Thank you, Madam Chair.
I support the amendment as well, for the reasons that have been outlined by others, and Mr. Fergus in particular.
As for Mr. Moore's concerns, there was evidence heard by the committee back in February. This isn't identical to the bill that was debated and passed by the House last year—you're quite correct—but the evidence we heard in February I do not believe was available last year, and circumstances have changed. My understanding is that there is almost universal support for this language in this bill, beyond this committee, so I am quite comfortable with that. I respect your concerns, but I am comfortable that the amendment doesn't cause any difficulty because of that.
As for Mr. Fortin's comments about using the word “systemic”, his point was that this may be crossing a line because we're telling judges or signalling to judges—perhaps that's a better way of putting it—what they should be thinking and doing.
I think that argument is more universally applied to this bill, but we've crossed that threshold, Mr. Fortin, and I think the use of the word “systemic” does not cause any difficulty. It's not in any way indicating to judges...nor would judges interpret it as instructionary, if I can use that word. In fact, I think people who are troubled by the suggestion that there is systemic racism should not be worried, because I think that in the context of the courses they take, the pros and cons of all these arguments will be fleshed out. For that reason, I think it's a good move to include it in the amendment and, as I said, I am supporting it.
Thank you, Madam Chair.