Bill C-5 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code

This enactment amends the Judges Act to restrict eligibility for judicial appointment to persons who undertake to participate in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. It also amends the Judges Act to require that the Canadian Judicial Council report on seminars offered for the continuing education of judges on matters related to sexual assault law. Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

Judges Act

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

Madam Speaker, I could tell my Conservative colleague's speech came very much from the heart.

On February 4, a few weeks ago, I remember the Leader of the Opposition raising concern in this chamber regarding the Parole Board of Canada and the murder of Ms. Levesque. I think it was inferred during that discussion that the Conservatives might like to see some of this training extended to other members under federal jurisdiction, such as the Parole Board of Canada and possibly even further to members of the Immigration and Refugee Board.

I know Bill C-5 is quite limited in its scope and is looking just at the Judges Act, but I am curious to hear the member's opinions and thoughts on whether other branches that make important decisions in our society should have this kind of training mandated as well.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I agree that this type of training, specifically with respect to the Parole Board but more generally as well, is needed throughout the government. As we have continuing instances, there appears, I dare say, to be a pattern of insensitivity toward the victims of sexual violence.

I think there can be no bad education or knowledge about this. As we continue to make sure that women, particularly those victims of sexual violence, are dealt with fairly, I would be in favour of that.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for his contribution to today's debate. I welcome him to the House and to the justice committee. I also thank him for his support of this important bill.

The question I want to raise was touched upon in my opening remarks, but I think it is important for the context of the debate here.

We are dealing with federally appointed superior court judges. Obviously, the front lines of most of the criminal law work in Canada is actually at the provincial court. The court in the province that the member and I share is the Ontario court, and each province around the country has its court. This is where most sexual assault complainants and survivors will have their interaction with the justice system.

I have a general point, which is that we are trying to lead by example at the federal level, but we cannot impose the same sort of mandatory training requirements on the provincial sphere, at the provincial level of government with provincial court judges.

Given the member's strong commitment and conviction with respect to the importance of this bill, would he join with us in the overall work with provincial governments to encourage them to follow suit? Thus far, the only province that has followed suit is P.E.I., and it stands alone among the territories and provinces in terms of requiring this type of training.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, I look forward to working with the hon. member on the justice committee.

I would wholeheartedly join any activity such as he has suggested to work with our provincial counterparts and have this type of legislation enacted specifically in our home province of Ontario. I would go so far as to personally contact the minister of justice or the attorney general from the provincial government and schedule the meeting.

[Louise Charbonneau, Bloc, Trois-Rivières, QC]

Madam Speaker, can my colleague, the parliamentary secretary, tell me in specific terms what kind of continuing education judges will be required to receive in this case?

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

The member for Northumberland—Peterborough South will answer the question because he is the one who gave the speech.

[Philip Lawrence, Conservative, Northumberland—Peterborough South, ON]

Madam Speaker, this puts me in a bit of an awkward position speaking for the government. I am not sure how comfortable the government feels about that. I certainly feel a bit of discomfort here.

However, I understand that there is already much education and resources available. I look forward to working with the hon. member in the justice committee to set out exactly what this looks like going forward. I am confident that the government will work to deliver some exceptional training in this area.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I am honoured to stand in this place to deliver my maiden speech on behalf of my constituents in Calgary Skyview. Being elected as their representative is a very humbling experience and I am very grateful for this opportunity. I have lived most of my life in Calgary and I cannot think of a better place to grow up. We are so fortunate for our rich, diverse communities that thrive on hard work and a true sense of belonging to Canada.

Throughout my campaign, I met many of my constituents to learn from them how best I could help make their life easier as their member of Parliament. Most notably, I met a young woman in my riding who said to me, “I have never seen anyone who looks like me do what you are doing. I want to go to school and do what you do.” This sentiment meant a lot to me. What she saw was the first Sikh female to be elected in the House of Commons from Alberta. Other constituents would say “our daughters are looking up to you”.

I am proud to stand here today to represent not just those young women in my riding, but anyone who has dreamed of a life in service and of being here. I began imagining my journey to this place when I was really young. I would watch Amnesty International and my heart went out to those people. I would sit there and cry. Their stories moved me. I decided then I would practise law. Being a lawyer has been a tremendous honour for me. It is something I am very passionate about.

This is why this legislation we are debating today is very important to me as a lawyer, as a woman, and now as the deputy shadow cabinet minister for women and gender equality. I want to thank Ms. Ambrose for tabling this important legislation in the previous Parliament and for her dedication to this crucial issue.

Her bill, Bill C-337, received widespread support from parliamentarians and stakeholders. I am encouraged to see it moving forward. I am also pleased to see it as one of our commitments in our platform during the campaign.

