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

[David Lametti, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill C-5, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak this afternoon in support of Bill C-5, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code of Canada. The bill is premised on the conviction that when survivors of sexual assault appear before our courts, they have the right to be treated with dignity and respect and to be assured that the law of sexual assault is being faithfully applied. There is no room for court decisions to be tainted by harmful myths and stereotypes of how survivors of sexual assault ought to behave. The determination to tackle this problem is deeply held by this government. However, I know it is also shared by parliamentarians from all regions of the country and all political stripes.

For far too long, victims of sexual assault have had to deal with a justice system that does not treat them with the dignity they deserve.

Many victims of sexual assault decide not to file a complaint because they are afraid of being mistreated and humiliated. That is why most sexual assaults committed in Canada are not reported to the police.

This is not an issue that is easy to resolve. Parliament alone cannot do it. Improving the way the justice system treats victims of sexual assault requires the mobilization of all levels of government and many stakeholders for broad action. In addition, all members of Canadian society have a shared responsibility to challenge and counter the myths, stereotypes and attitudes that have a pernicious effect on our justice system.

In this regard, education and information play a critical role. I applaud the extraordinary work that many organizations and individuals right around Canada are doing tirelessly to this end. However, Parliament has its own responsibilities. As parliamentarians, we can and we must take action. Canadians need to know that their elected representatives in this chamber are resolutely working toward a criminal justice system that all Canadians can trust and turn to, especially those who are the most vulnerable.

To this end, this bill seeks to ensure that superior court judges have the awareness, skills and knowledge to handle sexual assault cases in a manner that is fair to the parties, that is free from myths and stereotypes and that treats survivors with utmost dignity.

The bill also promotes rigour and transparency by requiring that judges provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault proceedings and that these reasons be set out in writing or in the record of the proceedings.

I would like to acknowledge the remarkable leadership on this matter by the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the former interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, in the last Parliament. In the previous Parliament, Ms. Ambrose introduced Bill C-337, the predecessor to the very bill before us today.

As we will recall, Bill C-337 received unanimous support in this very chamber, strengthened by an amendment brought forward by the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, which did excellent work on studying the bill. It worked to amend it to include social context education in the bill. That complementary piece will ensure that judicial training and education includes working to better understand the demographics, the background and the lived experience of the litigants who appear before our courts.

The Senate sent the bill to the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, which proposed meaningful amendments to address concerns about the bill undermining the independence of the justice system.

Members may recall that many stakeholders and parliamentarians, including the bill's sponsor, applauded the work of the Senate committee to improve the bill in question.

I agree with that view of the committee's amendments. Unfortunately, we were unable to pass the bill before the end of the previous Parliament.

Since the last Parliament, we have seen cross-party support for reviving this important measure. This is evidence of the strong support for the convictions underpinning this important bill, convictions which transcend political parties and partisan interests.

I want to thank all the parties, as well as our colleagues in the other chamber, for their commitment to a collaborative approach to this initiative. Canadians have sent us to this chamber with a clear message that they expect parliamentarians to work together. Our work on the bill is a clear illustration that we are listening and acting accordingly.

The bill places particular emphasis on the judiciary. Our government recognizes the need for education, not only for judges but also for all actors in the justice system. We are working with our provincial and territorial counterparts and justice stakeholders to expand our efforts in this area. However, the focus of the bill before the House today is on judges. To be a judge is to bear an important responsibility.

I want to quote from the Hon. Justice Gonthier, former justice of the Supreme Court of Canada. He said:

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 continued:

...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.

The confidence of the public in the administration of justice is critical to the underpinning of the bill that is before us.

Given judges' fundamental role, the public has especially high expectations of them. The Canadian Judicial Council put it as follows:

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. 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 meet these very high public expectations, relevant judicial education is essential. This education must be continually evolving in order for judges to perform their duties in situations that are constantly changing, that are dynamic. A lot of great work is being done now, but now there is a need to enshrine in legislation that this is an expected requirement going forward. That is why judicial education is a central feature of the bill under consideration before us now, Bill C-5.

Our criminal law has undergone considerable reform over the past three decades 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. We know that such perceptions, myths and stereotypes have no role in the justice system in 2020, and that is what the bill targets.

As a result, the Criminal Code prohibits all forms of non-consensual sexual activity. It provides a clear definition of consent. It identifies when consent cannot be obtained. It set outs the rules for admissibility of certain types of evidence to deter the introduction of these harmful myths and stereotypes.

I would now like to explain a few of the proposed legislative amendments.

The bill before us is, as I mentioned at the outset, essentially the same as the former Bill C-337, as amended by the Senate.

In order to require newly appointed judges to undergo training on sexual assault law and social context, the bill proposes to amend the Judges Act and to include a new eligibility requirement.

Under this amendment, candidates for employment as a judge of the superior court will be required to make a commitment to undertake this type of training if they are appointed. That is an important caveat. Upon appointment is when the training would take place. This training is to ensure that the courts take into account Canada's extensive law and jurisprudence on sexual assault and information on the social context of litigants, without being influenced by preconceived or erroneous ideas.

The bill would also clarify that seminars established by the Canadian Judicial Council on matters related to sexual assault law must be developed after consultation with groups or individuals the council considers appropriate, including sexual assault survivors and groups supporting them.

In addition, the bill would require the Canadian Judicial Council to provide to the Minister of Justice, for tabling in Parliament, an annual report containing details on seminars offered on matters relating to sexual assault law and indicating the number of judges who have been attending. This is intended to enhance accountability in the education of sitting judges on these matters and to act as an incentive to encourage their participation.

Finally, 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, so oral reasons would be sufficient as well.

I want to mention that this proposed amendment to require judges to provide reasons in the determination of sexual assault matters specifically is complementary to three currently existing requirements:

First, the members in the chamber should understand that section 726.2 of the Criminal Code requires judges to provide reasons when they are sentencing decisions.

Second, there is jurisprudence from the Supreme Court in a 2002 decision called Sheppard, which requires judges to provide reasons for their decisions more generally.

Third, subsections 278.8(2) and 278.94(5) of the Criminal Code require judges to provide reasons when determining whether certain types of evidence should be admitted in sexual assault cases.

