Kerry-Lynne Findlay

[Criminal Code, May 1st, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and pleasure of speaking in favour of Bill C-394, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act (criminal organization recruitment). It is my honour to present a bill that is of particular importance to me and that is also very important for the House of Commons.

This private member's bill, Bill C-394, is relatively straightforward. It has as its focus a practice that would enhance the ability of organized crime groups to engage in criminal activity; that is, the recruitment of members to join criminal organizations. The bill's sponsor, the member for Brampton—Springdale, seems particularly concerned about the recruitment of young persons to join criminal organizations.

In this regard, I strongly support his proposals and I am sure that his amendments will be met with wide support.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this bill.

Before going into the substance of the proposed amendments, it is important for me to provide some context regarding the state of organized crime in Canada.

According to 2011 estimates by Criminal Intelligence Service Canada, 729 organized crime groups are active in Canada. This number tends to change from year to year. The reasons for this fluctuation include changes in intelligence-collection practices, the relatively fluidity of some of these organized crime groups and law enforcement policing practices that have disrupted the activities of these organizations. Many of these groups are street gangs that are active in the trafficking of illicit commodities. Most notable among these goods is drug trafficking.

However, street gangs are also widely known to be involved in street-level prostitution, theft, robbery, fraud and weapons offences. The wide range of organized crime activity undermines community safety, interferes with legitimate economies, and costs Canadians millions of dollars each year. Furthermore, organized crime groups frequently resort to violence to achieve their criminal objectives, putting the public at risk as a result.

For organized crime groups to be successful, they must constantly ensure that they have enough members to carry on their criminal activities. When people are successfully recruited into a criminal organization, it enhances the threats posed by these groups to society at large. As the members increase, the criminal influence of those gangs or chapters of gangs is increased.

Frequently, these groups, or individuals acting on their behalf, target young people. Organized crime groups may do so because young persons are more vulnerable and can be convinced that joining such groups will bring them money, respect, protection and companionship. They may convince young persons to engage in criminal activity by telling them that even if they get caught, the justice system will be lenient on them because of their age.

Parliamentarians, and indeed all Canadians, should be rightly concerned about this. Bill C-394 proposes to create a new indictable offence that would prohibit anyone, for the purpose of enhancing the ability of a criminal organization, to facilitate or commit an indictable offence, from recruiting, soliciting, encouraging or inviting a person to join a criminal organization. This new offence would be punishable by a maximum of five years' imprisonment. It also proposes a mandatory minimum penalty of six months' imprisonment when the person recruited is under the age of 18 years.

It is worth noting that this offence mirrors the language of the existing Criminal Code offence of participating in the activities of a criminal organization found at section 467.11. It also has the same maximum penalty. This is appropriate because recruitment is a specific example of participation. In fact, the existing participation offence has been used to address recruitment in the past.

Now, some members in the House might question the need for this stand-alone offence, given what I have just said. These same members may argue that the existing participation offence is adequate and that duplication or overlap in the Criminal Code should be avoided.

In my view, the enactment of a specific offence which explicitly prohibits active recruitment would serve a more than valuable function. It would send an unequivocal message, reflecting Parliament's intent that such conduct must be condemned, in the clearest of terms.

It educates the community and reflects the important principle that the law must not only be clear but must also be clearly understood. There can be no doubt that this offence would put on notice those who would seek to recruit others to join a criminal organization. One of the most important aspects of this new offence is that it would provide police and prosecutors with an additional tool and would allow them to make a determination of which offence best fits the facts of a particular case. Let me be clear. This bill would provide additional tools to law enforcement officers.

In addition to this offence, the bill proposes a number of other amendments. These amendments would ensure that the new offence would be treated the same way as the other criminal organization offences in respect of procedural, evidential and sentencing matters in the Criminal Code. As I am sure all members know, the Criminal Code contains a number of special rules in relation to organized crime. For example, in cases where someone has been charged with a criminal organization offence, there is a reverse onus which requires accused persons to show why their custody pending trial is not required. Another example is that for persons convicted of any of the specific criminal organization offences, any sentence that is imposed on them must be served consecutively to any other sentence for an offence arising out of the same series of events. So the proposed consequential amendments in Bill C-394 would ensure that the Criminal Code is consistent and coherent in its treatment of organized crime investigations and prosecutions. I strongly support these amendments.

