Bill C-337 (Historical)

Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act

An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code (sexual assault)

This enactment amends the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to individuals who have completed comprehensive education in respect of matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It also requires the Canadian Judicial Council to report on continuing education seminars in matters related to sexual assault law. Furthermore, it amends the Criminal Code to require that reasons provided by a judge in sexual assault decisions be entered in the record of the proceedings or be in writing.

Judges Act

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise and speak to Bill C-3. The original legislation was first introduced in February 2017 as Bill C-337 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the former leader of our party as well as the official opposition. I want to thank Ms. Ambrose for the passionate advocacy that she has taken on this important legislation.

I am also pleased to see that the legislation adopted by the Liberal government earlier this year was reintroduced again now as Bill C-3. In 2017, it received unanimous support from the House of Commons and passed quickly to committee. I guess it should come as no surprise then that it would take over two years for it to move through the legislative process despite having all-party support and it would die on the floor of the Senate in June 2019. Despite finishing the legislative process at about the same time as 15-plus other bills that June, it was held back by the Liberal majority government from receiving Royal Assent. Why, people may ask? Some may suggest it is to play the same Liberal games that many Canadians despise and disapprove of, and that is so it can be renamed and called their own.

This is important legislation as it is a step forward toward actually improving our criminal justice system, something that the Liberal government has done little or nothing on for the last five years. This legislation is about ensuring trust is maintained in the justice system and that survivors of sexual assault are respected by the justice system when they do come forward. The bill requires that to be appointed a judge of a Superior Court, an individual must now commit to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.

This would ensure that Superior Court judges are equipped with the knowledge and skills required to address sexual assault trials and ensure that survivors are treated with dignity and respect. It also provides training to not feed into the myths and stereotypes that often cause women to hesitate to come forward. Personally, I would have preferred that, in addition to the new appointments to the bench, all current judges sitting at every level of court that adjudicates sexual offences in this country be required to participate in continuing education on these matters as well, in the same way that this legislation proposes for new Superior Court appointments.

The bill would also require judges to provide reasons for decisions on sexual assault cases. This is good, as it will give more information to victims and improve transparency for the justice system and the public who watch it.

As a former police officer who has given testimony in a wide variety of criminal cases, including numerous sexual assault cases, I have the utmost respect for the significant challenge and burden placed on our judges. Every day they are tasked with appropriately applying the law to determine guilt or innocence as they adjudicate criminal cases. While Canadians enjoy the best justice system in the world, it is not without its flaws. Judges, after all, are human like all of us and are given the incredible responsibility of applying laws written by other humans, namely parliamentarians in the House. We know that sometimes those laws can also be flawed.

We put a great deal of authority and trust in our judges and so ensuring that people who take up this challenging post are properly equipped, we must ensure that they have the necessary training and knowledge to fulfill those responsibilities to the best of their ability and to the expectations of the Canadian public. This training would eliminate misconceptions, myths and stereotypes that often prevent victims of sexual assault, almost always women, from coming forward and pressing charges against their attackers. This is not a minor issue. The number of sexual assaults that occur in Canada and are never reported is staggering.

Statistics Canada reported that only 5% of women who are sexually assaulted come to the attention of police. I suspect that one of the many reasons is because of the women's lack of confidence in our justice system. Far too few of these crimes are reported, and of the 5% that are reported, only 21% have led to a court case. There are many factors in this, including what evidence might be available, how it might be prosecuted, witnesses who are available, any corroborating evidence, attitude of the justice participants, how judges approach the issue, and maybe many others.

Of the 21% that actually get to court, of the 5% who actually reported being assaulted, only 12% of those cases result in conviction. That is 12% of 21% of 5%. In other words, there is a better than 98% chance of not being convicted of sexually assaulting another person in this country. That is unacceptable. Finally, of all those convicted of sexual assault only 7% result in a prison term. These are terrible crimes and they have lasting, lifelong impacts. Getting a conviction on a sexual assault, let alone having someone sentenced, is far too rare. Most victims of crimes of violent sexual assault will usually prefer not to relive the experience over and over again in our courts, living through the trauma multiple times.

Like I said previously, I have investigated many sexual assault crimes. The heartbreaking experiences of victims are further exacerbated by our justice system. The victims feel they are not being believed. The intrusive nature of the evidence-collection process; retelling their experiences, over and over again; sometimes limited victim supports; and lack of convictions reduce the victims' willingness to come forward. If the assailants are convicted, many victims do not feel that the sentence that is given out fits what happened to them.

This bill is the kind of thing that governments should be doing: working to improve our justice system, working to support victims with better services and working so that criminals who assault others are held accountable and put in jail. Support for victims has been sorely lacking in the last few years. There has been lots of support for criminals, including reduced sentences for some serious and violent crimes, but limited support for victims.

The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police noted in its brief to Parliament on Bill C-75 that for some criminals, if given reduced sentences, it would mean eliminating certain information being entered into the Canadian Police Information Centre system, including DNA. When the conviction is considered a secondary offence, it eliminates critical information that then limits the ability for police to track and catch that criminal if they commit other crimes. As the CACP put it, this would “have a direct and negative impact on police investigations.” I would add, “and on public safety”.

Canadians should not live in fear. Young women should not live in fear. Victims and their families should not be living in fear. They should have trust and confidence in our justice system. Victims and their rights should always be put ahead of the rights of criminals. Canada's Conservatives recognize that far too often the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

It is time that we end comments and attitudes like that of our Prime Minister, where he said that she “experienced it differently”. Those kinds of excuses allow sexual assaults and sexual harassment to be normalized. Calling it out is a duty of all of us. Acting to stop that kind of behaviour is a responsibility of this House.

My hope is that this bill will be the first step in improving the treatment of victims, increasing the conviction of sexual offenders, improving public safety, and developing the trust and confidence of Canadians in our justice system.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, I commend my colleague from Sarnia—Lambton on her speech.

Obviously, it is hard to have a perfect bill. We can see some improvements, but there could have been more. I, too, think that Bill C-3 is not perfect.

I have a question about interference in provincial jurisdictions. The Quebec bar association has its own expertise and has conducted an analysis of former Bill C-337, which passed unanimously. According to the association, the administration of justice is a provincial jurisdiction and the proposed changes, both to the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, are likely to encroach on the jurisdiction of Quebec, the provinces and the territories.

I would like to know if my colleague is opposed to any interference in these areas of jurisdiction.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

This week, I got to see a comedy called How to Be a Good Wife. The movie made me realize that, not so long ago, women could not wear pants or dress how they liked. I am getting to the point, so please be patient. There is a connection. They were seen as creatures whose marital duty was to submit and be beholden to men. Of course, society has evolved. A woman who wears a short skirt or a low-cut top or who drinks should not be seen as a cheap piece of meat, nor should anyone interpret her attire or actions as signalling that she wants to be raped.

I have worked with women's groups, so it means a lot to me to speak to Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code. Everyone seems to agree on this bill.

There are three parts to my speech. First, I will situate the bill in the context of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. Then I will contextualize it from a uniquely Quebec perspective. I will conclude by explaining why I want to see it passed as soon as possible.

Bill C-337, which amends the Judges Act and the Criminal Code with regard to sexual assault, was introduced in the House of Commons on February 23, 2017, by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. It was studied by the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which, in its report on the bill, recommended amendments to three clauses and the deletion of one clause. The House of Commons passed the bill with the committee's amendments over two years ago on May 15, 2017. Bill C-337 received first reading in the Senate on May 16, 2017, and was referred to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on May 31, 2018. Unfortunately, I was not yet a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women at that time.

Bill C-337, whose short title is the Judicial Accountability through Sexual Assault Law Training Act, has three central purposes:

First, it adds a new eligibility requirement for lawyers to qualify to become a judge of a superior court in any province, namely, that they must have completed recent and comprehensive education in sexual assault law to the satisfaction of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs.

Second, it requires the Canadian Judicial Council, or CJC, to submit an annual report to Parliament through the Minister of Justice on the delivery and uptake of sexual assault law seminars established by the CJC.

Third, it requires reasons for decisions in sexual assault cases to be entered in the record of the proceedings or, if the proceedings are not recorded, the reasons must be provided in writing.

Of course, improvements were made to Bill C-337, which is considered to be the forerunner of Bill C-3. However, it is important to remember what was going on in the media when the bill was proposed and what problems it was trying to address.

The legal system's handing of sexual assault cases was often in the news. When she appeared before the the House of Commons Standing Committee on the Status of Women, the Hon. Rona Ambrose explained that she decided to introduce the bill after noting that a disturbing number of sexual assault cases had shaken the public's confidence in our justice system.

