I wonder if we could hand out the handout. I will stay within my time, Madam Chair. I can answer that question a lot better with it.
In the meantime I can start by getting right to what the concern would be. The concern is that in 20 years from now, if the government of the day were to direct judges to learn about the myth of residential schools, or something else that was just not properly spirited, you would want the judiciary to stand bravely, courageously, and say, “You can't tell us what we have to learn. If you tell us what we have to learn, you tell us what we have to think, arguably.” That's the concern.
We want to be able to tell that government that it can't do that. We would not want the answer to be, “Well, actually that was done in 2020. Judges were told with verbs like 'must' and 'shall' that they had to learn these things.”
Our main message is, first of all, as a result of Justice Kent's detailed description, trust us; we are on top of this. Secondly, we can still meet the spirit of this legislation by tempering the verbs so that we will ably comply with the legislation without some future government trying to drive controversial education initiatives down the throats of judges.
I think that's the main concern.
If you look at—