Before concluding, I wish to draw attention to a couple of technical concerns that I have identified with this bill and which I expect could be readily addressed through technical amendments without interfering with the objectives of the bill.

The first relates to the way the new offence is characterized. In the bill, the offence is called “recruitment of members by a criminal organization”. While it is certainly true that much of the recruitment would be done by gang members, it is not strictly speaking required. That is, the offence is not limited to recruitment by gang members. This is an important distinction because we do not want an overly restrictive offence. So in order to make it clear to everyone, I would support a technical amendment to change the way this offence is described.

I would also note there appear to be some discrepancies between the way the English and French versions of the bill are drafted. For example, in the English version of the offence the words used are, “...to recruit, solicit, encourage or invite a person to join a criminal organization”. In other words, the recruitment can refer to any criminal organization whereas in the French version the recruitment must be done into the specific criminal organization that will be enhanced. So as currently drafted, the English is broader than the French. Based on my understanding of what this offence is trying to do, as well as looking at the existing criminal organization offences, the French version seems to be more accurate. A technical amendment to address this discrepancy should be made. These are minor changes that I think would strengthen the bill.

I am prepared to debate an amendment that would clarify that intent. I call on all members of the House to support Bill C-394.

I strongly support this bill and look forward to working with the sponsor and all members to move it quickly into law.

[Criminal Code, April 24th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to discuss this legislation introduced by the member for Vancouver Centre that proposes to strengthen our ability to deal with cyberbullying.

Bill C-273 seeks to amend three Criminal Code offences: section 264, criminal harassment; section 298, defamatory libel; and section 372, false messages, indecent telephone calls and harassing telephone calls, to ensure that all three of these offences are interpreted to capture behaviour that occurs using a computer or over the Internet. The sponsor's stated goal with these proposed amendments is to target the growing issue of cyberbullying, a term that has received a lot of media and academic attention and scrutiny.

I am sure we can all acknowledge that the issue of bullying is not new. However, technology has forever changed the nature and scope of bullying, as it has changed so many other aspects of our society. The immediacy and broad reach of new technologies has made bullying easier, faster, anonymous, more prevalent, permanent and more cruel than ever before.

The member for Vancouver Centre is in good company in recognizing the increasing challenge posed by computer technology to the issue of bullying. In fact, many leading Canadian scholars and academics have been involved in work to ascertain to what extent bullying and cyberbullying is occurring in Canadian schools and on playgrounds. It is challenging to get an accurate sense of the level of bullying in Canada but many people are trying, and I think it is fair to say that the incidents of bullying are not insignificant.

For example, in her remarks upon the introduction of the bill, the member for Vancouver Centre referred to a University of Toronto survey on cyberbullying. She stated:

In a recent study by the University of Toronto, 50% of surveyed students reported that they had been bullied online....

Other reports make the same point. For example, a 2010 research report published in the American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, which studied 33 junior high schools in Toronto, reported that almost 50% of students surveyed had been bullied online.

It is not just students who are affected by this issue. Many educators, non-governmental organizations and parents have reported that cyberbullying is one of their biggest concerns relating to schools and education today. A Statistics Canada survey conducted in 2007 of 2,162 Canadian parents with children age 5 to 24 years found that bullying was a concern to 80% of parents.

Another survey conducted in 2010 on behalf of the Canadian Teachers Federation found that 85% of Canadians felt that bullying and violence were very serious problems.

Finally, an Angus Reid poll from this year found that 88% of Canadians surveyed felt that bullying was a serious problem in elementary school and 94% felt that it was a problem in high school and middle school.