She was referring to statements made by judges in sexual assault trials or in their decisions. Some felt that these comments were based on discredited stereotypes about victims of sexual assault. In one case, the judge resigned after the CJC recommended his removal because he made comments or asked questions evidencing an antipathy toward laws designed to protect vulnerable witnesses, promote equality and bring integrity to sexual assault trials.

In a case from 2016, a new trial was ordered on appeal after the judge was found to have used myths about the expected behaviour of sexual assault victims to justify an acquittal. In 2017, another judge was roundly criticized for his insulting language towards a woman who was intoxicated at the time of the alleged sexual assault. “She had a pretty face”. “She should feel flattered for getting attention from an older man”. “What were you wearing?” “You should have just kept your knees together”. “He was just a kid”. “She's forgotten bits and pieces, so her testimony isn't credible”. These are the kinds of comments we have heard, but this is 2020: These comments should not be coming out of the mouths of judges during a sexual assault trial.

Senator Raynell Andreychuk, who sponsored Bill C-337 in the Senate, explained that those cases only add to factors that discourage victims from reporting sexual assault.

She pointed out that Bill C-337 seeks to prevent further court cases from being decided on the basis of stereotypes about sexual assault victims and to restore victims' confidence in the judicial process. I would like to quote from the letter sent by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in 2017.

Based on the testimony heard during the study of the bill, the Committee encourages the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to express to her provincial and territorial counterparts the need to make training in sexual assault law and social context more broadly available. Witnesses appearing before the Committee have highlighted the importance of training for all persons who play a role in the administration of criminal justice....

Additionally, the Committee wishes for the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to strongly encourage provincial and territorial governments to make the transcripts of the proceedings of sexual assault cases for all courts under their jurisdictions available online in a searchable database....

The committee was serious about making this more transparent.

The Committee heard from Professor Elaine Craig, Associate Professor at the Faculty of Law at Dalhousie University, that “it's inarguable that written decisions provide a degree of transparency and public accountability that's not available with oral decisions.” The Committee requests that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada inform and advise the Committee at the earliest opportunity of the results and outcomes of these discussions with her provincial and territorial counterparts.

The excerpts I just read are from 2017. Already in 2017, the Standing Committee on the Status of Women sent a letter calling on the Minister of Justice to take action. Then there was Bill C-5 and prorogation. Today, we are still here debating it.

I will now talk about Quebec.

In the meantime, an all-party group of women parliamentarians at the National Assembly are addressing the issue of violence against women. I recently asked one of those members how important the current bill is for helping women who are victims of assault and she told me that it was very important.

This is a very important bill. As I have already discussed this issue with some CALACS, I know that women hesitate to come forward because they do not wish to relive painful memories of an assault at a trial that forces them to relive these moments before a judge that lacks compassion or makes derogatory and inappropriate comments in their presence.

Let me be clear. I am not making generalizations or indicating that all judges are insensitive in sexual assault cases. Most already write very good decisions. That is not the case, and I am not making generalizations.

I believe it is high time that the bill be voted on and studied in committee especially in the context of a pandemic that has exacerbated the problem of violence against women.

During the pandemic, I had the opportunity to speak to someone from the Australian consulate about the importance of training for judges with respect to sexual assault. It is a question of dignity for the victims because it is important to have a good understanding of the sensitive issues involved in sexual assault cases. It is important to place them in their social and family contexts.

During the pandemic, I also had several conversations with a survivor from Quebec. She told me that she has received comments on her blog from women who, like her, have had difficult experiences in court. Here are some of the comments: “They cannot judge something they do not understand”. “They do not understand the victim's emotional state as a result of post-traumatic stress”. “Fragmented memory means people cannot clearly remember the order of events. Memories come back in bits and pieces. It is not deliberate. It is how the brain goes into survival mode”. “Judges need to be able to adapt to the victim's state, not vice versa”.

In many cases, these women are still in a state of shock. The courts expect them to maintain their composure, but how can they? It is not realistic to expect them to calmly testify and provide all the details. That is impossible for a victim of sexual assault.

I can only hope that, in the near future, the bill will be passed and brought into force as quickly as possible. We need to forget about partisanship and pass this bill now so we can fight the myths and stereotypes associated with sexual assault, which is far too common.

There are 600,000 sexual assaults in Canada every year. On average, one in two women will be assaulted at least once in her lifetime. That rate is even higher for women with a disability, not to mention the MMIWG issue.

There are far too many assaults happening. Rape culture has no place in 2020. We must act.

[Maxime Blanchette-Joncas, Bloc, Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques, QC]

Madam Speaker, we know that my colleague likes to talk. I do too, but I also like to take action.

What goes around comes around. As my colleague mentioned, in 2017, Bill C-337, which was introduced by former Conservative member Rona Ambrose, received the unanimous consent of the House. This is practically the same wording, a carbon copy.

I respect that my colleague thinks it is important to debate Bill C-3 today, but it is also important to do something, to take action. It is useless to debate something that we already agreed on. It is a waste of time and taxpayers' money.

I would also like my colleague to explain what he thinks of the Senate, that archaic institution that is a waste of time and is very costly.

It was not the Conservatives that blocked the legislative process in 2017. It was the Conservative members who did not decide to give priority to examining this bill. That is the reason why, in 2020, we have to redebate the same issue on which there was already unanimous consent.

[Michael Barrett, Conservative, Leeds—Grenville—Thousand Islands and Rideau Lakes, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is a pleasure to rise today to continue the discussion on Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code.

I am going to start where the member for Battlefords—Lloydminster left off. She did an excellent job on speaking to the issue. However, the questions that followed from the government were not about the importance of the discussion about sexual violence, sexual harassment or the contents of the bill. They were instead about the throne speech and why the official opposition voted against the throne speech.

It is important to note, first of all, it is not the obligation of Her Majesty's official opposition to support the government. We serve as a check in this place against the balance of power. It is also important to note that we are here today with this bill being reintroduced because the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. He put covering up corruption in his government ahead of dealing with important legislation like what we are discussing here today.

A version of this bill was first introduced in 2017 by the former Conservative leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose. It was called Bill C-337 and proposed judicial accountability through sexual assault law training. Going back to 2017, with respect to this bill, I want to start there and thank Ms. Ambrose for her leadership and for raising this important discussion. Over the past few years, she has played an important role in shining a light on this very important issue. She has been a strong voice for survivors of sexual assault. That initial bill received widespread support across party lines and from stakeholders, as does Bill C-3 today.

It is important that we discuss this bill and have that conversation. That is why I asked to speak on this bill. I am a dad. I have four children and one on the way, and two of my kids are little girls. Of course, I worry and wonder and have a lot of hope for the world they are going to grow up in.

The conversations and information around Bill C-3 and the necessity to introduce this legislation make me worried about the world my little girls live in. It makes me worried about the world my wife, my sisters and my mom grew up in, and my friends and colleagues in this House. Some of these women have lived in a world where they faced incredible challenges in dealing with experiences of sexual assault and sexual harassment.

We heard the member for Saint-Laurent talk about living in fear and growing up in fear. That is not the Canada any of us envision. That is not the Canada any of us want to live in. Making this country a better place for all Canadians, and as a dad, making it a better place for my little girls, is incredibly important to me.

It is heartening that we have cross-partisan collaboration in advancing this bill. It is important because we have an obligation, as legislators, to put these good intentions into practice and to enshrine them in law.

This bill has had support across the country before and that speaks to the ongoing need for it. In 2018, the legislature in Prince Edward Island passed a very similar piece of legislation. It was introduced by Conservative MLA Jamie Fox and he did that in consultation with Ms. Ambrose.

In the previous Parliament, Canada's Conservatives were proud to support the just act. In our election platform in 2019, we were pleased to include support for this legislation.

We need to continue to recognize and respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault, and we need to acknowledge that our justice system oftentimes fails them.

Bill C-3 would go part of the way to improve the trust that Canadians have in their judicial system, specifically victims of sexual assault. They need to feel confident, they need to feel safe when they come forward. The last place that a victim should be revictimized, the last place that a victim should feel they will not be believed, is with a judge.

We have all seen headlines about incredibly insensitive, incredibly inappropriate and, frankly, disgusting comments made by some members of the bench in dealing with victims. That word is so important, “victims”. Oftentimes, we hear qualifying language around why they are victims. It is certainly not because they chose to be, but they did take the step to come forward and to put their faith in the rule of law, in the police, in the Crown prosecutors and in the judiciary.

Certainly, the least that we could do for them is ensure that the judge hearing the case understands the basics, understands where this victim is coming from. To achieve that, there needs to be transparency in the courts. Any of the decisions that they make need to have a rationale and they need to be accountable.

This legislation would go a long way to do that. Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility of who may be appointed as a judge of the Superior Court. It would require that individuals undertake and participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars. This would not just affect the judges who are on the bench. Anyone who wants to be a judge would need to take this training first.

