I'll talk about another piece.
This is a participant handbook called “Anti-Racism: Let's Talk”. I use this example because it's about 64 pages. It's still offered by Treasury Board as a training manual. This participant handbook, up until well after October 7, had no mention of anti-Semitism.
Now, it currently does have a mention of anti-Semitism—it was put in after October 7—but the definition of it is not an agreed-upon one. In fact, it's a definition provided by a fringe organization that wouldn't even be invited to a committee like this one to speak about anti-Semitism. There are changes being made, but they are the wrong changes.
In some cases, on things like the definition of racial trauma, which can be found on page 26 of this “Anti-Racism: Let's Talk”—which is not anti-racism at all—it talks about the experiences of Black people, indigenous people and people of colour. The definition just leaves out any mention of Jews, of Bosnians, of Armenians, of anybody who potentially experienced intergenerational trauma, something that the definition was probably based on when it came to fruition. Even the changes that are being made in government are the wrong changes.
Again, I ask, how on earth does a committee like this make recommendations to the Government of Canada if the Government of Canada, in fact, has a problem within that is being corrected with bigger problems?