I have a question I would like you to answer in writing, because you won't have enough time to answer it now.
Touching on what Bernard said, that a positive measure can be seen as positive by some and negative by others, I think all of us around this table unanimously want to make part VII stronger.
If we were to exchange the word “can” in part VII with the word “must”, it would enable the government to make sure that if there were a precarious situation, like, for example, what happened in British Columbia—and when we say “precarious”, that's my subjective opinion.... What do you think would be the objective factors to make a rough analysis of the situation?
If the minister must introduce a positive measure, we would still need to address it as a government body in terms of objectivity. As the judges confirmed in 1983 when they interpreted the first article of the charter, they had to find a way to interpret it in an objective way.
To summarize my question, let's say that in one year's time, part VII has the word “must”, there's a crisis and the minister has to introduce a measure. It's not his or her own choice. He has to. What would be the criteria, objectively, of knowing for sure that the community is in danger? They can say they're in danger, but it might not be true.
Please send us your ideas as to what those criteria would be. It's immensely important to us.