Instead of just members of the bench, anyone who aspires to serve would take the training, promoting understanding and ensuring that more women feel safe, more women come forward. All judges need to be fully equipped with a profound understanding of the law that must be applied to the facts of each one of the cases that they hear.

Bill C-3 would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to gather data and submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery and participation in sexual assault information seminars established by them.

Finally, Bill C-3 would amend the Criminal Code to require appointed judges, as I said before, to provide those written reasons, increasing transparency and accountability. We have heard from previous speakers about the prevalence of sexual assaults, particularly in women between the ages of 15 and 24, the very low reporting rate, with 83% of them not reported to police at all. The need for this training is evident.

I am proud to stand today in support of this bill. I am hopeful that legislators in this place use it as an opportunity to look at how we can put the needs of victims first, how that can be reflected in sentencing against offenders, and how we can make sure that Canada's laws serve always to protect its most vulnerable, and in this case, in particular, protecting women and girls.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today on the traditional territory of the Algonquin nation. I again say meegwetch for their enormous hospitality and patience.

We are debating today a very important bill that has been before us previously. It was before us with its previous title as a private members' bill, Bill C-337, in the previous Parliament. Of course, that bill died on the Order Paper, but not for lack of support in this place. It was in the other place that it got bogged down for three years. The author of this private members' bill, whose name I can say because she is no longer in Parliament, was Rona Ambrose. She played many distinguished roles in the cabinet of the previous Conservative government and, ultimately, when she brought this bill forward, was interim leader of the Conservative Party.

I think it was Rona herself who said that the problem in the other place was a bunch of old white boys. That is kind of the problem with the people on the bench, too. We have a significant problem in that the cultural demographic most likely to sit in judgment in sexual assault cases is exactly the demographic least likely to understand the issues. One must never slur old white men, I sometimes say with tongue in cheek, but I just married one, so I really have nothing against old white men. I love one in particular a tremendous amount. However, he would be the first to say that in his generation, that group has privilege that comes from three things: being male, being white and being presumed to be somebody really special.

Most judges are fantastic human beings. I just mentioned my husband, John Kidder. His grandfather was the chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, so he certainly would not have said anything other than wonderful things about his own grandfather. However, I used to practise law, and when taking a case to court, I had to hope I would get a good judge.

I had a really awful judge once. I was not even called to the bar yet when I went to court as both plaintiff and lawyer with a group of Cape Bretoners trying to stop the aerial spraying of Agent Orange on all of us. This was in 1982. The government of the day had approved aerial spraying of Agent Orange over Nova Scotians. We managed to fight it enough that they changed it to spraying from the ground, and then we went to court. It was a class action. My family lost all of its land in a bill of costs to Scott Paper.

It was a very ugly case, a one-year-long trial from beginning to end. For the actual court case, we were before the Supreme Court of Nova Scotia for a full month making the case that Agent Orange had caused damage, birth defects and cancer in Vietnam and had been found in groundwater. It was a long, complicated case. The judge we had, in his first big case, ruled that Agent Orange was safe and that we were actually bad people for bothering the Nova Scotia government with our complaints.

I mention this because the very next big case this judge got was a sexual assault case. Once again his words made headlines. He did find the assailant guilty of sexual assault, but the penalty was basically a slap on the wrist because, as he said from the bench, it was not a particularly violent rape. The assailant, found guilty of rape, was not really punishable because he had not used a lot of violence.

I searched for the name of this case. We know the name of the judge; he has been referenced frequently in debate today. He said to the victim, “Why couldn't you just keep your knees together?” and suggested the victim's attempts to fight off her assailant had been feeble. The judge chose not to believe the victim and the assailant was initially acquitted. That case was in 2016. Our ability to find things through search engines is pretty good for recent history, so we know it was Justice Robin Camp. It was a Calgary case. I do not think it is a stretch to say that this led quite directly to the hon. Rona Ambrose bringing forward, as a private members' bill, that judges needed training.

The case I referenced was not a particularly violent rape. If I could get to a law library I know I would find it, because it is in the Nova Scotia reported cases from around 1984. When I did a search, I discovered that the judge had passed in May of this year, and there were nothing but laudatory obituaries for the sterling character of the judge who found that Agent Orange was safe and that the victim in this matter did not really deserve justice because the rape had not been sufficiently violent. I will not mention his name out of respect for the dead.

There are judges out there who need more than training, and we need this piece of legislation to pass. We know that there is more at stake here to get justice for women who experience sexual violence. We know that critical recommendation after critical recommendation in the Inquiry on Missing and Murderer Indigenous Women and Girls has not yet had any official government response. That report says specifically that when an indigenous woman has been the victim of sexual violence, she must have access to culturally appropriate and sensitive physical help and psychological support. She must have help with retaining evidence, as well as help from a health professional who is indigenous herself, who can assist a victim and get justice and get through the next stage: what do police do.

Moments ago, the Minister for Women and Gender Equality made the case that quite often it is the police who say they do not find sufficient evidence, so there is the notion of a pile of unfounded cases. We know that very few women who are sexually assaulted actually report the assault. Within that group a great number of people are not believed, and the cases pile up in the unfounded category. When a case finally gets to court, we need to know the judge understands enough about sexual assault to not believe something silly like if they had been a victim of rape they would not have been silent about it for so long. Really, what do the judges know about it? They need education.

This bill is urgently needed. There is widespread support. As mentioned, it passed in this place very quickly when it was first brought forward in 2017. Then it got stuck in the other place and died on the Order Paper prorogation. I commend the government for bringing it back as a government bill. Obviously it will be passed much more quickly as a government bill than if we were to wait to see who would bring it forward as a Private Member's Bill.

I also appreciate the changes that were made to expand the notion of education for judges from questions of sexual assault law to include something which, in Bill C-3, is referred to as the social context. I know that many members of this place would like to see social context further amended to make it clear that we are talking about things like systemic racism, intersectionality, poverty, assumptions that are made about sex trade workers, assumptions that are made about the marginalized, and assumptions that are inherently discriminatory toward women.

In looking at the social context piece, I know there will be some desire to amend the bill to bring it into a fuller understanding so that we could actually use this legislation to deal with issues with which we are now far more seized: questions of, for example, systemic racism in police forces and systemic racism on the benches of our courts. We can maybe deal with more issues with amendments.

To make sure I do not run out of time, Mr. Speaker, I want to turn to a proposed motion that I hope will be acceptable to all members in this place. If you seek it, I hope you will find unanimous consent to speed up this bill to help us get it to committee faster and skip the second reading stage.

It would read: “That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, at the conclusion of Government Orders today, or when no member rises in debate, whichever is earlier, the Speaker shall forthwith put successfully all questions necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, provided that if a recorded division is requested, it shall be deferred until Monday, October 5, 2020, at the expiry of the time provided for oral questions.”

I hope this motion is in its proper form. The clerks have it. I apologize to the other side of the House because normally I would run around and speak to each member personally. I relied on getting it to members electronically.

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I hope you will find unanimous consent to move Bill C-3 immediately to committee and skip second reading stage, with the possibility for a vote on Monday should other parties require it.

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is wonderful to be in this place and to talk about something that is so important. I would also like to thank the minister, because this is something I know she and I both believe in, that we need to work harder for women, especially when it comes to these horrible sexual assault cases.

I would also like to thank two other women in this House today, the critics for women and gender equality for both the NDP and the Bloc. My time working with them as the shadow minister for women and gender has been excellent. I know that when it comes to women's issues, we can work very well together.

I will be splitting my time with the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, another member who will be working very strongly on this file.

I think we have to go back to why we need these changes in the first place. I was so proud to stand alongside Rona Ambrose, back in 2017, as she put forward Bill C-337. It was the just act, where we understood that judges need to be trained to understand what it looks like to be a victim of this horrendous crime.

We also have to talk today about what happens when there is something that is actually going against those women, and the misunderstandings of what it is as well. At the bottom of this, the survivors of sexual assault should never be afraid to come forward to the judicial system. They should never be afraid to pick up the phone and speak to law enforcement, knowing that what they are going to be bringing forward is urgent and it is necessary for it to be appropriately looked at.

There was a report back in 2014, and this was pretty much what kicked off Bill C-337. It was a report called “A Survey of Survivors of Sexual Violence From Three Canadian Cities”. It was published by the Department of Justice. We look at some of these things when we talk about women. We have seen so many cases.

We have seen so many movies. I still think of the movie with Jodie Foster, back in the 1980s. At that time, because of who she was, because of the way she looked, because of her poverty levels, those things were used against her. People did not believe her. Sure, it was a story that was fictional, but it is based on so many women's lives. This is something we really need to focus on.

