Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. Lametti, thank you so much for being here with us today.
We heard from two witnesses who made us very aware of the issue of judicial independence. You won't be surprised to hear that we agree with that. We think it's important for the courts to have this flexibility that is essential to their work and to the protection of democracy.
That said, among the amendment recommendations made by Mr. MacDonald and Ms. Kent, they suggest a change to subsection 2(3) of the bill amending the Judges Act. That subsection would add a subsection after subsection 60(2) of the Judges Act. The new subsection begins: "The Council shall ensure that seminars on matters [...]".
In the current version of the proposed paragraph, subparagraph (b) requires that seminars:
(b) include instruction in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, as well as education regarding myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault complainants.
Ms. Kent and Mr. MacDonald's proposal is that we add, after the word "include", "where the council finds appropriate".
I'm having trouble identifying circumstances where it would not be appropriate to do so. I understand that this is not your amendment, but have you given any thought to this?
Are there any situations in which you consider that these prohibitions or principles should not be the subject of training?