Under this bill, the obligation to state reasons will be added to the other Criminal Code provisions relating to sexual assault. As a result, all provisions relating to sexual offences will be clear and accessible to the people applying them, thereby reducing the risk of an erroneous application of law by countering the potential influence of myths and stereotypes about victims of sexual assault and their behaviour.

This approach is in line with the Supreme Court of Canada's finding that these myths and stereotypes can undermine the courts' truth-seeking function.

It is also important to note for the purposes of today's debate that the government has already committed significant resources to support the availability of enhanced judicial training in this very area. In the 2017 budget, we provided the Canadian Judicial Council with $2.7 million over five years, and half a million dollars per year thereafter, to ensure that more judges have access to professional development, with a greater focus in particular on gender and culturally sensitive training.

Our government is also actively at work with stakeholders to ensure that appropriate training is available to all of Canada's judiciary; that is, to judges who are not federally appointed. Again, I want to acknowledge in this chamber the leadership and determination of the Hon. Rona Ambrose in making this happen as well.

Next, I want to turn to the important principle of judicial independence. This bill is designed to support that constitutionally entrenched principle. I parenthetically note that in my previous life as a constitutional litigator, I spent considerable time working on this very principle and dealing with this very issue. I am very proud to say today that the bill we are debating in this chamber clearly supports the principle of judicial independence, and importantly the principle that the education of judges should be the responsibility of the judiciary. That is an important feature that is entrenched in this bill.

Whatever measures are taken to ensure that judges have access to sexual assault training and its social context, those measures would be ill-advised if they interfere with judicial independence.

Public trust requires knowing not only that judges have the expertise required to settle the disputes that come before them, but also knowing that they are independent of Parliament, the executive branch and any other group that could try to unduly influence them.

We in Canada are fortunate to have a strong, independent judicial system. We cannot take this independence for granted, and as parliamentarians, we must work to preserve and promote it.

What I can report to this chamber is that Canada's judiciary is strongly committed to ensuring that the best possible education is available to judges. In fact Canada, thankfully, is an internationally respected leader in judicial education and is a trailblazer in social context education in particular.

Let me briefly highlight the important roles of two organizations that oversee the work of judges. The first is the Canadian Judicial Council, which I briefly mentioned earlier, and the second is the National Judicial Institute.

The Canadian Judicial Council is responsible for setting professional development requirements for superior court judges. In its professional development policy, the council requires judges newly appointed to a superior court to complete an education program for new judges, as well as a more general program to be completed within five years of appointment. These programs include sexual assault law and social context education. What we are doing with this bill is making this a formal requirement.

The National Judicial Institute is responsible for the overall coordination of judicial education in Canada. In addition to being a primary education provider, the National Judicial Institute is an internationally recognized leader in judicial education. The institute seeks to integrate substantive law, skills development and awareness of social context in all of its programs.

I want to acknowledge the significant commitment of the Canadian Judicial Council and the National Judicial Institute to ensuring that judges have access to the training they need. We thank them for their full commitment to a justice system that all Canadians can trust, especially those who are most vulnerable.

It is also important to acknowledge in this chamber the important and respectful dialogue between the judicial and legislative branches that the previous bill, Bill C-337, triggered in the last Parliament, which I am confident will continue as the current bill, Bill C-5, is debated and studied. All partners in this dialogue share a strong commitment to a justice system that survivors of sexual assault can trust and that all vulnerable persons can trust, a justice system that treats them with the dignity and respect they so dearly deserve.

It is also important to outline how this bill would work within the context of other government commitments and government actions. Supporting victims and survivors of crime is a priority for our government. This includes working with provinces and territories to provide free legal advice and support to survivors of sexual assault and intimate partner violence. It includes the government's commitment, announced in the Speech from the Throne, to build on the gender-based violence strategy and work with partners to develop a national action plan.

The bill before us represents a major step forward. It gives parliamentarians an opportunity to send a clear message to all Canadian victims of sexual assault that we are not indifferent to their experiences, that courage is an inspiration and that they deserve a justice system that treats them with the utmost dignity and respect.

I know that we all share the same convictions in this regard, which is why I urge all members on both sides of this House to agree to support the very important measures contained in Bill C-5.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the parliamentary secretary's speech, and I too would like to acknowledge the work that was done by the Hon. Rona Ambrose in the previous Parliament and the work that this House did together, particularly at the status of women committee too, to get that previous bill, Bill C-337, to the Senate.

I am proud to indicate that the NDP will be supporting this bill to go forward to committee, but I have a number of questions for the parliamentary secretary. We know that often complainants in sexual assault cases are provided inadequate social supports and inadequate information about the court process, and they are often confronted with a system that completely ignores their wishes.

These are not problems that a bill can solve. While Bill C-5 is important, I would like to know how the federal government, acting in a leadership role with all the provinces, is going to move to address these issues.

My second question is with regard to the TRC's call to action number 27, which recommends that lawyers receive extensive training on first nations indigenous issues, particularly with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, as well as systemic racism, which we are now seeing all across Canada. I wonder what the government may do to require training for judges to bring their competency up in those particular areas.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the member has been a significant contributor to many Parliaments, including in the past study of this bill in his past work on the justice committee. I want to thank him and his party for their support of this bill. It is quite critical.

To address the first part of the question, the member opposite asked about some of the social supports, and I will readily confess that this obviously cannot be done in a vacuum. We need to be doing what we can to address the very difficult circumstances that face a number of victims, in particular sexual assault victims, when they interact with the justice system. I think what this would do is address the adjudication side with respect to sensitizing judges in their understanding of the issues, but there are many complementary pieces.

He raised the issue of the lawyers and potential legal support. One could also raise the issue about the police and their interactions with sexual assault victims and survivors. I think it all needs to be done in a complementary piece, and I look forward to aspects of the gender violence strategy that will look to those different dimensions.

The Minister of Justice's mandate letter states that he has been given a mandate to ensure that legal aid supports are there, in particular for survivors of sexual violence. I think that is a good step in terms of addressing the access to justice piece that the hon. member mentioned.

With respect to the TRC calls to action, there are many that still need to be addressed. We know this. There are many that also relate to the MMIWG's calls for justice. With respect to the lawyers' training, what I will indicate to him in all candour is that a previous incarnation of this bill looked at potentially having the training apply to all applicants, regardless of whether they were appointed. The current iteration of the bill looks at applicants who are undertaking this training because they have been appointed.

