opinion in isolation of a given set of facts. As the world changes and new issues emerge, as we're required to engage in certain conversations, we would do so. Obviously, the Clarity Act exists. There is a role in that conversation for Parliament. The federal government would follow federal laws.
It's essential that we don't foment this conversation. I think it's uniquely unhelpful for someone in my position to be suggesting what would happen during a referendum that may not happen at all, in Quebec's instance, or to speculate on what legal analysis may result on facts that have not yet been determined, given the nature of questions and debates playing out elsewhere. From my perspective, we would form a legal analysis with the full benefit of facts that have not yet emerged in either case.