There are instances where victims of this horrendous crime are being judged for their personal history. I think it is really important to understand that no woman, no man, no young girl or boy ever deserves this type of treatment. We should all be treated with dignity. When we go to the courts to talk about these types of things, we should be honoured and respected.

During the survey I was referring to, the survey of survivors, there were some key elements taken from this. This is what is really important: It is about talking to the survivors. What happened to them through this judicial process? What were some of the pros and cons of it? Part of the problem that we hear about all time is that people are not going to come forward if they feel disrespected, if they feel violated once again. They are concerned about the trauma from the sexual violence, and we need to have empathetic people who are trained, such as our judges.

I am very proud of many of the police associations that have been working to make sure they understand more about domestic abuse and sexual assault so that when they are going to one of these cases, they can be empathetic. It is a very difficult time. It is hard for people who have never been part of it or have never been traumatized in this area to put themselves in those shoes. Speaking to survivors is what we need to move forward. We need to make sure that the prevalence of sexual violence is ended, and we also need to make sure that we are providing the appropriate resources for one to become healthy and whole again.

We talk about mental health and addictions all the time in this country, but we also have to understand that some of the things that lead to these addictions and mental health issues can be things such as sexual assault and what happens when we are not worrying about the people who have gone through this horrific challenge.

There is one woman who has spoken about this, and this is just a quote from the study. She indicated:

...I think they really, truly need to understand there needs to be better education on the side of law enforcement, or on the judicial side, as to why it is so under-reported; why people feel such a sense of shame; why victims will blame themselves or feel responsible…why people tend to get away with this and why people are reluctant to come forward....

We have heard many times, “What does the judicial system look like?” The biggest concern that I have is that being a victim of this type of crime is not like being a victim of other types of crimes. This is someone violating every bone in a person's body, and I think we need to make sure that when we are looking at these cases, we are respecting the trauma the individual has gone through. If that trauma is untreated, if that person is revictimized, we are not doing them any good. We are selling them short of a better future.

These are really concerning things for me. We look at the stereotypes and understanding the stereotypes that we have of indigenous women, women in poverty and women of colour. What happens to these women when they put themselves forward? We have heard many times that the results of these court hearings can be skewed because of the victims' personal history. This should never have been something that causes the inequality that it has.

I can say that when I look across this room, I know that the member for London—Fanshawe and I will always fight on these things together, and that the people in London will always make sure that we have women's backs. A lot of that comes from the great leaders that we have in our communities. I can think of people like Megan Walker, whom I speak of often when it comes to the London Abused Women's Centre.

These are things that our women's facilities and organizations from across this country are fighting for. They see what happens when women have been assaulted and they see what happens when women are not believed. I think that is something we need to look at, because for me it is really important.

There are many negative impacts to a woman when she is not heard. If the judges are not going to hear her, what happens to that woman? We have to look at this. Is it a young woman who has gone to college, where we know that the sexual assault rates are extremely and extraordinarily high? What happens to her? She is a 20-year-old. What happens to her for the rest of her future if there is not a court decision or there is not the proper law enforcement to support her?

I look at some of the negative coping strategies that we talk about all the time when it comes to mental health. I look at some of the addictive behaviours. If a women has been sexually assaulted and nobody is listening, what does she do so she can get through this trauma? We have to be aware of the addictive behaviours, when it comes to drug use and other horrific things like that. We also understand that there is a lot of self-harm that can follow sexual trauma as well. We hear a lot about cutting. We hear a lot about women and awful things that they have done, understanding that they have lost all self-confidence and that they are not whole. It is our job to make sure that these women have the opportunity to be whole again. That includes not only the proper judicial system but also the proper counselling and services in our communities to help them.

That is why, when I talk about the London Abused Women's Centre, I know that we have a great facility in our own community. I can only hope that across this country we can have these types of programs from coast to coast to coast and, for the member for Haldimand—Norfolk, to coast. We also have to understand that after this there are many suicides. Many of these people who have not been heard take their own lives, and that is just not appropriate. There is also great isolation. We have seen over the last six months what happens due to isolation. We have seen this with COVID-19. We have seen some horrific things, and we have seen many people lose their lives because of that. We also have to see the avoidance and the seeking of attention. There are so many scenarios that can happen to a woman who has not been heard.

Finally, we have to look at the unhealthy relationships, because we see this trend. Women sit back, those who have maybe not been traumatized in their lives, and they continue to wonder why women would go back to that type of relationship, but if we are not there to support them, they know no better. They do not know that there are men who are wonderful in this world, who will take their hand and walk with them and treat them exactly how they should be treated. Like I said, they should be treated like gold.

I am very fortunate, because I have that husband who stands alongside me. However, not everybody has that person in their lives, so it is really important. As the minister said, it is not just about women advocating for women, but it is also about men. I know that within this chamber I am looking at 338 members of Parliament who are all on the same side, and that is what matters here. I know that my own colleagues support me, and as a woman, that is what continues to create my confidence and continues to make me able to reach for the stars. I am so proud of the type of caucus I work with.

Today I saw in the London Free Press, one of our local newspapers, a story about a young woman who was sexually assaulted in the London East area at a bus stop. We need to make sure that we are there for that young woman who was just assaulted this morning. We need to make sure that we listen, and we need to make sure that she is able to go through the process fairly.

I thank the House for this time, and I thank all Canadians for listening.

[Alistair MacGregor, NDP, Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is a real honour for me to participate in the debate today on Bill C-3, to give the position of the NDP in my role as the deputy justice critic.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues from the Liberal Party, the Conservative Party and the Bloc Québécois for their interventions. The nature and tone of today's debate on the bill and the sensitive subject matter it deals with shows how well this Parliament can work and the seriousness with which we can treat these particularly sensitive subjects.

It is a little strange to be back at second reading on the bill before us. As members know, it is the reincarnation of a previous bill, Bill C-5, which was debated in the first session of the 43rd Parliament. Of course that bill was passed in one day and made its way to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights where we did have two days of witness testimony. It feels like we are reversing things and going back in time, but it is good that the bill is being brought forward in short order by the Minister of Justice. I have to thank him for placing it on the priority list. Hopefully, we can see the second reading debate stage not take up too much time so we can get back to that all-important committee work.

When the previous bill was debated on February 19, we heard much of the same comments as has been evident in the debate today. I hope that after maybe a few more interventions, depending on how many other members can speak, we can find some kind of unanimous consent to not go to a recorded division but pass the bill on a voice vote, as was done on February 19 of this year, so the justice committee can get back to its work.

I want to also acknowledge the incredibly important role that judges have in our society. I do not think the jobs they do get enough credit because of the gravity of their decisions. Indeed, judges have an incredibly important job. They not only have to be well versed in the facts of law, but they have to interpret that law and apply it to the facts of the case before them, knowing full well that their decisions are going to have profound consequences either for the accused or for the person who brought forward the complaint. It is something that we should not take lightly and it is a position that deserves our utmost respect.

I want to acknowledge the role of the former interim Conservative Party leader, the Hon. Rona Ambrose, who brought forward the original version of the bill back in the 42nd Parliament through her private member's bill, Bill C-337. At that time, she recognized how important the bill was. In that 42nd Parliament, it was good to see that unanimous consent was given to send the bill to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which did some very important work as well.

We have the bill before us because there is a wide body of evidence of a lack of trust in the justice system, particularly by people whose experiences have been marginalized and so on. We are very much supportive of the intent behind Bill C-3. We do indeed want to see it get to committee, because it is at committee where that all-important witness testimony will highlight why the specific sections of the bill are necessary. I know there is debate at committee as to whether the bill in its present form is properly worded, but that is something for a later stage.

However, it is important at this second reading stage of the debate to acknowledge that complainants in sexual assault cases are provided inadequate social supports, inadequate information about court processes and they are often confronted by a system that ignores their wishes. We should acknowledge that Bill C-3 will not solve those problems by itself. The bill is very narrow in its scope. It looks at the training that judges receive.

It is really important that in the context of the debate of the bill, we as parliamentarians take every opportunity we can to apply pressure to the government, to remind the government, that there is still much work to be done to ensure our justice system fully lives up to the expectations of everyone who has to use it. The fact that so many women, so many persons of colour, Black or indigenous members of those communities, have their experiences marginalized by the justice system and do not have the kind of confidence that others do. That is a real shortcoming and that has to be identified and fixed with appropriate funding and resources to ensure people have that confidence. In other words, a systemic review is needed to ensure we have a system that lives up to those needs.

There are other actors. It goes beyond just judges. We have seen problems before with our police services. We have seen problems with how lawyers behave in the courtroom. Therefore, many different actors could also benefit from this type of training.

To highlight these points, it is helpful at this stage of the debate to really illuminate some of the statistics out there. It is estimated that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police or that one in three women will experience sexual violence in their lifetime. In 82% of these sexual assaults, the offender is known to the victim, and 28% of Canadians have said that they have experienced workplace sexual assault or violence.

