Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to make three points.
First, I want to correct one thing. Earlier, my colleague Mr. Virani said that peremptory challenges in jury trials constitute systemic racism. I'm sorry, but this issue has nothing to do with systemic racism. When counsel challenges a juror, the reason is that counsel believes that the person wouldn't be appropriate under the circumstances. It may be because of the person's gender or race. It may also be because of their professional training or criminal record, or because they've been a crime victim. Counsel will challenge a prospective juror for any number of reasons, and these reasons have nothing to do with systemic racism. It's something completely different. We must understand this. Otherwise, we'll get nowhere. This was my first point.
Second, the purpose of the bill that we're studying is to ensure that judges receive training on sexual assault. We've been working on this bill for years. It was originally tabled by Ms. Ambrose from the Conservative Party. The Bloc Québécois supported this bill and continues to do so. However, the proposal now is that the bill should go beyond training on sexual assault. The bill should also address racism and discrimination, which are described as “systemic”. We're a long way from the original purpose. We went out to buy potatoes and we're coming home with strawberries. I'm sorry, but this doesn't work. I don't think that we can do this.
I have a third point. The proposed bill concerns sexual assault. If we also want to talk about racism and discrimination, that's fine. It may be appropriate to do so. However, we'll need to create another bill and hear other witnesses speak about this issue. I agree with what Mr. Moore was saying earlier. None of the witnesses who appeared before us came to talk about systemic discrimination or systemic racism.
Again, we're talking about training for judges on sexual assault. Unfortunately, victims of sexual assault who must testify in court after filing a complaint don't always receive the full attention required in light of the crime against them. This is what we wanted to fix. We wanted to make sure that judges understand that a sexual assault victim, male or female, who must testify should be given special consideration in light of the crime committed.
Racism is a broad topic. I'm not saying that it's unworthy. Racism exists and discrimination exists. Should it be addressed? I think so. However, we can't combine this topic with training on sexual assault. We're moving beyond the scope of the bill.
If we want to do this, then we'll reopen the discussion, hear from new witnesses and gather more briefs. Personally, I'll put forward much more specific arguments on the topic.
Today, I'm here to talk about training for judges when it comes to sexual assault trials.