We all recognize that these are very serious issues and the government has been active in addressing the issue of bullying through several federal departments. For example, bullying is being addressed by the national crime prevention strategy, which is administered by Public Safety Canada's National Crime Prevention Centre. The National Crime Prevention Centre provides funding to organizations, including schools, to implement crime prevention. The interventions target the risk factors that are associated with future involvement in crime, including aggressive and anti-social behaviour, which are also linked to involvement in bullying.

The federal government also offers programming and project funding to help address and prevent bullying through the RCMP, the Public Health Agency of Canada and Justice Canada.

Provincial governments are also dealing with the issue through various measures. For example, Ontario, Quebec, Manitoba and Alberta have all recently introduced new anti-bullying legislation that requires schools to implement anti-bullying policies and procedures. Ontario's keeping our kids safe in school act, which came into force in February 2010, requires, among other things, all school staff to report to principals serious student incidents, including bullying.

Quebec's bill 56, as another example, will require schools to implement an anti-bullying plan and allow principals to expel repeat offenders when it is passed by the provincial legislature.

Earlier this month, Nova Scotia announced that it would be introducing legislation in the near future to address the issue of bullying. It will likely take into account the 85 recommendations contained in the recently released task force report on bullying and cyberbullying. The task force, which was struck by the Government of Nova Scotia in 2011, released its report on March 22 of this year.

In addition to federal and provincial efforts to address bullying and cyberbullying, some municipalities have enacted bylaws against bullying. Edmonton, Alberta was the first municipality to do so in 2003. It currently has a bylaw in force that would impose a fine of up to $250 on anyone who bullies a person under the age of 18.

It is also interesting to note that other jurisdictions, including the United States, have also been addressing the issue of bullying and cyberbullying through legislative reforms. To date, 50 U.S. states have enacted legislation that address bullying or cyberbullying in some way and a few of them flow through the imposition of criminal sanctions.

As members can see, there is much work under way to address the issue of bullying. It is an issue that I take very seriously as it has affected my own family.

I would just like to raise for our consideration a few points regarding the approach this bill is proposing. I would ask members to think about the scope of the bill and the fact that it only addresses the issue of cyberbullying and not the broader issue of bullying. In my opinion, these two types of bullying are so closely intertwined that it may well make more sense to deal with both together. As well, it limits the focus to three Criminal Code offences and not to other offences that could also apply in a situation of bullying, such as intimidation, personation and uttering threats. We should consider whether the narrower approach is the right approach.

I do not want these comments to detract from the importance of this issue so, in closing, I express my thanks to the member for Vancouver Centre for bringing this very important issue before us today.

[Citizen's Arrest and Self-defence Act, April 24th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I will be splitting my time with the member for Portage—Lisgar.

I am pleased to speak to Bill C-26, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (citizen's arrest and the defences of property and persons). Bill C-26 addresses a number of distinct but interrelated measures that give Canadians the power to respond to immediate threats to property and to persons, where the police are not able to be there.

In urgent situations where property or the safety of persons is being deliberately threatened, citizens may act to defeat the threat, including by resorting to actions that might otherwise amount to criminal conduct. The criminal law must recognize the ability of Canadians to take reasonable and measured actions to defend against criminal threats. More specifically, Bill C-26 addresses the law of citizen's arrest and the defence of person and property.

These three measures already exist in our law, depending on the circumstances and motivations of the person in any given case. They operate to shield individuals from liability for any of their actions that are otherwise criminal, precisely because in the particular context those actions are aimed at defending vital interests or apprehending wrongdoers.

However, all three sets of laws are in an imperfect state. Bill C-26 aims to improve each of the powers to ensure that Canadians and the justice system itself can more easily and more fairly assess the appropriateness of defensive emergency actions. The better the law sets out the conditions for legal emergency action, the fewer Canadians will find themselves charged and prosecuted for defending themselves against true criminals.