It is an open question. As a member of the bar, I think all members of my profession need to have a better understanding and sensitivity training with respect to how to handle these issues and the issues that face all vulnerable people.

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

Madam Speaker, I welcome seeing Bill C-5 renamed and back in this place. As we all recall, the bill was proposed initially as a private member's bill by the former interim leader of the Conservative party, Rona Ambrose. I am sure I am not alone, in a non-partisan sense, in saying we miss her in this place.

I wonder about openness to amendments. One came to mind recently when I had constituents asking in town hall meetings about a decision of an Immigration and Refugee Board adjudicator, a Ms. Randhawa. Her decision was appalling, and it was overturned in the Federal Court of Appeal. It occurs to me that perhaps we need to expand the range of training. In this particular case, the IRB adjudicator refused a request for refugee status because the adjudicator found it not credible that the woman who feared returning to her home country for fear of violent attack by an intimate partner had kept a child of rape, and therefore, the adjudicator said, it could not have really been rape. It is very upsetting to imagine that we have adjudicators with life-and-death control over people seeking protection in Canada.

I wonder if the hon. parliamentary secretary could indicate whether we might be able to expand the scope of training to people who deal with refugee claimants.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for her contributions in the chamber.

This bill is focused on the Judges Act and Criminal Code amendments that relate thereto. It has been carefully calibrated to deal with the constitutional principle of judicial independence. Without going too much into the weeds, I would say to the hon. member that when dealing with adjudicators that are outside the scope of what is called a federally appointed judge or a Superior Court judge, there is the ability to be more prescriptive. Therefore, for people who adjudicate in quasi-judicial tribunals, for administrative adjudicators or decision-makers, there is the possibility to be even more prescriptive and more directive with respect to the training that needs to take place.

I know about the case the member has mentioned. That has been raised on the floor of the House, and quite appropriately so, because the fact that those types of myths and stereotypes are being perpetuated by various levels of adjudicators around this country and by various government appointees in this country is deeply problematic and needs to be addressed.

With respect to this bill, this bill has been calibrated for judges. Doing something more direct and even stronger with respect to additional adjudicators is something that I think all members in this House would welcome.

[Niki Ashton, NDP, Churchill—Keewatinook Aski, MB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to echo the sentiments of my NDP colleagues in the House in stating our support for this important piece of legislation, while also insisting that we need to build on this specifically with a lens on the experience of indigenous women, recognizing that the violence experienced by indigenous women is far greater than what is experienced by other women in our country, and also recognizing that sexual violence against women remains constant while violence has gone down overall over the last few years.

There is no question that this legislation is key, but let us make sure we get it right. Let us make sure we use this opportunity as a Parliament to make a difference for survivors as they face the justice system. Let us make sure that we get it right by making sure that the experiences of indigenous survivors are part of the work we do going forward.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, the observation and comment of the hon. member dovetails with the previous comment mentioned by her colleague with respect to the TRC.

We know that women face significant hurdles when they are raising sexual assault concerns in formal processes, such as those in the criminal justice system. We know it is not a hospitable environment by any means, and there are significant challenges. Those challenges are exponentially multiplied when individuals also have other intersecting components in their lived experience, such as being racialized women or indigenous women in particular. We heard about that a great deal in the MMIWG's calls for justice. Addressing that aspect is something we are very committed to.

I am very pleased that in the study on the status of women in the previous Parliament, social context was inserted into the bill to make sure that the judges' lens of analysis and their information and training would accommodate for all of that lived experience that litigants present when they appear in court, but that needs to be fleshed out even further. The experiences of indigenous women in particular need to be a focus of this bill.

[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, my question is about the amount of consensus that we see as this piece of legislation advances, because there seems to be support from all sides of this House. I am wondering if my colleague can provide his thoughts on how encouraging it is when we see all parties coming together on such an important issue.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

Madam Speaker, that is an excellent question. I will confess that it is, unfortunately, all too rare, but it is very encouraging when it happens. Sometimes we can all stand united, all 338 of us, in recognizing an important bill that is trying to address a pressing social concern. That is what this bill represents.

There needed to be some tweaks to the legislation to ensure that it was compliant with judicial independence. We made those tweaks with the help of committees, both in this chamber and in the Senate, but what we have before us is a very strong bill that hopefully all parties can get behind so that we can ensure that it comes into force as expeditiously as possible.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

I will point out to members that the questions and answers were a little longer than normal and that we need to allow for other people. I also want to remind members that they have to be in their seats if they want to be recognized.

I owe an apology to the member for Trois-Rivières. I did not see her stand, so I will certainly keep that in mind as the questions continue.

It is my duty pursuant to Standing Order 38 to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for North Island—Powell River, Veterans Affairs; the hon. member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford, Health; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, International Trade.

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

Madam Speaker, I would like to inform the House that I will take the unusual step of sharing my time in this early round. I believe all the parties have been surveyed and all are on board. I wish to seek unanimous consent to split my time with the member for Calgary Skyview.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent to share his time?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I am sure the House will be thankful for that.

I am a proud member of the Law Society, and because of that, part of the justice system. The justice system is supposed to be a safe place for victims of sexual assault. However, our justice system has had a checkered history in fairly weighing the rights of the victims versus those of the accused in sexual assault cases.

Incredibly, up until 1983, a woman's claim of sexual assault could be undermined by evidence submitted with respect to her sexual history. A woman's claim of sexual assault could be undermined or even dismissed because of such trivial, terrible considerations as the length of her skirt or her recent dating history.

I am glad to see that as a country we have grown to understand that we need to stop blaming victims in cases of sexual assault and put the blame where it should be, directly at the feet of the perpetrator. However, Canada still faces a sexual assault epidemic and our justice system appears only marginally capable of dealing with the torrent of these sexual assault cases.

There are over 400,000 sexual assaults in Canada every year. By some measures, for every thousand sexual assaults that occur in Canada, only 33 are reported to police. That is unacceptable in a country as good and as great as Canada. Of those 33 reported assaults, believe it or not, charges are brought in only 12 cases; six cases are prosecuted and three cases lead to a conviction.

