Well, exactly. Thank you.
I believe all honourable members have the document. Thank you, Mr. Maloney, for highlighting the preamble where it refers to “the importance of an independent judiciary”. We would add, “that is free from improper influence”.
We would humbly and respectfully suggest that the “Whereas” that identifies the “problematic interpretations of the law may arise”, is a negative thing in the preamble. This is positive legislation. We see this as a positive thing. We have a robust appeal process. That is an unnecessary entry into the preamble.
Then if you continue on, and I'll do so very briefly, in 2(c) we're simply saying “should” instead of “shall”. Again, that would ensure that in 20 years' time we can tell a government that would not be so well-intentioned that there's no precedent for saying “you shall”.
Again if you turn to 2(b) on page 3, where it says “include”, we would add “where the counsel finds appropriate”. Again as you have indicated, Mr. Maloney, just as Justice Kent has so ably identified, it has to be judges who find it appropriate so that we are not subject to undue influence.
Again, in proposed subsection 62.1(1), where the minister asks the council.... Again, use soft language, less mandatory language, “should” instead of “must” in 62.1(1). Then proposed subsection 62.1(2) refers to any report received.