Today the defences of self-defence and defence of property are set out over nine provisions, with each defence having multiple variations that apply in slightly different circumstances. There is no need for variations covering different cases when they are all based on the same general principles. Further, the variations cause immense problems in court. Even before that, they complicate the ability of police who arrive at the scene to determine whether charges should be laid.

Parliament's duty is to ensure that laws are clear and simple. That is what Bill C-26 does for self-defence and defence of property. The new laws can be summarized quite simply. In the case of defence of property, a person should not be held responsible for a criminal offence he or she commits if it is a reasonable response taken for the purpose of protecting property in his or her possession from a reasonably perceived threat of it being taken, damaged, destroyed or trespassed upon. In the case of self-defence, a person should not be held responsible for a criminal offence her or she commits if it was a reasonable action taken for the purpose of protecting himself or herself or another person from a reasonably perceived attack by another person.

The proposed new defences in Bill C-26 will capture the essence of the current laws but in a much simpler way. The new laws will clearly and simply set out the conditions for defensive action. Self-defence is particularly important. It arises much more frequently than the defence of property, and it can provide a defence to murder. Because of the central place of self-defence in our criminal laws and reduction in the detail that is now present in the law, Bill C-26 goes an extra step. It proposes a list of factors that the courts must consider in determining whether the actions a person took, assuming that he or she reasonably feared an attack and acted for defensive purposes, were reasonable in the circumstances.

What is reasonable in one case may not be reasonable in another. Everything comes down to the facts and circumstances of each case. For instance, shooting someone in the leg may be a reasonable reaction if the person were threatening to kill someone, but it would not be reasonable if the person were threatening only to step on someone's toe. This criteria must therefore be determined flexibly.

However, a number of factors are common to many self-defence cases. The bill refers to some of these in a non-exhaustive list which is designed both to provide guidance to judges and juries, and to signal to the courts that they should continue to apply existing case law.

Factors on the list include whether any party had a weapon, the nature of the threat the person was facing, and whether the individuals involved had a pre-existing relationship, especially one that involved violence or threats. Proportionality between the threat that was averted and the harm that was caused is always going to be a relevant factor, and so is also on the list.

Following the testimony of a number of witnesses, the committee made several changes to enhance and expand the list. One such change modified the opening words of the clause to make it clear that the judge “shall”, not simply “may”, consider all relevant factors. The committee also clarified the factor that speaks to the size, age and gender of the parties by adding a more general idea of physical capabilities.

Finally, a new factor was added that refers to any previous communication or interaction between the parties, which is broader than the factor that speaks about a relationship between the parties.

The new defences are drafted so as to be easy for Canadians to understand, and so they should also be relatively easy for police to assess and juries as well, if charges are in fact appropriate. Canadians would understand that they would only be protected from liability where they genuinely act to protect property or person. Taking revenge against someone for past actions would not be excused.

They appreciate that they are not free to cause unlimited harm just because there is a threat. On the contrary, they must stick within socially acceptable standards of behaviour. With the passage of Bill C-26, the law would finally come to reflect these fundamental rules that Canadians already know.

Bill C-26 also would make a modest extension of the existing power of citizens' arrest in cases of property crime. Right now people can only arrest others if they find them committing an offence. This means that an arrest would be unlawful if it were committed just a few hours after the crime was witnessed, even where arrest at the time the crime was committed was not possible or was unsuccessful, for instance, because the suspect successfully got away.

The current law is too limited. Allowing people to arrest within a reasonable time of having witnessed the crime seems more practical. Law-abiding citizens and business owners should not become criminals just because their attempt to bring someone to justice was a little bit late.

To address this problem, Bill C-26 allows for arrest to be made not just when the crime is found in progress but also within a reasonable time afterwards. It would still be necessary for the arresting person to have observed enough of the crime to be confidant that it was committed. In addition, if the arrest were made later, the arresting person would have to turn his or her mind to the possibility of the police making the arrest instead. In every citizen's arrest situation, the arrested person must be turned over to the police as soon as possible.

All these requirements give our government confidence that this modest extension would not result in vigilante or other inappropriate or abusive behaviour.