This is an extremely disturbing statistic. I have a sister and a mother, and the most precious thing in my life, other than my son in equal amounts, is my daughter. I now know that if she were to come across sexual violence, there would be less than a 0.1% chance of her perpetrator being brought to justice in Canada. That is a truly disturbing and atrocious number.

There are a number of reasons why victims do not report sexual assault, including shame, self-blame, feeling there is a lack of evidence, embarrassment and fear of retaliation. Another overlying reason is the lack of faith in the criminal justice system. As a member of the bar and this system, that deeply hurts me.

If there is anything we can do to improve the system for victims of sexual assault, that should be something we do. I will definitely be supporting this bill. In fact, I salute the government for bringing this important piece of legislation forward.

The lack of respect for women seems not to be limited to just the justice system. It seems that it has spread across the government. As we have seen recently, a Parole Board member in Quebec advised a violent criminal, one who had killed his own wife, to seek the services of a sex worker. That resulted in her violent death.

She was a beautiful, wonderful woman. God only knows what impact she could have had on society or what good she could have done for our world. Unfortunately, her life was snuffed out all too early, when she was merely a young woman.

We have also heard the stories in this House of what happened with the refugee board when a refugee adjudicator said that rape could not be rape if a woman decided to keep the child. I could not imagine something more offensive than that comment.

I call upon the government to look at this as an opportunity to spread the type of sensitivity training it is talking about for judges. It is honourable and I will support it. However, we should go beyond our judges to perhaps our adjudicators and to other individuals within the government who appear to desperately need this training.

Victims of sexual assault and sexual violence are throughout our community. Indeed, some statistics put it as high as one in three women will experience some form of sexual violence in their lifetime.

As a father of a four-year-old daughter, that statistic is absolutely disturbing to me. It is something that as a community, not just as legislators, we need to spend every resource on stopping.

While the number of men who experience sexual violence is much smaller, this is a pressing issue for everyone. Victims of sexual assault are, after all, our daughters, sisters, mothers, friends and co-workers. Quite frankly, they deserve better from us and they deserve more protection. We must as a society attempt to drive this out of our communities, our country and indeed our world.

Part of ending sexual violence is not just punishing the perpetrators of these heinous acts, but also helping the victims feel more comfortable in sharing their stories. Part of the reason this legislation is so important is that we need to make sure judges deal appropriately with these cases and make it as palatable as possible for the victims of sexual violence to tell their stories.

Many victims do not feel comfortable coming forward because of their lack of faith in the criminal justice system. They do the incredible and difficult feat of coming forward and then meet the new challenge of facing our justice system.

Sadly, some judges have indicated they do not understand what sexual consent means, even though it is clear in law and in the Criminal Code.

Some judges have gone so far as to ask a victim in court why she could not just keep her knees together. Those comments need to never be said again in a courtroom or anywhere in Canada. Other comments have been made asking why the victim did not scream while the alleged assault took place or why the victim did not skew her pelvis to avoid penetration.

I am paraphrasing actual statements that were said in a court of law. These are disgusting words that should never be spoken anywhere in our country, much less in a courtroom.

Perhaps by giving judges the necessary training we can avoid these outlandish comments and give victims more confidence in our justice system so they will know they will be treated with respect when they perform the ultimate act of bravery and confront their perpetrators.

I will be honest. As a man it is hard to speak about these cases because I cannot possibly understand what these women have gone through. I honestly cannot imagine the horror of living through sexual violence and being forced to retell that story over and over again. These women come forward to protect other women only to have their credibility questioned or to have to face their tormentor over and over again. However, this is what the criminal justice system demands for justice.

Fixing our criminal justice system is about helping our federal judges begin to understand the quiet suffering of victims of sexual violence and teaching our judges to be more compassionate toward the victims. This bill is not about fixing our justice system as much as it is about making Canada a safer, more friendly place for all women and children. This bill not only makes sense but is also a step in the right direction for all victims of sexual assault across Canada.

I will wholeheartedly support this bill, and I salute the government for bringing it forward.

[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.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his speech and his comments. I congratulate him on being elected vice-chair of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights a few days ago. I know that he is a member of the Barreau du Québec. I would like to note the same thing I pointed out to other hon. members in my previous interventions.

There is a system for training judges, but the real training ground for criminal justice in Canada and Quebec is at the provincial level. Judges from Ontario and Quebec are not subject to the same training and education requirements.

I would like to know whether the hon. member will join us in this great challenge of promoting the awareness of judges at any level, even in his own province, Quebec.

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

Madam Speaker, I just said how sensitive we are to this issue of credibility in judicial decisions. I am not going to change my mind just because we are changing jurisdictions.

I also want to congratulate my colleague and I am pleased to work with him at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

That being said, I would like to point out that provincial matters are provincial matters. I am not going to try to influence provincial legislatures, especially Quebec's. We are rather protective of our jurisdictions. I think that is essential for ensuring the credibility of judicial decisions and parliamentary activities. It is important that we respect provincial jurisdictions.

If the National Assembly of Quebec felt it was necessary to change the rules for appointing judges or anything in the judicial process, that would be done in Quebec City. I will avoid any comment or anything resembling a directive that might be given to the National Assembly.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rivière-du-Nord for his speech.

Obviously, the NDP is pleased that Bill C-5 is moving forward. This bill contains some worthwhile measures, such as training to encourage the judiciary to be more aware of all of the complex issues related to sexual assault and sexual violence.

However, I am a bit concerned that we are not taking this further. We also need to implement a social assistance system to help victims of sexual violence. Right now, there are so many women, including in Quebec, who are falling through the cracks.

The Fédération des maisons d'hébergement pour femmes in Quebec has indicated that approximately 20,000 requests for emergency shelter from women who want to protect themselves and their children are rejected every year due to lack of space.

It is good that we are providing better training for magistrates and judges, but there are women who need help and they do not have a bed or a room. If they are forced to either return home to a dangerous situation or to be homeless and live on the streets, then we are not much further ahead.

I would like to hear what my colleague has to say about this urgent need in Quebec society.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague from Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie. He is quite right. We have a serious problem. I am experiencing it in my riding, in many contexts.

There are not enough spaces in women's shelters for victims of violence. There are not enough soup kitchens for the poor, for people who live on the street. Those services are seriously underfunded.

