I wonder if you could clarify a couple of things for me.
Everyone around this table and the drafter of the bill want to achieve that we have written decisions where possible. We've heard testimony—and I don't recall who said it—that it's become public in the past because a reporter was in the room. That's what we're trying to avoid. We also want to avoid a huge cost to the survivor or to the media, or to anyone else who wants to investigate these decisions. That's the end goal.
I understand from our conversations that you have very serious constitutional concerns about the wording we had put in, and that this would achieve our goal without.... We are not allowed to force the provinces to spend money constitutionally. The way we'd worded it in the past would have done that.
I guess I want an assurance that this new amendment would be constitutional, but it would also achieve the goal that all of us want, which is to ensure that written decisions are available and that there would not be a huge cost to the people who are trying to access the decision.