Those who commit crimes against property should know that they are at risk of arrest, not just on the spot but also within a reasonable time of their offence, and those who have property stolen from them or have been otherwise criminally damaged should know they are entitled to participate in bringing those who wronged them to justice where the police are not able to do so.

I urge all members to support these important law reforms.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity to contribute to the debate on Bill C-279 sponsored by the hon. member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, an opposition member from my home province of B.C., for whom I have respect. I think he knows that.

We studied Bill C-279 and, upon reflection, it is clear to me that the proposed amendments are unnecessary. Here is why I will be voting against Bill C-279.

As members may already be aware, the bill proposes to add the undefined terms “gender identity” and “gender expression” as prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act and into the aggravated sentencing provisions and hate propaganda provisions of the Criminal Code. I understand that the underlying purpose of these legislative amendments is to provide explicit protection for transsexual and transgendered Canadians. I have sympathy with the intention. However, I believe this bill as drafted does not equal the purpose.

I would like to turn first to a consideration of the proposed amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act. The purpose of this act is to help create a society in which individuals have access to equal opportunity without discrimination. The grounds that determine what will be considered discriminatory include race, national or ethnic origin, religion, sexual orientation, disability and several others.

It is also worth recalling that this act prohibits discrimination in employment and services in areas of federal jurisdiction. For example, it protects individuals who are employed by the federal public service or federally regulated industries such as banks and airlines.

In interpreting and applying this act, the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already accepted and considered several complaints brought by transsexuals under the ground of “sex”. In fact, the ground of sex in anti-discrimination laws is interpreted broadly and has evolved over the years. It is now understood to cover discrimination complaints based not just on sex but also on gender attributes, pregnancy, childbirth and, more recently, transsexualism. Therefore, for those complaints brought by transsexuals, the tribunal has used the existing grounds already contained in the act.

For example, in one complaint brought by a transsexual inmate in a federal prison, the tribunal dealt with the complaint and Correctional Service Canada developed a policy to deal with potential future cases. In another complaint brought by a transsexual person against a bank, again the tribunal dealt with the complaint under the ground of sex. In fact, I presided over a successful mediation of just such a case when I was a member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal.

In deciding that transsexuals are already protected by our federal human rights law, the tribunal's approach is consistent with that taken by the provincial human rights tribunals that have also found discrimination against transsexuals to be covered by the existing ground of sex.

Since Canadian tribunals and courts have already recognized discrimination against transsexuals as a form of sex discrimination, what is the bill's purpose in proposing to add these two new grounds to the act, which do not refer to transsexualism itself but to undefined concepts of gender identity and gender expression?

The point of the prohibited grounds of discrimination in the Canadian Human Rights Act is not to identify particular groups. For example, the act does not mention men and women but the broader ground of sex. It does not list Christianity, Judaism, Islam or other specific religions but simply includes the ground of religion. The act contains the ground of ethnic origin but again does not list out specific minority groups. The act is structured in this way to treat all Canadians equally and fairly and to avoid singling out for recognition specific manifestations of a given characteristic. This bill departs from that approach.

For similar reasons, we may wish to ask ourselves whether it is necessary to add these grounds to the sentencing provisions of the Criminal Code. The section in question in the code lists a number of deemed aggravating circumstances on sentencing, including evidence that the offence was motivated by bias, prejudice or hate based on race, national or ethnic origin, language, colour, religion, sex, age, mental or physical disability or any other similar factor. Again, the list includes sex and it also refers to “any other similar factor”, so judges may already be able to impose longer sentences for hate crimes against transsexual persons in appropriate circumstances.

Thus, it appears there are already the necessary legal protections in place to protect transsexuals. I am not sure why it is necessary to add these new grounds when the tribunals and courts have been clear that complaints brought by transsexuals will be dealt with under the ground of sex and this ground is also included in the aggravated sentencing provision.