We need to address this problem. Time and time again in the last Parliament, my colleagues in the NPD and the Bloc Québécois proposed additional funding for the provinces in that regard. I still support that request.

This needs to be done. That money must be transferred to avoid jurisdictional fights. This is hurting us at all levels, particularly when it comes to infrastructure investments.

As for these tagged funding envelopes, they need to stop. The provinces have real needs. The federal government needs to get the necessary funds together and transfer them to the provinces. We need them in Quebec and we know how to spend them.

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

Madam Speaker, I have a question for my hon. colleague.

Considering the consensus and support this bill has, is there any way we could pass it faster?

I doubt I will hear anyone say anything against this bill's objective throughout this debate.

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

Madam Speaker, I completely agree with my colleague from Saanich—Gulf Islands.

Members will recall that, just recently—last week if memory serves—the NDP moved a motion to pass this bill quickly, and we voted in favour of that motion.

For some reason I did not quite understand, our Conservative colleagues did not support it. I believe they wanted to amend it. I will not get into the details because I was not privy to those discussions, but we completely agree that Bill C-5 must not suffer the same fate as Bill C-337, which languished in the Senate and died on the Order Paper.

We are hoping for swift passage of Bill C-5.

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

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am wondering if it is the will of the House at this hour to deem that the bill has achieved second reading, third reading and report stage. We could send it to the Senate as currently drafted and move to a different bill to deal with the immigration review board, the Parole Board and the other issues that are probably outside the scope of this bill.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent of the House to propose the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

No.

[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, I appreciate the gesture that has been made by the former leader of the Green Party. She understands and appreciates the significance of the legislation we are debating. It is always encouraging when politicians of all political stripes recognize the importance of gender training and education. We will have a better system as a direct result of this legislation.

My question for the member is similar to the question I asked other members this afternoon. It is not often that we get virtually unanimous consent for a piece of legislation. I suspect that Bill C-5 could receive the support of all 337 members of Parliament and possibly the Chair, although I do not think there will be a tie vote, so the Speaker will not have to vote.

Could the member provide his thoughts on how encouraging it is when all parties get behind legislation such as this?

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

Madam Speaker, I obviously agree that the unanimous approval of a bill has incredible significance and bearing.

In my view, the justice system is the backbone of our society. I have said so from the start. Knowing that all parliamentarians share this view and that Bill C-5 should be adopted tells me that we have a strong backbone. We have what we wanted, that is, a consensus among Canadians.

The judicial system is one that the entire population supports and trusts.

The fact that we, in this place, are saying that we all want to pass Bill C-5 leads me to believe that we could not do any better.

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

Madam Speaker, before I begin I wonder if I could seek the unanimous consent of the House to split my time with the hon. member for Victoria.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker, NDP, Carol Hughes]

Does the hon. member have unanimous consent?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the House's granting me that privilege.

I want to start my speech on Bill C-5 by acknowledging the incredibly important role that judges play in our justice system. These are men and women who are put in very difficult positions. They have to weigh incredible amounts of evidence before them and make judgments as to whether beyond a reasonable doubt a person is guilty of the crime that the Crown is putting forward as an argument.

Judges know that their decisions one way or the other are going to have life-altering impacts, either on the accused or on the person who brought the complaint before the justice system. The debate today should not diminish the important role that judges play in our society.

I also want to take time to acknowledge the Hon. Rona Ambrose, the previous interim leader of the Conservative Party, for the work that she did in the 42nd Parliament with her private member's bill, Bill C-337.

I am happy to see that the government has brought the substance of that bill forward in this 43rd Parliament as Bill C-5. Judging from the character of the speeches so far, there is unanimous agreement that this bill needs to be passed, perhaps not through all stages as quickly as we would like, but I have a strong feeling that after today's debate the justice committee will be getting to work on this bill in short order.

We are supportive of the intent behind Bill C-5, particularly its intention of ensuring that victims of sexual assault and gender-based violence have confidence in the judicial system.

We know that complainants in sexual assault cases are often provided with inadequate social supports. They receive inadequate information about the court process, and they are often confronted by a system that ignores their wishes.

We should acknowledge that Bill C-5 would not solve those problems. It is an important step, but there is an entire systemic approach we need to take to ensure that complainants of sexual assault are coming to a system that they can have confidence in. That confidence needs to be built, and there is still much work to be done.

We need a systemic review of the judicial system when it comes to sexual assault to stop survivors from being victimized, victim-blamed, not informed and very badly supported by policing and justice systems.

The statistics underline this story. Statistics Canada estimates that only 5% of sexual assaults are reported to the police. We know that one in three women will experience sexual violence in her lifetime. For me that is a particularly personal statistic, given that I am the father of three daughters.

I do not want anyone to become one of those statistics, but that is a fact of life in our society. It is not limited just to women: We know that one in six men will experience sexual violence in his lifetime as well. In 82% of cases, the offender is known to the victim. We know that 28% of Canadians have said that they have experienced workplace sexual assault or violence.

I got to know a transgender person in my riding very well over the previous campaign, and I know the courage it took for him to come forward and be a part of my campaign, and to speak openly about the situation that transgender Canadians face in our country. They face nearly twice as much intimate partner violence in their lifetimes as women do, and that is an area that we definitely need to pay attention to as a society.

I also want to acknowledge that my Conservative friends have raised some concerns as to whether the scope of this bill could be expanded to include other areas that fall under federal jurisdiction, most notably the Parole Board of Canada.

We have also seen that the actions of the Immigration and Refugee Board deserve some scrutiny. Perhaps that is something that the justice committee, in its wisdom, can take note of and ask the appropriate questions of the witnesses who come forward to offer their expertise on this particular bill.

I was a member of the 42nd Parliament and remember with great pride, back in 2017 when we were deliberating Bill C-337, that it was great to see the House move a unanimous consent motion in March of that year to get the bill referred to the status of women committee. The status of women committee did some good work on the bill. It had five meetings, heard from 25 witnesses and reported that bill back to the House with some slight amendments.

This is to assure members of the House that the hard work on this bill has been done. We have a lot of witness testimony in the record, and I hope the testimony heard at the status of women committee back in 2017 will inform the justice committee and that we can take note of that when the justice committee is doing its work.

