“Name and shame” is something I've read in the media.
I think that the issue before us—we can't beat around the bush—is that the judiciary must be in charge of judicial education. The reasons for that are, I think, quite clear and have been commented upon by scholars many times.
You can't have the executive branch dictating what exactly judges should do to maintain their professional skills, what areas of the law or other social context education they should or should not take. That would be very problematic from a judicial independence perspective.
I mentioned some concerns with the reporting requirements that would be proposed. They really seem to me to go to a method of trying to identify which judge decided which case having taken what education program.
I think that those issues must be dealt with in the normal manner through the appeal route and, if it's an issue of inappropriate comments or conduct, through the judicial discipline process.
I'm not sure that identifying that, let's say, the Court of Queen's Bench of Saskatchewan has seven judges, that they had 12 acquittals for sexual assault last year, and that three judges did not take a course last year means that there's a problem at that court. I don't think that you can draw those conclusions based on that kind of information.
I have to add something. This data, had we tried to collect it, is data that's in the possession of the courts. The administration of the courts is a provincial responsibility. Mandating the CJC to try to gather the data doesn't mean that the CJC can turn to courts and say, “We hereby require you to produce this data.” There is a practical issue there as well, which could be problematic in terms of federal jurisdiction over this.