Furthermore, this bill adds even further uncertainty, because the terms proposed are not commonly used and are not defined by the bill itself, hence the questions we heard earlier.

It is my understanding that “gender identity” means individuals' self-conception as being male or female or their sense of themselves as male or female. It is my further understanding that “gender expression” refers to how a person's gender identity is communicated to others through behaviour, speech, dress or mannerisms. However, as these terms are neither commonly understood nor defined, their use would introduce vagueness into the law. I am particularly concerned with the unclear term “gender expression”.

We should ask ourselves what new sorts of discrimination claims would be brought before the commission and the tribunal, if this ground were to be added to the Canadian Human Rights Act. How would employers know what kind of workplace behaviour and expression would be prohibited? Would a federally regulated employer, such as an airline or transport company, be able to require the wearing of a prescribed uniform, for example? The answers to these questions are not clear to me, and they are questions we should consider carefully.

Finally, I would like to consider the role of tribunals and courts in shaping public policy. As I have said, these terms are vague and left undefined by the proposed bill. How can we ask tribunals and courts to apply something that we as legislators do not clearly understand? The fact that we have no idea how tribunals and courts would interpret these terms is also an issue we should consider.

In conclusion, I have explained that the amendments proposed by this bill are largely unnecessary, given the jurisprudence to date. The Canadian Human Rights Tribunal has already dealt with several complaints brought by transsexuals under the existing ground of sex discrimination. I mentioned a few. There is no need to add new and vague terms to the Canadian Human Rights Act or the Criminal Code. I would therefore urge my colleagues on both sides of the House to oppose this bill for those reasons.

[Canadian Human Rights Act, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, unless I have not read the bill properly, I do not believe the hon. sponsor has defined the two terms at the centre of his proposed legislation, gender identity and gender expression. It seems to me that it is rather imprudent as legislators to pass legislation without clearly demonstrating the full extent of the bill's intention.

I understand the intent behind what the hon. member is doing, but does he agree with the statement that as legislators we have to be clear? Unfortunately, to my mind the bill, as drafted, is vague with respect to those central points.

[Battle of Vimy Ridge, April 5th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the solemn occasion of the 95th anniversary of the World War I Battle of Vimy Ridge, a battle that showcased the exemplary valour of our Canadian soldiers.

I want to particularly commemorate Captain Victor Gordon Tupper of the 16th Battalion. His father was an esteemed lawyer in Vancouver and his grandfather a former prime minister. Gordie's last letter home to his parents and five siblings reads, in part:

I am writing one of these “in case” letters for the third time...If you are reading it now you will know that your youngest son “went under” as proud as Punch on the most glorious day of his life. I am taking my company “over the top” for a mile in the biggest push that has ever been launched...and I trust that it is going to be the greatest factor towards peace....Think of it--one hundred and fifty officers and men who will follow you into hell, if need be....Good-bye, dear Father and Mother, and all of you. Again I say that I am proud to be where I am now.

Captain Tupper died April 9, 1917, at age 21, and is buried with his comrades in Pas-de-Calais, France.

[April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, as I said, the federal judicial appointments process has incorporated several mechanisms designed to encourage greater diversity within the federal judiciary. First, efforts have been made to make the application process open and accessible to all. All law societies are regularly approached by the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs to publicize the procedures for application. The commissioner's office has been active in promoting the process among minority groups, both at meetings and in writing. In addition, members of the legal community and all other interested persons and organizations are encouraged to submit to the commissioner the names of persons they consider qualified for judicial office. The commissioner will then send application materials to the nominee.

I have already talked about the provincial and territorial advisory committees, which are expressly mandated to consider and promote diversity in their assessment of applications for the bench. The Minister of Justice also welcomes the advice of interested groups and informed individuals on particular appointments, especially in the furtherance of achieving a representative bench.

This is not an easy challenge, nor one that is isolated to judicial appointments. Canadian law societies, legal professional associations, such as the Canadian Bar Association, and all those committed to the excellence of our legal system are struggling with how to ensure that women not only continue to graduate from law school in record numbers but remain in practice to strengthen the profession and the administration of justice.

