Professor Hogg, I'm very grateful to you for coming today.
I think it was really valuable that you drew our attention to the practical problem, the pragmatic problem, of a situation in which some province does not have jurisdiction in place and the federal government has to essentially fill the void. You talked about equivalence and gave two federal examples of how that's been done in other circumstances.
I'm just wondering how far Parliament could go, under the Constitution, in creating the kind of comprehensive regime that deals with protections for the vulnerable and the like without going into provincial jurisdiction in doing so. I recognize your point that this is a constitutional right that has to be available coast to coast to coast, but I'm thinking of practical things like liability for health care professionals, life insurance, and some of those things.
Would the federal government, as an amendment to the criminal law, be able to go as far as required to provide that comprehensive regime?