We know, in breaking down the statistics further, that transgender people are far more likely to experience intimate partner violence. Women who are living with physical or cognitive impairments are two to three times more likely to experience sexual violence. Indigenous women are far more likely to experience this sexual violence, and of course senior women. The statistics are there. They are not a secret. They have been well known for decades now. The fact that we are in 2020 still speaking about the need for this training is rightly construed as a source of national shame, but also an important focal point and an impetus for us as parliamentarians to redouble our efforts to ensure we are building that system.

I remember from the previous debates in the first session on Bill C-5 that my Conservative colleagues had raised concerns at that time about some of the actions of the Parole Board of Canada. We know full well also that the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada has also had problems. Those judicial bodies, because they do fall under federal jurisdiction, the members of those particular boards could probably also benefit from this mandated training. I urge the government and the Minister of Justice to possibly look at ways we can expand this type of mandatory training to the appointees who sit on those boards.

As I mentioned at the beginning of my comments, the previous version of this bill in the 42nd Parliament was Ms. Ambrose's Bill C-337 and that bill was referred to the Standing Committee on the Status of Women in March 2017. During that time, the Status of Women committee had five meetings on the bill. It had 25 witnesses come before the committee and the bill was reported back to the House with some amendments. One of the big things to emerge from the committee study of that bill was to try to find a definition and exploration of the term “social context”.

Social context in the meaning of this bill will require that judges take into the account the context of the cases they hear and not be, and this is really important, influenced by attitudes based on the stereotypes, myths or prejudice that exist in our society.

Many of those same witnesses who before the Status of Women committee in 2017 also appeared before the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. We had two meetings on March 10 and March 12, right before COVID-19 shut everything down for us. Those groups of witnesses in those two meetings included the Canadian Centre for Gender and Sexual Diversity, the Women's Legal Education and Action Fund, the DisAbled Women's Network Canada, the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute. The testimony we heard mirrored a lot of what was heard back in 2017.

When this bill is referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights again, I hope it will take into account that previous testimony and perhaps pass a motion to accept it as part of the study on the bill so we do not have to go over old steps. However, there will be some debate on the particular wording of the bill, which I will go into a bit later in my remarks.

When we look at the substance of the bill, it seeks to ensure that judicial candidates have a full and current understanding of sexual assault laws, that they know the principles of consent and the conduct of sexual assault proceedings, that they are educated on the myths and stereotypes of sexual assault complainants and that it will all be done through training seminars. This is needed because we have seen through the actions of various judges that this training is sorely needed.

With respect to what the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute have said, this type of training is already happening. However, because we have this evidence of judges making inappropriate statements at trial, of following outdated myths and stereotypes, these have profound impacts on the victims of sexual assault and further erode the general trust in our judicial system.

When Bill C-337 was sent to the Senate, the Senate legal and constitutional affairs committee made some amendments to it. I understand the government's version of the bill we have before us today is a lot more in line with the Senate's version of the bill because of the constitutional concerns in place.

A big focal point of the bill will be the struggle between the role of Parliament and our judiciary. I understand that it is extremely important that our judges remain free of any type of political influence. As parliamentarians, we have a role to introduce legislation that falls within the social context we operate within. Therefore, our bills are often the product of the demands of society, of the members of the public who we serve.

When it comes to specific federal statutes like the Judges Act, there is a careful and considered role for Parliament in mandating the types of training we expect our judges to have. We escape any constitutional conundrums, because once the judges have taken that training, that is where Parliament's role ends and it is where it should end. We do not want to have any type of influence over how the judge uses that training. We simply want to know that the judge has taken the training and understands the full scope of sexual assault laws and outdated myths and stereotypes so we can build up the confidence that is sorely needed.

These comments have been argued in the public sphere. I know concerns have been echoed by Michael Spratt, who is no stranger to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights and has often written quite lengthily on the subject, and I appreciate his views. His concerns with respect to this legislation absolutely need to be taken into account.

We have also seen a commentary from Emmett Macfarlane, who is a constitutional law professor at the University of Waterloo. He believes Parliament has a legitimate role to step in and mandate that there are substantive qualifications for the judges of our land as well as, through legislation, mandate the type of training we want to see.

The government has provided a charter statement that addresses some of the concerns that fall under this, particularly section 11 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and so on. I think that is a good guideline for parliamentarians to use as a road map when we continue our deliberations at the justice committee. However, I do not think there is going to be any kind of disagreement that this bill is needed, especially from parliamentarians. What I am seeing already is that there is, in fact, going to be unanimous consent that this bill is worthy and that it warrants being sent to committee. If the actions of the 42nd Parliament are any guide to this one, I suspect that we may hopefully see this bill clear both Houses of Parliament and be sent to the Governor General for royal assent.

In the few minutes I have remaining, I think it is also important to talk about some of the other problematic areas that we have in our justice system. For this particular section, I want to reference the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, particularly call to action number 27, which called upon the Federation of Law Societies of Canada to:

...ensure that lawyers receive appropriate cultural competency training, which includes the history and legacy of residential schools, the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, Treaties and Aboriginal rights, Indigenous law, and Aboriginal–Crown relations. This will require skills-based training in intercultural competency, conflict resolution, human rights, and anti-racism.

I acknowledge that this is beyond the scope of Bill C-3, and we certainly might run into problems in an attempt to fit that kind of training into a future bill, but I think the concerns that indigenous people in Canada have with the justice system, and concerns that Black Canadians and people of colour have with the systemic racism that is in existence, must remain top of mind, even if it is not possible for us to bring forward a legislative fix to them. I know they were referenced in the Speech from the Throne. I also want to thank all members of the Parliamentary Black Caucus, which put forward that statement as a road map for the action we need to take. I think those concerns are entirely appropriate to highlight during our debate on this bill, because it is following through in the same vein of people whose experiences have been marginalized through the justice system.

In conclusion, I would like to say that myths and stereotypes continue to have extremely negative impacts on people. It is extremely important that we as parliamentarians listen to the voices of people who have been marginalized by the justice system. Women's and LGBTQ organizations specifically must be consulted in developing the continuing education program on issues of sexual assault and social context. The Liberal government accepted all the findings in the Final Report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, and the report noted that apathy from police services is indicative of ongoing colonial violence, racism and sexism, revictimizing indigenous women, girls and two-spirit peoples, so that must be paid attention to. As well, we must understand that sexual assault and gender-based violence disproportionately impacts women, minorities, poor people, persons living with disabilities, LGBTQ+ communities, sex workers and other marginalized communities.

I will conclude there. I appreciate having this opportunity to give my thoughts on Bill C-3, and I look forward to my colleagues helping to pass this bill in short order and sending it to committee.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I am also pleased to see you in that chair. With all due respect to the usual Speaker who does exceptional work, I commend you on your excellent interventions.

To answer the question from my colleague from Saint-Jean, I agree with her that there is an urgency here. We just finished an oral question period during which the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons answered our questions—asking him to intervene on urgent economic matters—by saying that we would soon be facing an election. It seems our colleagues in the government are anxious to spar again and call all Quebeckers and Canadians back to an election even though it has not been a full year since we were elected. We have that threat hanging over our heads.

I agree with my colleague that it is truly a shame that Bill C-3 is suffering the same fate as Bills C-337 and C-5, its predecessors. I think we should show the public some respect.

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Saint-Jean.

We cannot talk about Bill C-3 without first highlighting the outstanding work being done by the members of our justice system.

In both Quebec and Canada, as far as we can tell, the justice system meets society's needs quite well.

I feel this is worth mentioning, because the main, if not only, criticism we had about Bill C-3, the former Bill C-5, was that we needed to move carefully with regard to judicial independence. I was concerned about this, and I will come back to it later.

That being said, I think our judges are doing an outstanding job, but they need more tools. This is important in our society. This is not to criticize their work, but we need to make sure they have the necessary tools on hand to get the job done.

The justice system is the backbone of any society. It enables citizens to resolve all disputes together through the courts, instead of taking the law into their own hands. Both civil and criminal matters are brought to a judge, who is expected to be impartial and competent.

Bill C-3 does address the issue of judicial competence, and I think we should give it our full attention to ensure that it comes into force as soon as possible.

This bill was first introduced in 2017 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the interim leader of the Conservative Party at the time. The Bloc Québécois enthusiastically supported what was then Bill C-337. At one point, I even moved a motion in the House to have the Senate deal with Bill C-337 quickly so that it could come into force as quickly as possible; the motion passed unanimously.

Then Parliament was dissolved, which meant that Bill C-337 could not be brought into force and we had to start back at square one last fall after the 2019 election. The same bill was reintroduced as Bill C-5, and committee hearings began. It got through first and second reading. The committee heard from a number of witnesses, and that was when everyone realized that, although most civil society stakeholders thought the bill was fine, essential even, the judiciary had some concerns.