This bill seeks to correct the problems I have noted through rearticulation to judicial candidates on the current standing of sexual assault laws, namely the principles of consent, conduct of sexual assault proceedings, and education regarding myths and stereotypes of sexual assault complainants through training seminars.

That is because we have seen a record, through the actions of various judges, that this training is sorely needed. We have seen it through their comments during court proceedings and through referrals in their judgments, but we would be mistaken if we were to pinpoint this problem entirely on judges. We know that the police themselves have a lot of work to do and I know they are trying their best to achieve this, but we know from the complaints of victims that this work is ongoing.

The Senate, when it received Bill C-337 through its legal and constitutional affairs committee, did make some amendments. There was a lot of concern regarding the constitutionality of the bill. I understand that the government's version is much closer to, or a wholesale adoption of, what the Senate committee did to Bill C-337.

I know there is this ongoing battle between the legislature, the Parliament of Canada, and our judicial branch. Sometimes they can come into conflict. I know that Michael Spratt, a noted lawyer in the Ottawa region, has written about his concerns with the current bill, but I also know that Professor Emmett Macfarlane has said that Parliament is well within its rights to be legislating in areas such as the Judges Act.

I think this bill does a careful job, as is noted in the charter statement, of doing our best to respect judicial independence. This is really about setting up the training that exists. It is going to be overseen independently of Parliament. We will not have any influence whatsoever on what judges do with this training, because they are still going to be impartial and independent of Parliament when they exercise their judgment and bring forward rulings.

This bill, in particular, passes constitutional muster. I have read the wording of it quite carefully and I think Parliament has a role, as an expression of people's wishes and the changing norms of society, to express its will and make sure that the federal statutes of Canada reflect the changing mood of our country.

I would like to offer my congratulations to the government and all members for the unanimity that we are showing in the proceedings today. I think, though, that when we are looking at other issues plaguing Canada, particularly with respect to aboriginal rights, we still see a lot of systemic racism and very little understanding of what aboriginal rights and title mean. Sometimes this can be reflected in our federal court system.

In closing, my one offer to the government is that it look at the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's calls to action, particularly number 27, to see if this kind of training might also be mandated for judges and other parts of the justice system that fall under federal jurisdiction.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member opposite for his contribution to the discussion and for the expertise that he brings to bear on it, given his past involvement in the previous Parliament and the study of Bill C-337.

I concur wholeheartedly that constitutional infirmities were pointed out in the previous incarnation of this bill, through the hard work of people in this chamber and also in the Senate. In particular, Senator Dalphond worked very closely with the judiciary on language that would be acceptable, in terms of not encroaching upon that sacrosanct principle of constitutional independence.

I believe we have landed in the right place in formalizing the requirement to be sensitized to these issues but not traversing the line, which would be to actually influence the decision-making that is being done by particular judges.

I also observe wholeheartedly the point he has made about indigenous reconciliation and the TRC's calls to action. I wanted to ask him about the social context amendment that was made at the status of women committee, and how he feels that plays into that sensitization of the judiciary that is so required in this context.

Can he flesh out his opinions on that amendment?

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

Madam Speaker, I regret to inform the parliamentary secretary that my memory of that particular aspect is a little hazy.

I do know that my former colleague Sheila Malcolmson, who used to be the member of Parliament for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, was our status of women critic in the previous Parliament. I would like to take this opportunity to salute the very important work she did on that committee during that time.

This was originally a bill that landed in my lap as the justice critic. She took it, as the main critic, and ran with it. I salute the work that she did because I know that all members in the status of women committee carefully listened to the 25 witnesses who came forward during those five meetings, and there was some pretty heavy testimony.

I feel confident that the members of the status of women committee listened and faithfully observed that evidence, and I think the bill they returned to the House reflected that. I look forward to seeing what the present Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights will do once this bill is sent to it, hopefully by next week.

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

Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak to something related to this bill. On Vancouver Island we have the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and clinic. I just wanted to take this opportunity, with so many members in the House concerned with this issue, to highlight that this facility is so significant and should be replicated in communities across Canada.

It is the only facility where there is a rapid response team for sexual assault victims, whether they are women or trans people who are affected by sexual assault, and it has a clinic facility that saves our health care system and reduces costs. It has a perfectly equipped, private room designed to allow police to do perfect recordings of interviews, with proper camera work and proper recording devices, and collect forensic evidence in a comfortable setting that feels like home. The clinic feels like home.

I just cannot say enough about how impressed I am by the work of the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre and clinic, and I do not know if my hon. colleague has had a chance to tour it. I would recommend it.

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

Madam Speaker, I have not yet had the opportunity to tour that facility, but I will take this opportunity to give a shout-out to an organization in my own riding: Cowichan Women Against Violence. It operates Somenos House in my riding, which is a transition house for women. I have toured the place, and it is a very worthwhile organization.

I think that speaks to the part of my speech where I said Bill C-5 is important, but it is only legislation. What we need is a systemic review of the entire system and how we can support complainants so they actually develop trust in our justice system.

I think the federal government would serve us well by giving worthwhile organizations, such as the one the hon. member mentioned and also Cowichan Women Against Violence in my riding, the resources they need to help some of the most disadvantaged members of our society.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am grateful to have the opportunity to rise to speak to this issue. For me, like many Canadians, this is a deeply personal issue.

I am among the one in three women who has experienced sexual violence and know first-hand how the shame, guilt and stigma still persist in addressing sexual assault. I have also witnessed close friends and community members go through the legal system and struggle in dealing with the misconceptions and prejudice from support workers, police, lawyers and judges.

Having witnessed the challenges survivors face in our judicial system, many choose not to report it. Only one out of 20 sexual assault victims report to the police. A key factor for that is the lack of confidence survivors have in the judicial system to treat them fairly and to achieve a positive outcome.

For those who choose to report to the police or to pursue charges, the judicial system is rigged against them. The fear many survivors have, that they will not get fair treatment, is real and it is supported by the evidence.

There is a profound lack of trust in the legal system. Out of the estimated 460,000 sexual assaults each year in Canada, only three out of every thousand lead to a conviction. That is number is staggering; three out of 1,000.

