Thank you very much.
I want to thank all of the panellists. This is very compelling testimony. Again, I apologize to Ms. Brayton for the difficulties in accessing the building.
We've heard a lot in this committee about the fact that women of intersecting identities experience more violence, and experience violence differently. What we are hearing here today is that they may very well be targeted because the judicial system doesn't recognize that. I find it very alarming.
I'm glad you referred to the Supreme Court decision, Ms. Brayton, about those losing their voice because of mental disabilities or not even being able to testify. I think this is quite alarming.
I think it was Ms. Gray who mentioned the stereotypes about what a victim looks like and what an aggressor looks like.
The legislation that is being proposed here talks about training “in evidentiary prohibitions, principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, as well as...myths and stereotypes”. Now, in the training that our government is providing for the new judicial advisory committees that are going to be selecting new judges, we go beyond that. We have training in unconscious bias, diversity, and intersectionality.
Do you think that this legislation goes far enough? Is it too narrow? Should it be more explicit in talking about intersectional identities, persons with disabilities or those without voice, LGBTQ, and non-binary? Do you think that we need to include more of that in this legislation?
I'll just go in the same order.