Similar to Bill C-337, the bill we are debating today, Bill C-5, adds new eligibility for lawyers seeking appointment to the judiciary to require the completion of a recent and comprehensive education in sexual assault law as well as social context education. It requires the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament regarding the details on seminars offered on matters relating to sexual assault law and the number of judges attending. It does this while still maintaining the balance between judiciary independence and a fair criminal justice system, which is very important to me and to all Canadians.

The rationale for the need for the bill is all too familiar, given the recent spotlight on the treatment of sexual assault victims during trial. Sadly, this is certainly not something that is new. Let us explore the current state as it stands now. There is piecemeal training and education available in certain jurisdictions, but it is not mandatory.

We saw in 2016, a judge was found to have relied on myths about the expected behaviour of a victim of sexual abuse. That case was overturned on appeal for obvious reasons. We have seen instances of judges and the use of insensitive language when referring to victims, which can further lead to stigma.

In 2019, there were nearly a dozen cases going through Canada's court system that shed light on how judges continue to rely on myths and stereotypes when informing their decisions on sexual assault cases. Here we are, still seeing similar misinformation about the experience of sexual assault victims or victims of abuse, which can lead to poor decisions and, as we have seen, possible miscarriages of justice, sometimes resulting in new trials.

Retrials can be incredibly painful for the complainants, potentially further revictimizing them. The way victims are treated during their court proceedings as well as in the public eye we know is a major hindrance to reporting the crime in the first place. Victims witness how other sexual assault victims are treated in the justice system and are concerned that if they come forward they will be treated in the same way.

We know that sexual assault is one of the most under-reported crimes in Canada. Of reported cases, only 12% result in a criminal conviction within six years, compared to 23% of physical assaults, as reported by Statistics Canada. We know the reasons for under-reporting include shame, guilt and stigma of sexual victimization. Victims also report the belief that they would not see a positive outcome in the justice system. This simply cannot stand.

What can we do? The best way to prevent this kind of sentiment is through education and training. The path forward that this legislation sets, similar to Bill C-337, allows for more confidence in the criminal justice system by ensuring lawyers who are appointed to the bench are trained and educated in the very specific type of case.

The future state, with this bill passed, is the hope that with education and training, the stories we have once heard of victims made to feel “less than” will not be repeated. This legislation is intended to help reduce the stigma of coming forward, of reporting the crimes and seeing justice prevail for the victims.

The hope is that with education and training, the victims of sexual assault are treated with respect and avoid, at all costs, being revictimized, which can be incredibly traumatizing for the individual.

As Ms. Ambrose said during her testimony before the status of women committee, “Really...for me it's about building confidence. Women do not have confidence in our justice system when it comes to sexual assault law.”

This has to change if we are going to see an increase in sexual assaults being reported and convicted. This piece of legislation will bring us one step closer to eliminating barriers and giving victims of sexual assault more confidence to come forward.

Unfortunately, as we know, it is not just with the justice system where we see these types of myths and misunderstanding. The recent tragic death of a young woman in Quebec sheds a light on the broad scope of this issue. Marylène Levesque was killed at the hands of a convicted murderer, who had a history of domestic violence and was granted day parole.

At a hearing into the offender's previous request for full parole, the board heard from his parole officer that while living in a halfway house, he had been allowed to have his sexual needs met. How was a man with a history of violence against women granted permission to have his sexual needs met?

That is why, in light of this horrific crime, we would like to explore studying an amendment to this bill to capture parole officers and parole board members in this legislation in the hopes that something like this does not happen again.

I look forward to further study on this potential amendment and debate on this piece of legislation. I hope it garners the same support in the House as Bill C-337 did. I hope this bill passes quickly as this will only move us forward as a society and help grow confidence in our justice system.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

Madam Speaker, I welcome the member for Calgary Skyview to the chamber and congratulate her on her maiden speech in the chamber. It is an auspicious occasion, and it is also important to be giving a speech on such an important topic that affects literally all of us in this chamber and all of us around the country.

I would put to her a question similar to the question that I put to her colleague. When we look at judicial training, we see what we are trying to do at the federal level, and we see a bit of a checkerboard at the provincial level. She is a member of the bar, as am I. She practises in a different province. Alberta, among nine other provinces, does not have any form of mandatory training with respect to sexual assault awareness or social context education for its judges.

If she has conviction about the importance of this kind of bill at the federal level, would she share that conviction at the provincial level and encourage provincial counterparts to get on board with this important issue that addresses the concerns of women in the justice system?

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, I echo my colleague's comments that any education and any training is a good thing. I am all for that.

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

Madam Speaker, I offer congratulations to the hon. member for Calgary Skyview on her first speech.

I put a similar suggestion forward in my question to the parliamentary secretary about people within the Immigration and Refugee Board. The hon. member has raised an excellent point about people on parole boards. However, the government has structured the bill around judicial discretion and the Judges Act.

I think we really have to ask the government to consider it, because at the amendment stage before committee, we will not have the scope to bring in other legislation and other bills. At this early stage, there is so much support for the bill as written and concern that it should extend beyond judges to others who make basically life-and-death decisions, as the hon. member's question so rightly points out, without adequate understanding of the context, the risks and so on.

