The political reality of different policies and political ideologies coming forward is not offended by the position we're advancing, because we say that the social covenant goes beyond a mere political statement. The social covenant was not a statement of a political party—although there were some political reasons for it. One of the political reasons was that the prospect of trying to fill the trenches by conscription would have irreparably divided the country at the time. It was a highly divisive issue between Quebec and other parts of Canada. So the government of the day, speaking not as a government but on behalf of the country, said they would make this covenant, this promise, to you.
So in this context, we argue—and if necessary, we'll argue to the courts—the fact that it has been repeated historically since 1914 as a continuing social covenant we say makes it different from an ordinary political promise. I know we wouldn't want to constitutionalize every politician's promise.