[April 3rd, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, allow me to revisit the figures and clarify the important facts.

The hon. member has her figures wrong, and I speak as someone who was called to the bar 32 years ago, was a past president of the B.C. branch of the Canadian Bar Association and is now the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice.

In fact, of the 1,114 federally appointed judges active as of February 1, 2012, 32% are women, with one-third of our federal bench now composed of women. We have come a long way since the first federal appointment of a female judge in 1943. Indeed, the government has continued to make important strides in increasing gender diversity on our Superior Court benches.

Since February 1, 2006, the proportion of women on the bench rose from 29% to 32%, of full-time sitting judges that number increases to 36%, a clear indicator of the upward trend. In fact, all four of the full-time members of the Supreme Court of the Northwest Territories are women.

I would invite the hon. member to consider the situation at the Supreme Court of Canada. The Supreme Court reflects Canada's true diversity. Every region is represented at the Supreme Court by judges with diverse training backgrounds in both systems. The two official languages can be found there, as can a dialogue between these traditions.

The Supreme Court of Canada serves as a model of diversity and legal excellence throughout the world. The first appointment of a female judge to the Supreme Court of Canada, Bertha Wilson, occurred in 1982. Today, four of the nine judges of the Supreme Court, including our Chief Justice, are women, most recently, Madam Justice Karakatsanis from the Ontario Court of Appeal. No other high court in the Commonwealth, indeed in the common law world, can claim the benefit of such strong female representation.

These statistics underscore the government's firm commitment to achieving diversity, including gender representation, on our superior court benches. Canadians may be proud of the advances that have been made in increasing the representation of certain groups, particularly women, on the bench.

The hon. member for London—Fanshawe has made particular reference to the composition of certain judicial advisory committees which assess each lawyer's qualifications for the bench. She attributes her allegations of under-representation of women on our benches to the current committee composition particularly in two provinces. In saying this, the hon. member appears to suggest that only women are committed to gender equality and the goal of achieving a representative bench.

Such a suggestion does a real disservice to the committed members of these committees who give up a significant amount of their free time without compensation to make this important contribution. These committees are a key mechanism for achieving a representative bench. In making their assessments, committee members are asked to consider each candidate's awareness of racial and gender issues as well as their ability to remain neutral while hearing all sides of an argument.

It is important to recognize that the composition of these committees is designed to reflect factors appropriate to each jurisdiction, such as geography, language, multiculturalism and gender. As such, the composition is intended to provide an important balance of perspectives on what makes a good judge.

Representatives on these committees, of course, come from nominations from the judiciary, the legal community, such as the Canadian Bar Association, representatives of the provincial and territorial attorneys general, and also federally appointed members.They also include lay members from the community who provide a valuable broader perspective.

We are fortunate indeed to have so many committed judicial advisory committee members, men and women who are willing to undertake this important role in the public interest.

[Justice, March 15th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, once again we are taking action when it comes to fighting crime in our country, something supported by 77% of Quebeckers, by the way.

I know we just passed the Safe Streets and Communities Act, but when we say we are committed to tackling crime, we mean it. Today we introduced the protecting Canada's seniors act. This legislation will help ensure tough sentences for those who take advantage of vulnerable members of our society.

Elder abuse will not be tolerated. We all have the responsibility to ensure that crimes against seniors are punished accordingly. I call on the opposition members to finally put aside their soft on crime ideology and support our efforts to protect seniors.

[Justice, March 9th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his work on the justice committee.

First, it is ironic that the NDP members wanted to leave work early. They should know that those who do not show up for work, should not get a promotion. They should just ask the little Liberal Party.

Despite the silly games of the opposition, I can report that the final vote for the safe streets and communities act will take place next Monday. That means the opposition parties will have one more opportunity to get on board with victims advocates, law enforcement, provincial attorneys general and premiers who strongly support this legislation.

I would also note that recent polls show—