It seems to me that one of the things he pointed out, and it's been pointed out since by a couple of other witnesses, is that by requiring that secession take place—although I realize this is what the court said—through an ordinary constitutional amendment, this is construed by some to say, look, yes, it's in favour of secession in principle, and it's a process for achieving secession, but by having the constitutional amending process at the end of this process, knowing what we know about Canada, it's like saying it'll never happen.
Ce dernier, me semble-t-il, a signalé, comme certains autres témoins l'ont fait par la suite, que le fait d'exiger que la sécession s'effectue par le truchement d'un amendement constitutionnel ordinaire—et je me rends bien compte que la Cour en a dit autant—revient, selon certains, à favoriser en principe un processus aboutissant à la sécession tout en sachant que, en pratique, le processus de modification constitutionnelle ne permet pas un tel aboutissement dans le Canada tel que nous le connaissons.