The Hon. Justice Kent and the Hon. Justice MacDonald, former chief justice of Nova Scotia, appeared before the committee and made suggestions. I liked their approach. They never criticized the entire bill but provided constructive criticism and warned us to be careful. We must not throw the baby out with the bathwater, as they say. There is some work to do on how justice is administered in cases of sexual assault. That is what Bill C-3 proposes to do, but let us be careful that we do not undermine the authority of the courts over society in our attempt to improve the judicial process.

As I said at the beginning of my speech, the justice system is very important in our society. If we cannot benefit from judicial independence, if we can no longer rely on the independence, impartiality and competency of our courts, it will have major negative consequences for our society. We cannot let that happen.

I urge us to proceed with caution, but to do that, we need to go back to committee as soon as possible. We need to take into account the criticism that we have heard. It seems to me that the suggestions of Justices Kent and MacDonald deserve our attention and that some amendments should likely be made.

I believe it was Justice Macdonald who talked about minor adjustments regarding how these matters should be dealt with. Rather than imposing obligations on the Canadian Judicial Council or on judges, tools should be brought in and the Canadian Judicial Council should be asked to support the measures and ensure that judges appointed to the various courts of federal jurisdiction have access to those tools to be better equipped to hear sexual assault cases.

That is not to say that they are not well equipped to hear them now, of course, but when it comes to sexual assault, I believe exceptional sensitivity is needed in the administration of justice.

The courts should take a special approach to these types of cases. We need to remember that testifying is usually a traumatizing experience for victims of sexual assault. They are reliving the tragic events that brought them to court. Judges need to be aware of this, and the bill will help judges and give them the tools to understand this reality and better deal with these kinds of cases.

The Bloc Québécois will support this bill, as we did in 2017 and as we did last year with Bill C-5. We look forward to working in committee and proposing necessary amendments to make Bill C-3 a bill that the Hon. Rona Ambrose would be proud of, that I would be proud of and that all parliamentarians in the House will be proud of.

This is an urgent matter, and it was urgent in 2017. I pointed out this urgency in a motion that passed unanimously and that called on the Senate to promptly adopt the bill. It was urgent in the spring. It is even more urgent now. Let us make sure that we do not end up with another election in the coming months, which would force us to start this process all over again.

[Tracy Gray, Conservative, Kelowna—Lake Country, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I am glad to be rising today to debate Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, otherwise known as the just act. This an important piece of legislation. A version of it was first introduced in 2017 by former Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose. It was then called Bill C-337, the proposed judicial accountability through sexual assault law training act. I want to thank Ms. Ambrose for her leadership role in championing this bill and its important content over the last few years.

Ms. Ambrose has been a strong voice for women and sexual assault survivors. Bill C-337 received widespread support from stakeholders and from parliamentarians across party lines. Canada's Conservatives were proud to support the just act in a previous Parliament because we recognized that far too often the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

Passing this legislation was also part of the Conservative platform in the last election and was one of the platform points I was glad to see included. I am looking forward to the bill being debated. I will take the next few minutes to speak about this legislation, which will ensure survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity during the judicial process.

In the end this legislation is about bringing forth trust. The just act would require judges to continue their education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. Sexual assault survivors need to know that those hearing their cases have the training, background and context to give them a fair trial. To better ensure that sexual assault survivors do not hesitate to come forward, we need a judicial system that they can trust will be fair.

We also need a system which understands the laws of consent. With that considered, it is easy to support the bill. This legislation, if passed, would also require judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases. This is another important step in the right direction that will provide more clarity in the process. Requiring the rationale for these decisions will provide documentation in these cases, including an understanding of the thought process of a judge.

I remember many years ago I took training at the Justice Institute of British Columbia in Vancouver for a regulatory tribunal I was appointed for. The training involved how to articulate in writing the thought processes that brought me to my decision. When I previously heard about this bill, I was surprised that this process did not exist when judges had to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases.

Having judges be clear on the factors that led to their decision-making and discuss each component of that factor on cases of sexual assault increases transparency, which is important for our courts and for victims. This may lead to more well-thought-out decisions as well. We hear of situations where the justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault. The reality is that presently there are evident gaps in the current process. These gaps have resulted in sexual assault survivors seeing the justice system fail to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault.

Some sexual assault survivors have said that they have lost faith in the judicial process completely. It was not too long ago that victims, especially women, were blamed for sexual assault. Before laws were put in place improving the process, it was common for judges to factor in things such as the length of a woman's skirt or whether she had had a past relationship with the perpetrator when determining if something was deemed to be criminal.

We may now look back on those days with disbelief that it ever happened, but we are far from having all the tools to ensure our judiciary, which is trained to look at sexual assault cases, is at the best of its ability. In fact, we hear too often the stories of this still happening in 2020, both in Canada and across the world. I am sure many of us have examples of this.

We have heard of victim blaming and of stereotypes. It is wrong and yet somehow it still happens. One story that continues to stick in my memory is when a judge, during court proceedings, asked a victim of sexual assault why she could not just keep her knees together. Comments such this are shocking. They show where there are gaps in the process of training the judiciary when it comes to sexual assault.

According to statistics from Canada's Department of Justice, 83% of sexual assaults were not reported to the police. This means that four in every five sexual assaults that occur are not filed with the police, let alone given a chance to go to trial and potentially lead to a conviction.

This figure is shocking and raises important questions about why the reported four in five victims of sexual assault feel that they cannot report what has happened. Is it because they feel they will be victim-blamed? Is it because they feel they will not be believed? Is it because they feel there may be a lack of evidence? Is it because they feel embarrassed? Maybe it is because they have heard of other cases where sexual assault was not taken seriously. Unfortunately, I know of a woman who chose not to report an incident that happened to her.

In further studies by the Department of Justice on this issue, victims of sexual assault were asked to rate their level of confidence in the police, the court processes and the criminal justice system in general. Few participants stated that they were very confident.

Bill C-3 would make an improvement in this trust factor on the judicial side of this process. Sexual assault victims would be better safeguarded and know that the judge in their case has up-to-date training in sexual assault law and understands the modern context of situations that can arise. This is important. If this bill would even slightly increase the confidence of sexual assault victims to bring come forward and report their situation to the police, then it is common sense that we should pass it.

Other important factors from the Department of Justice that stood out to me are that women between the ages of 15 and 24 have the highest rate of being a victim of sexual assault, and that self-reported sexual assault incidents very often involve an offender who is known to the victim, disproportionately more than other crimes such as physical assaults and robberies.

Young women need to know that the judicial system is fair and that they can trust it, even when it comes to reporting someone who is known to them. What message does it send to a young woman who is a sexual assault survivor who feels the judicial system did not give her a fulsome trial? The criminal justice system must work toward eradicating stereotyping and biases.

When it comes to supporting sexual assault survivors, this House must do all it can to improve the process. We must ensure that those who go through this have a fair and impartial process. Any legislation that would do this is something that should be enacted.

In my constituency, I sat with a woman in a coffee shop while she explained in detail her assault experience. I did not know what to say. The only thing that came out was, “I am so sorry that happened to you.”

My team and I have received emails and calls from those in Kelowna—Lake Country about the just act, as well as about improving the process for sexual assault victims. I have also had many conversations with those in Kelowna and Lake Country on their experiences with the process locally and how they believe it can be improved for sexual assault cases. We know that the Okanagan is not immune to this problem, and the just act comes up as one piece to address this issue.

I am looking forward to Bill C-3 moving to the next stage in the legislative process. This is an important bill for sexual assault survivors. I hope members in this House will support it when it comes to a vote.

[Kerry-Lynne Findlay, Conservative, South Surrey—White Rock, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my apologies, I was so anxious to get to what I was going to say, I forgot to ask for that permission. I thank all members.

It is certainly my honour to be speaking today on Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, concerning sexual assault. This legislation has special significance to me as a lawyer, a woman, a proud mother of four, a child survivor of sexual violence myself and, most importantly, a lifelong advocate for victims of crime and sexual assault, including men and women, boys and girls.

Bill C-3, formally known as Bill C-337, was first introduced in the House of Commons in February 2017 by the Hon. Rona Ambrose. It has received a tremendous amount of support from parliamentarians and stakeholders. I would like to take this opportunity to also thank Ms. Ambrose for initially introducing this long-overdue piece of legislation and for her strong advocacy on this vital issue.

Conservatives were proud to support the Judges Act in the last Parliament because we recognize that far too often our justice system fails to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault. This legislation was part of our election platform in the last election. I am very pleased to see the current government put partisanship aside and adopt the bill in March of this year.