When it comes to sexual assault, it is clear that we need a systematic review of the judicial system to stop survivors from being victimized or victim blamed, or not being informed or having reports systematically brushed aside and being badly supported by our policing and justice systems.

The Canadian justice system in its current form actually discourages sexual assault survivors or survivors of gender-based violence from coming forward. This bill seeks to take a small but important step forward in correcting the problem through training and education of judicial candidates. These future judges would get training on the current standing of sexual assault laws, namely principles of consent, conduct of sexual assault proceedings and education regarding myths and stereotypes of sexual assault complaints.

This is so important. It is a non-partisan issue. The last iteration of this bill passed unanimously in the House in the last Parliament, but was shamefully blocked by the unelected Senate. This is why the NDP agrees that legislation is needed to require judges to receive training around sexual assault.

Without taking away from the importance of the bill, which is desperately needed, we also have to acknowledge that it is just one of the needed steps. Treating sexual assault as only a criminal justice issue ignores the fact that just one in 20 victims report it to the police.

Sexual assault is also a public health issue, a personal health and wellness issue and a mental health issue. We need to treat it as such by also turning our attention to medical services, support and care. Trauma-informed approaches and an increased understanding of sexual assault among key service providers and actors is critical. This includes judges, but also police, medical professionals, lawyers and support workers.

I am also lucky to live in a riding where my constituents and I have the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre. I was lucky enough to be able to access its services when I needed them. It serves people of all genders. We know one in three women experience sexualized violence, but one in six men do as well. We know that non-binary and LGBTQ2I+ folks face disproportionate levels of sexualized violence.

We are truly fortunate to have the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre since it is Canada's only integrated sexual assault clinic. The clinic provides survivors of all genders access to trauma-informed medical and forensic exams, police interviews and crisis support, all in one safe, accessible and culturally sensitive, confidential location.

The availability of this survivor-centred care means that the vast majority of survivors in my riding will never need to go to a hospital or police station to get the care they need. When the clinic opened, the number of emergency responses more than doubled, meaning twice as many survivors were able to access emotional support, preventative medication and options for police reporting. The number of supported police interviews rose by 400%. All of this took place while diverting 280 people from the emergency room and reducing costs for other service providers.

However, the clinic has no dedicated or secure sources of funding. It relies entirely on one-time grants, and the service will be extremely vulnerable in the coming year and a half. The bill is a step in the right direction, but we also need to ensure that comprehensive support services are available for all survivors. There is so much work to do, and I am hopeful we can take this important small step forward quickly.

Judges need training to challenge the false stereotypes about sexual violence that permeate our society. We have seen too many appalling examples in recent years showing that some judges continue to hold false stereotypes about women and sexualized violence. These biases discourage all survivors from coming forward in the first place and create barriers for survivors who do so in seeking justice through the legal system.

Trauma is complex and judges need to understand survivors' perspectives and the impact of the criminal justice system on survivors of sexual assault. The training needs to be culturally informed and relevant to the unique needs of vulnerable and marginalized populations. Some groups face disproportionately higher rates of sexual violence, and many groups face very specific barriers in seeking help from law enforcement agencies and the justice system. They include those from northern, rural and remote communities, sex workers, people who are trafficked, LGBTQ+ people, indigenous women, immigrant and refugee women and women with disabilities.

The bill could be improved at the justice committee by making sure that seminars related to sexual assault are developed in collaboration with these groups and by specifically bringing the bill within the Truth and Reconciliation Commission's call to action no. 27. We can also ensure it is in line with the calls to action from the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls report.

There is a clear benefit to ensuring that judges are well informed not only about the laws that pertain to sexual assault but also about the physical, mental and emotional impacts of sexual violence on survivors and how those affect decision-making, behaviour, ability to recall and so much more. Building confidence in our courts would make more victims feel empowered to come forward.

The message sent to survivors by the Senate when it refused to pass the bill in its former iteration in the last Parliament was dismissal, a dismissal of the idea that what happens to victims of sexual assault matters, a dismissal of survivor needs and a dismissal of the real barriers they encounter. This message is reinforced throughout our whole judicial system.

Supporting this legislation sends a message to survivors that their elected members of Parliament are standing up for them and are committed to doing the work necessary to support them. We recognize the stigma and barriers they face and are working hard to give them a reason to have more confidence in our system.

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

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for Victoria for her courage and for being so candid in terms of her own lived experienced. That is exactly what this chamber is meant to be about, and I salute her for being so honest with all of us.

This is the second time in the last 25 minutes we have heard about the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre. I will make a commitment here on the floor of the chamber that the next time I am on the island I will go see that centre. It sounds like it is exactly the type of institution we need to make things more welcoming and inviting and to reduce some of the obstacles in place for women who have survived sexual assault.

Some of the suggestions the member has made are very appropriate. However, I am also conscious of where we have jurisdiction and where we do not, although I hate to be so legal about it. With medical professionals we would need provincial co-operation and with front-line police officers in the city of Victoria we would need local co-operation.

Are there instances where the member feels that at the federal level we can show leadership in expanding the sensitization of federally appointed individuals, who are under federal jurisdiction, to make the experience of a survivor of sexual assault less difficult and boost the number of complaints that are seen through to completion?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his commitment to visit the Victoria Sexual Assault Centre. I extend that invitation to all members in the House. It is an incredible space, one that I hope is replicated in other communities.

I particularly appreciate that he talked about working across jurisdictions, because I think it is important that we work with our provincial and municipal partners to reduce stigma and support survivors in all cases. This bill is an important step toward training for judicial candidates. I think the parole board officers also need that.

Having a debate about the death of Marylène Levesque is a stark, horrific reminder. I think all Canadians would benefit from training and education on these issues. I would also invite the members of this House to do their own training. There is a lot of information out there. We need to come together in our communities, in our organizations and in every aspect of our world to support survivors. It is one in three women or one in six men, and those numbers are even higher for non-binary trans individuals. That means there are dozens of people in this House who have experienced sexualized violence. Our day-to-day interactions need to shift dramatically, but especially when survivors are reaching out for support or accessing services. When we are delivering services, we need to make sure they are done in trauma-informed and supportive ways.

[Kristina Michaud, Bloc, Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech, which was very moving.

I understand that this is an extremely important bill that we want to pass as quickly as possible. It is very important to do so. There was a suggestion that groups be consulted. That is a very good idea.

