Thank you, Madam Chair.
I raised my hand because I didn't quite understand what Mr. Fergus meant at the end of his comments. He seemed to be saying that he would support the idea of narrowing the meaning. I think he was agreeing to remove the word “systemic”. Did I understand him correctly?
I'm being told that this was not the case. In that case, I reiterate that this is a problem.
I know the witnesses have talked about it. In fact, everyone is talking about it all over Quebec, and I am convinced that it is the same in the rest of Canada. The word “systemic” has become as fashionable as some of the other words that have been censored and only referred to by their first letter.
That said, we are talking about amending a law. Judges are going to have to commit to receiving training in sexual assault law and social context. There is no problem with that. However, it is now being specified that this training will also have to address systemic racism and discrimination. I don't think there is a real desire to require judges to take training on the concept of systemic discrimination. Rather, it is up to parliamentarians, when passing laws, to ask themselves if there really is systemic discrimination in our organizations.
I agree that judges, who have to interpret legislation, should be trained to be aware of racism and discrimination. I think this is a good thing. However, you want to introduce the word “systemic” in a law, which is a vague notion. As Mr. Fergus himself said, there is no unanimity, but there is some consensus on that. If the committee is aware that a word is not very clear, as legislators we should avoid introducing it into legislation because it will necessarily be challenged in court. There will always be a lawyer who will interpret that word in his or her own way.
If what we want is for judges to be educated about discrimination and racism, then let's say so, and let's avoid introducing concepts that are too confusing to achieve unanimity when the time comes to interpret them.