Bill C-3 would ensure that trust is built and maintained in our judicial system, and specifically, that victims of sexual assault are respected by that system when they choose to come forward. We know that only a small fraction, as few as 5% to 10%, of sexual assaults are reported.

Sexually assaulted at age 12, I know that I only told my mother when I was in my 40s. I was a child, I was afraid and I never told authorities. According to a Justice Canada study of survivors, approximately two-thirds of them stated a lack of confidence in the police, the court process and the criminal justice system in general. The process is even more overwhelming for children.

It is of utmost importance that Canada's members of Parliament address head-on this under-reporting and lack of confidence by breaking down the barriers that discourage victims of sexual assault from coming forward.

We must increase transparency in any court's decision through increased judicial training and accountability. This legislation would go a long way to doing just that. Bill C-3 would amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility of who may be appointed as a judge of the Superior Court, requiring the individual to undertake and participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.

This training would help judges navigate the sensitivities commonly at the heart of these cases and allow them to better understand the social context in which the alleged crimes took place. We want to ensure judges are fully equipped with a profound understanding of the law that must be applied to the facts of each case. Bill C-3 would also require the Canadian Judicial Council to gather data and submit an annual report to Parliament on the delivery and participation in sexual assault information seminars established by them.

Finally, Bill C-3 would amend the Criminal Code to require appointed judges to provide written reasons for decisions made in sexual assault cases. Together, these requirements would ensure that Superior Court judges have the knowledge and skills necessary to properly handle sexual assault trials, recognize the challenges and trauma often experienced by victims, restore faith and confidence in our judicial system, and treat those victims with the dignity and respect they deserve.

As a family lawyer for many years, I dealt with too many cases where spousal violence against a female partner or spouse, and against children and stepchildren, were factors in separation, divorce and recovery.

As a volunteer board member active in supporting substance abuse recovery, I saw the devastating effects of sexual violence on victims who often dealt with it through self-harm and lives given over to addiction.

As a former member of the Canadian Human Rights Tribunal, I also understand that presiding over sensitive cases is not an easy task. I know our judges from coast to coast put in long hours of hard work to ensure the fairness of the judicial process.

However, the fact remains that on too many occasions, when deciding these cases, judges have improperly relied on or allowed into their courtroom myths and stereotypes about the expected behaviour of a victim of sexual assault and allowed evidence that should have been excluded. This is not okay.

In 2017, the Alberta Court of Appeal ordered a new trial of a 55-year-old Alberta man accused of repeatedly sexually assaulting his adolescent stepdaughter over a period of six years. At trial, even though the judge found the stepfather's evidence unbelievable, the appeal court found he relied on these myths and stereotypes about how a victim of sexual assault should behave. In delivering a finding of not guilty, the trial judge noted he had doubts about the case because the alleged victim had told the police she kind of got along with her stepfather and described their relationship as, “okay I guess.”

In the trial decision the judge stated:

...one would expect that a victim of sexual abuse would demonstrate behaviours consistent with that abuse or at least some change of behaviour such as avoiding the perpetrator;

The Alberta Court of Appeal rightfully disagreed and expressed the following:

This appeal represents an example of how deeply ingrained and seductive these myths and stereotypes can be.

Unfortunately, this is merely one of many examples.

In 2019, the Supreme Court of Canada held that a man who allegedly sexually assaulted and killed Métis woman Cindy Gladue should be retried, after evidence of Ms. Gladue's sexual history was mishandled at trial. Justice Karakatsanis explained that admitting evidence of prior sexual history makes jurors more likely to accept the harmful myth that past sexual behaviour suggests a greater likelihood that the victim consented to the alleged sexual assault, in this case one so brutal that it caused Ms. Gladue to bleed to death in a motel bathroom.

Similarly, in another 2019 Supreme Court case, R. v. Goldfinch, the court found the trial judge had improperly admitted evidence about the complainant's sexual history with the alleged perpetrator, which may have led the jury to decide the case based on the mistaken belief that prior consent means present consent.

All this to say there have been far too many cases in our society where myths and stereotypes have permeated the courtroom and where both judge and jury have been unduly influenced by the expected behaviour of a victim of sexual assault. Misinformation about the experience of victims of sexual assault and abuse has led judges to poor decision-making, resulting in the miscarriage of justice, and has caused unnecessary appeals and retrials.

As legislators, we must understand and appreciate the new and revisited trauma felt by victims throughout the course of these trials. If a trial is handled appropriately, appeals and retrials may be avoided. It is important that we keep myths and stereotypes out of the courtroom. It is essential that the justice system treat victims of sexual assault with dignity and the respect they deserve. It is imperative that the victims of sexual assault have confidence in the judicial system. We must do our part to break down the barriers that have prevented victims from coming forward in the past. This bill, through increased training and accountability, would address each of these issues and would tell victims of sexual assault loud and clear the Canadian government has their backs.

Of course our criminal justice system is built on the proud principle that an accused is innocent until proven guilty. I want to ensure Canadians that this bill, and the training it proposes, will not prejudice the accused; instead, it will ensure that the scales of justice are fair and balanced, at the same time compassionate, and make certain that victims of sexual assault have access to the justice they deserve and their faith restored.

Please join me in keeping faith with sexual assault victims by supporting Bill C-3. Let their voices be fairly heard.

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice]

moved that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to stand in support of Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, which is identical to former Bill C-5.

I am delighted to be reintroducing this important piece of legislation today. I know we in the House are all anxious to see the work that was started by the Hon. Rona Ambrose in 2017 with the introduction of Bill C-337 come to fruition with the quick passage of this bill in this session of Parliament.

Regrettably, Parliament's consideration of Bill C-5 was abruptly interrupted and the study of the justice committee halted by a health crisis that has created unprecedented challenges to all aspects of Canadian society, including our justice system. The pandemic has exposed and exploited underlying conditions that have long plagued our justice system. It brought into stark relief the unacceptable barriers to accessing justice for the most vulnerable in our society. The reintroduction of the bill comes at a time when the need to protect our most vulnerable has never been clearer, nor the importance of ensuring a justice system that treats everyone fairly and with respect more critical.

Bill C-3 is designed to enhance public confidence in our criminal justice system, and in particular the confidence of survivors of sexual assault. It is hard to imagine anyone more vulnerable in the criminal justice system than the women who find the courage to report sexual assault.

The bill will ensure that survivors of sexual assault are treated with dignity and respect by the courts and will give them confidence that the judge in their case will enforce sexual assault laws fairly and accurately, as Parliament intended.

It has never been more critical that all of us who serve the public are equipped with the right tools and understanding to ensure that everyone is treated with the respect and dignity that they deserve, no matter what their background or their experiences. This would enhance the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the Canadian public, more broadly, in our justice system. There is no room in our courts for harmful myths or stereotypes.

I know that our government's determination to tackle this problem is shared by parliamentarians from across Canada and of all political persuasions. The bill before us today will help ensure that those appointed to a superior court would undertake to participate in continuing education in relation to sexual assault law and social context.

As the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada, I take very seriously my responsibility to uphold judicial independence, a constitutional principle that is a cornerstone of our democracy. Judicial independence means that judges must be free to decide each case on its own merits without interference or influence of any kind from any source. For this reason, judicial independence requires judicial control of judicial education, and I salute the work that is being done by the Canadian Judicial Council as well as the National Judicial Institute in Canada in the training they have already begun to provide. Applying this principle to the current bill means that our government's efforts to ensure judges participate in education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context must not undermine the independence of the judiciary.

In that vein, I would like to describe the key elements of the proposed legislation. Bill C-3, as noted previously, is identical to former Bill C-5 and essentially the same as former private member's bill, Bill C-337. Importantly, the bill includes the amendments to Bill C-337 passed unanimously by the House of Commons to include social context education within the requirements of the bill. This requirement is specifically aimed at providing those who preside over cases with deeper insights and best practices to help them better navigate the social and cultural factors that they will likely come across in their time on the bench.

Bill C-3 also includes the amendments recommended by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in its study of Bill C-337.

The first key element of the bill is that it proposes to amend the Judges Act to require candidates for superior court judicial appointments to commit to undertaking training in matters related to sexual assault law and social context. This becomes part of the application process. This commitment will become an eligibility requirement for appointment to a superior court.

It is no easy task to bolster public confidence, in particular the confidence of sexual assault survivors, that our criminal justice system will treat victims with dignity, fairness and respect. This is a particularly acute challenge when there are reports in the media of judges doing exactly the opposite. We hear of highly publicized cases in which judges have relied on stereotypes or myths about how a victim of sexual assault should have behaved and have misapplied the carefully crafted law intended to prevent this.

The undertaking to commit to training is aimed at ensuring that Canada's highly developed law and jurisprudence on sexual assault are appropriately applied in the courtroom. It will also ensure that newly appointed judges receive the education and training necessary to understand and appreciate the social context within which they perform their functions, so that personal or societal biases or myths and stereotypes do not have any bearing on their decisions.

