(a) before concluding the first reading, the legislator (the European Parliament and the Council) shall consider whether the legislative proposal is compatible with the principle of subsidiarity, taking particular account of the reasons expressed and shared by the majority of national Parliaments as well as the reasoned opinion of the Commission.

If such a consensus cannot be reached, the opinion shall consist of the position of the majority of members and divergent positions, with the grounds on which they are based.

(a) Should the new instrument contain any mandatory grounds of refusal in the event of amnesty, final judgment and other final decisions or relating to the age of criminal responsibility?

Member States shall not withdraw secondary education for the sole reason that the minor has reached the age of majority.

For all these reasons, the majority ruled in favour of setting aside the publication ban.

Resuming debate on the inquiry of the Honourable Senator Cools calling the attention of the Senate: (a) to the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada in the sexual assault case Her Majesty the Queen v. Steve Brian Ewanchuk, delivered February 25, 1999, which judgment reversed the Alberta Court of Appeal's judgment upholding the trial court's acquittal; (b) to the intervenors in this case, being the Attorney General of Canada, Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, Disabled Women's Network Canada and Sexual Assault Centre of Edmonton; (c) to the Supreme Court of Canada's substitution of a conviction for the acquittals of two Alberta courts; (d) to the lengthy concurring reasons for judgment by Supreme Court of Canada Madame Justice Cla ...[+++]ire L'Heureux-Dube, which reasons condemn the decision-making of Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung of the Alberta Court of Appeal and the decision of the majority of the Alberta Court of Appeal; (e) to Mr. Justice John Wesley McClung's letter published in the National Post on February 26, 1999, reacting to Madame Justice L'Heureux-Dube's statements about him contained in her concurring reasons for judgement; (f) to the nation-wide, extensive commentary and public discussion on the matter; and (g) to the issues of judicial activism and judicial independence in Canada today.