I am hoping that we might find a way through this at this early stage of looking at Bill C-5 to broaden it beyond the federal Judges Act to include other categories of adjudicators, such as parole boards and immigration review boards. My sense is that when we go to committee for clause by clause, amendments such as the ones we are discussing here will be ruled out of order, as beyond the scope of the bill. However, the government could still change it.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, that is a question better put to the government, as to whether it is willing to make the amendment at this point, but I am in favour of involving education and training for parole officers and Parole Board members.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Queen’s Privy Council for Canada and to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, the other other day, the leader of the New Democratic Party stood up and made the suggestion that through unanimous consent we would pass this legislation all the way through. I thought it was quite encouraging to hear the leader of the New Democratic Party. We are all familiar with Rona and the fine work that she did. It was initially a Conservative private member's bill.

Could the member provide her thoughts with regard to that sense of co-operation that I made reference to when I questioned the parliamentary secretary responsible for the legislation about the overwhelming consensus to see this legislation pass through.

[Jag Sahota, Conservative, Calgary Skyview, AB]

Madam Speaker, training and education to help bring a change in society is important. The whole House was in favour of that and so is our party. That is where we stand on that.

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

Madam Speaker, it should come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois will be supporting Bill C-5.

Our party supported the previous version of the bill introduced by the former interim leader of the Conservative Party, our colleague Rona Ambrose. After eagerly supporting it, I even sought the House's support for a motion calling on the Senate to fast-track the bill, since we were nearing the end of the parliamentary session. Unfortunately, what we feared came to pass: Our colleague's bill died on the Order Paper. We hope Bill C-5 will not suffer the same fate and we are eager to support it.

Bill C-5 is important. It is a short bill, just a few pages long, on which we all seem to agree. Despite its apparent simplicity, this bill is critically important since it concerns the public's confidence in its judicial system.

Everyone knows that the judicial system is the backbone of any society. What will people do if they no longer trust their judicial system? They will take justice into their own hands. The extreme actions we occasionally see that we cannot abide would only multiply.

As lawmakers, it is our responsibility to ensure that our judicial system is credible and meets with the approval and has the support of all or the vast majority of the population. It is my view that passing this bill as quickly as possible would be in the interest of justice, those involved in the justice system, and the rule of law that we are responsible for protecting.

What impact will it have? The answer is simple. We are talking about the education of judges.

My Conservative colleague just reminded us of the situation that recently unfolded when an individual was released even though, in our opinion, he never should have been. It is a specific case, but it clearly illustrates a problem in our society. We are ill-informed and we often make decisions based on stereotypes, images or preconceived ideas about certain situations.

The issue that Bill C-5 addresses, that is sexual assault, is one that we are particularly ill-equipped and poorly trained to deal with and our judgment in such matters is often biased.

I know quite a few judges, and most of them have a sterling reputation and are intelligent people of goodwill who show courage in the rulings they make, rulings that make sense and that are made in the interest of justice 99.9% of the time. Unfortunately, mistakes are occasionally made that damage the image of justice and undermine public confidence in the judicial system.

It is up to us as lawmakers to rectify the situation and restore public confidence. We have to make sure our judges have all the tools they need to do their work with the high degree of professionalism they bring to it now and want to keep bringing.

In virtually every case, a judge must assess the credibility of witnesses, the victim and the accused. Often, this is where a judge can be influenced by preconceived notions not out of malice but as a result of their experience and our culture.

That is exactly the kind of situation Bill C-5 seeks to address by providing better training for judges and raising awareness for everyone, including lawmakers, about the reality of sexual assault. How do victims react to given situations? Why do they not remember or remember inaccurately? Why do they misinterpret the events surrounding the assault? There are many important elements here.

If we want the justice system to work properly, we need to make sure the courts have a firm grasp of these issues. When asked to assess the credibility of a witness, a judge must have sufficient academic and practical knowledge to deliver a judgment that is sound and, above all, that all Canadians can trust.

It is normal for rulings to be overturned. Every day, rulings are handed down by the courts, and every day, rulings are overturned by the court of appeal. Sometimes the decision is two against one, as the judgment is not unanimous. Those cases go to the Supreme Court, which also often quashes appeal court rulings. Those judgments are not always unanimous either.

We cannot expect judges to deliver unimpeachable decisions. There is just no way. They would have to be superhuman. That will never happen. However, we can expect them to provide reasons for their decisions and make credible decisions. Ultimately, the public can always wonder whether the judge was right or wrong, but they will trust the judge. That is our goal.

That is what Bill C-5 proposes, and we are okay with that. We believe this is essential in our current justice system. For all of these reasons, and for the reasons cited by all of my colleagues over the past few years, we will be voting in favour of Bill C-5, and we hope it will be passed as quickly as possible.