Over the past three decades the criminal law has undergone significant reform to encourage reporting of sexual assaults, to improve the criminal justice system's response to sexualized violence and to counter discriminatory views of survivors that stem from myths and stereotypes about how a true victim is expected to behave. As a result, the Criminal Code prohibits all forms of non-consensual sexual activity, provides a clear definition of consent, identifies when consent cannot be obtained and sets out rules for the admissibility of certain types of evidence to deter the introduction of these harmful myths and stereotypes.

Canada's sexual assault law is robust, but is necessarily complex. It applies to the most intimate of human interactions, so to be effective it must be properly understood and applied. This is why judicial education in this area is so significant and Bill C-3 so important.

The second key element is to require that the Canadian Judicial Council develop this sexual-assault training only after it consults with groups and individuals that it considers appropriate, including sexual assault survivors and the groups that support them. This will give the council the opportunity to gather different perspectives on sexual assault informed by the experiences and knowledge of the community.

Transformative change across the criminal justice system will require a sustained collaborative effort by all actors in the justice system, with the support of stakeholders and civil society. Training is needed not only for judges but for all actors in the justice system. We are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts and justice sector stakeholders toward more comprehensive efforts. However, the pivotal public and determinative role judges play must also be taken into account.

The third key component of the bill will require the Canadian Judicial Council to submit to the justice minister an annual report to be tabled in this Parliament about the training on sexual assault law that has been provided and the number of judges who attended. This requirement is designed to enhance accountability in the training of sitting judges on these matters while still acting as an incentive to encourage their participation.

The final element of the bill would amend the Criminal Code to require judges to provide reasons for decisions under sexual assault provisions of the Criminal Code. This amendment is intended to enhance the transparency of judicial decisions made in sexual assault proceedings by rendering them accessible, either in writing or on the record of the proceedings. I would like to mention that this proposed amendment to require judges to provide reasons in the determination of sexual assault matters specifically is complementary to three existing requirements.

The requirement to provide reasons will be placed in the other sexual assault provisions in the Criminal Code. This will help ensure that all provisions related to sexual offending are clear and accessible to those applying them. This is part of the effort to prevent the misapplication of sexual assault law by helping to ensure that decisions in sexual assault matters are not influenced by myths or stereotypes about sexual assault victims and how they ought to behave. This is consistent with the Supreme Court of Canada's finding that such myths and stereotypes distort the truth-seeking function of the court.

Being a judge comes with great responsibility. I would like to quote the Hon. Justice Charles Gonthier, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada:

The judge is the pillar of our entire justice system, and of the rights and freedoms which that system is designed to promote and protect. Thus, to the public, judges not only swear by taking their oath to serve the ideals of Justice and Truth on which the rule of law in Canada and the foundations of our democracy are built, but they are asked to embody them....

Justice Gonthier then added the following:

...the personal qualities, conduct and image that a judge projects affect those of the judicial system as a whole and, therefore, the confidence that the public places in it.

Since judges play such a crucial role in upholding democracy and the rule of law, the public rightly expects their conduct to be exemplary. To quote the Canadian Judicial Council:

[1] From the time they are considered for appointment to the Bench, and every day thereafter, superior court judges in Canada are expected to be knowledgeable jurists. They are also expected to demonstrate a number of personal attributes including knowledge of social issues, an awareness of changes in social values, humility, fairness, empathy, tolerance, consideration and respect for others.

[2] In short, Canadians expect their judges to know the law but also to possess empathy and to recognize and question any past personal attitudes and sympathies that might prevent them from acting fairly.

In order for judges to be able to meet these public expectations, it is imperative that they keep abreast of developments in the law and the ever-changing social context in which they carry out their duties. To ensure excellence in judgments, judges must have legal knowledge that is as relevant as it is excellent so that they can make the difficult and life-changing decisions entrusted to them. For this reason, legal education is an essential element of the legislation under consideration.

The bill is carefully tailored to uphold the principle of judicial independence. In particular, it includes the recommendations of the Senate committee for amendments to Bill C-337 that were carefully designed to address the specific concerns raised by representatives of the judiciary.

In that regard, I would like to point out that members of the judiciary appeared before the House committee to call for additional amendments to Bill C-5. It is important to note that a respectful dialogue occurred between representatives of the judicial and legislative branches with regard to Bill C-337 and Bill C-5. I trust that this will also be the case with this bill. The partners in this dialogue all want survivors of sexual assault to have faith in the justice system and to be treated with the respect and dignity they deserve when dealing with that system.

Canada is lucky to have one of the most independent, competent and reputable judiciaries in the world. The Canadian Judicial Council, with the support and co-operation of the National Judicial Institute, is a world leader in training judges. The Canadian judiciary is very committed to ensuring the best training for judges. I commend them for their co-operation in this regard. Finally, Canada is a pioneer in social context education in the justice system.

In its professional development policy, the Canadian Judicial Council recognizes that, in order to be effective, training for judges must include social context education so that court decisions are not influenced by personal or social bias, myths or stereotypes.

Given how important this is, the National Judicial Institute seeks to ensure that all programs cover substantive law, skills development and social context education.

It is important to acknowledge the significant contribution of both the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute to ensuring judges have access to the training they need.

We are blessed with a strong and independent judiciary in Canada. We cannot take this for granted. As parliamentarians, we must ensure that we safeguard and promote it. This bill seeks to balance a legitimate need to enhance public confidence with carefully preserving the judiciary's ability to control judicial education.

The government also allocated significant resources to support this undertaking. The 2017 budget contained $2.7 million over five years for the Canadian Judicial Council and $500,000 per year thereafter to ensure more judges get access to professional development with a greater emphasis on issues related to sex, gender and cultural sensitivity.

Our government is also working with stakeholders to ensure that appropriate training is available to all members of the Canadian judiciary, specifically those not appointed by the federal government.

That said, I hope this bill will prompt everyone in the justice system to take a close look at other measures we can take to bolster the confidence of survivors of sexual assault and the public in our justice system.

Finally, following Ms. Ambrose's introduction of the former Bill C-337, a number of provinces followed suit and did just that. At least one province, Prince Edward Island, enacted similar legislation, and I understand that others are carefully considering policy and legislative responses. I note that other countries have already enacted legislation similar to what is being proposed. It is time for all of our jurisdictions to act.

While we believe that reintroducing Bill C-3 is a crucial step, it is not the only action we can take as a government. We have prioritized supporting victims and survivors of crime by a range of different avenues. These include providing funding to provinces and territories to allow them to develop enhanced programs, to provide free and independent legal advice and, in some cases, representation for survivors of sexual assault. Also included is our government's commitment, as emphasized in the Speech from the Throne, to build on the gender-based violence strategy and work with partners to develop a national action plan.

This bill sends a message to all Canadians, and survivors of sexual assault in particular, that their elected officials are listening, that we care about what happens to their cases, and that we are prepared and committed to take whatever action we can to ensure that our justice system is fair and responsive. It is incumbent on all of us: legislators, judges, prosecutors, police and the public.

Right now, there is considerable enthusiasm across the country for meaningful, sustainable changes to our justice system.

This bill is a small but important step toward achieving that. It gives parliamentarians an opportunity to act on their beliefs and show all Canadians, especially survivors of sexual assault, that their voices matter and that anyone who has the courage to report an assault will be listened to and treated with the dignity and respect every member of our community is entitled to.

I urge all of my parliamentary colleagues to take this step toward a more constructive, resilient justice system that is more responsive to the needs of those it serves.

I call on all of my colleagues to support this important non-partisan bill.

[David Lametti, Liberal, LaSalle—Émard—Verdun, QC]

We took the previous bill, Bill C-337, as amended in the Senate as our base to move forward because we had unanimous consent for that bill in the last Parliament. We thought this was a good starting point. That being said, we will look at what the ombudsman has to suggest. Obviously, the point of view of victims in here is critically important, again, as you have said, to the confidence in the system. I think that's absolutely right. Making sure that a system doesn't revictimize victims, making sure there is a sensitive dialogue between actors within the system when sexual assault cases are being dealt with is critically important to moving forward, so we will listen carefully to what she has to say.

[Larry Maguire, Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to the minister for being here.

I mentioned Ms. Ambrose's former bill, Bill C-337 to the justices this morning. When it was studied in the committee before, the federal ombudsman for victims of crime put forward a lot of recommendations. With only one of 20 victims of sexual assault coming forward...that's part of this bill, to look at the credibility of why we don't have more people coming forward and the confidence in the system. They even went so far as to say there would be a huge gap if at least some of the recommendations of the ombudsman weren't put in the new bill.

Can you outline if any of those were accepted?