Does my colleague believe that the bill goes far enough? Does she have any suggestions in that regard?

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am sorry I cannot respond in French. I promise I am learning, so hopefully some day soon I will be able to in the House.

When we talk about groups that have been marginalized by our systems, specifically groups that face higher instances of sexualized violence, these people need to be consulted in the creation of any education program. To develop training and seminars without their input means we would have glaring gaps in service. When we look at the higher rates of sexualized violence for indigenous women, women with disabilities, and immigrant and refugee women, and we look at the barriers that people face in coming forward to the police, we need to make sure that our training is going to serve the people who need it most, so I do—

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Development]

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with the member for Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe.

It is an honour for me to speak to Bill C-5. As members know, if passed, this proposed piece of legislation will amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code to require newly appointed provincial superior court judges to participate in training on sexual assault and the social context in which it occurs. Judges are expected to apply the law in a manner that is respectful of the dignity of survivors. Training on sexual assault law and the social context in which the sexual assault occurs will help to ensure that they have a full understanding of the complex nature of sexual assault when presiding over such cases.

This proposed legislation will also require judges to provide written reasons for their final decisions in sexual assault matters. Doing so will improve the transparency of judges' decisions.

It is noteworthy that only 5% of sexual assaults in this country get reported. Bill C-5 would give us an opportunity to strengthen our criminal justice system and give survivors of sexual assault and all Canadians more confidence in our system.

Today I will use my time to demonstrate how this legislation could build the confidence of survivors of sexual assault, as well as their families and loved ones, in our criminal justice system, and to help survivors feel more comfortable reporting these crimes to the police.

Sexual violence is a widespread problem in Canada. It is one of the most under-reported crimes. As I stated earlier, only 5% of sexual assaults in Canada are reported to the police.

I would like to elaborate on the social context. Brampton, especially in my own riding of Brampton West, is one of the fastest-growing populations in Canada. More interestingly, the majority of Brampton's residents are visible minorities. Violence, whether it is sexual assault or other forms of domestic violence, is massively under-reported. Due to the stigma of sexual violence, racialized women are even more reluctant to seek help. This is even more true for indigenous girls and women, women with disabilities, as well as LGBTQ2 community members.

Many factors can influence whether or not survivors will report that they have been sexually assaulted, such as the fear of being blamed or not being believed, concerns over retaliation from their attacker, anxiety of having their personal lives publicly judged and the fear of judicial error. These are just some of the factors and truths of the society we live in.

These factors are exacerbated in marginalized communities. Such barriers transcend but can also be compounded by intersectionalities of one's gender, age, class, disability and ethnicity. That is why the social context is so necessary.

Myths and stereotypes about sexual assaults are also dangerous and can have substantial negative impacts on whether a survivor will report. They also negatively impact whether there can be a trial that is fair to the accused, the victim and society at large.

Undeniably, a lack of confidence in the criminal justice system is one of the significant reasons that survivors do not come forward.

For those who do report the crime, they often tell us that they are re-traumatized by the process. As myths and stereotypes regarding sexual assault continue in the justice system, scrutiny about what the survivor did or did not do instead of the actions of the accused often determine the outcome of a case. This dehumanizing process, along with a lack of adequate supports and resources, can revictimize and further traumatize those who have experienced sexual violence.

In spite of the progress we have made, the criminal justice system is still a source of further distress and humiliation for survivors of sexual assault. Sexual violence is a crime that robs people of their choice, strips them of their bodily and sexual integrity and undermines their dignity and psychological well-being.

The impact of sexual assault is still not well understood in society and rape myths are still common and persist throughout the justice system. For example, in today's society, there is a disturbing misguided belief that survivors of sexual violence often falsify sexual assault reports.

There is also a mistaken belief that sexual assault is just consensual sexual activity that “went too far” or ”got out of hand”. There is a persistent myth that if it were a “real” sexual assault, the survivor would have fought back or tried to get away. There is a misconception that a survivor should be able to recount every detail in a linear and organized sequence.

Neuroscience research about trauma provides evidence that what might appear to be an inconsistency in a way a victim reacts or how the victim recounts the incident can actually be a typical, predictable and normal way of responding to and coping with a traumatic event. Understanding this can change the way we view the person's credibility and reliability.

Thankfully, we are now starting to have a better scientific and psychological understanding of the different reactions that survivors have to traumatic events, like sexual assault, including the impact of trauma on behaviour and memory. We also now understand that intergenerational trauma is a very real consequence of violence, which not only hurts individuals and their families, but also impacts communities as a whole. That is why training and awareness can help us to be fairer and more consistent in understanding how survivors react in sexual assault cases.

Navigating the criminal justice system can be extremely difficult for survivors of sexual assault. They must feel confident that they will be treated fairly and with dignity. With education and training on sexual assault and the social context in which it occurs, as well as its impact on survivors, we can help build a better criminal justice system in which people feel more confident in reporting sexual assaults and stay engaged throughout the criminal justice process.

Sexual assault is a form of gender-based violence and is one of the most under-reported crimes in Canada. With Bill C-5, we are building on our federal investments to prevent and address gender-based violence.

In 2017, we launched It's Time, Canada's strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence. This is the first strategy of its kind. It invests over $200 million in federal initiatives to prevent gender-based violence, support survivors and their families, and promote responsive legal and justice systems. Today, Bill C-5 forms part of the larger response to the issue of gender-based violence.

Judges are trained to be impartial, unbiased and have a thorough understanding of the law. Given that they are the individuals responsible for delivering justice, it is in everyone's interest to fill any gaps in their training. Bill C-5 would make it mandatory for all newly appointed provincial superior court judges to participate in continuing education in sexual assault law and social context. This will help ensure the superior court judges have a full understanding of the complex nature of the sexual assault when presiding over such cases.

Canadians need to have confidence that the judge in front of them is not influenced by myths and stereotypes in the judge's application of the law and that the judge has the understanding of the impacts of the trauma. Survivors also need to have confidence that the decision rendered in their case will be well reasoned and not influenced by biases and misconceptions.

This bill would help us move toward a higher level of confidence we must achieve. It would help empower women to work toward alleviating institutional oppression faced by women, including indigenous women, racialized women, women with disabilities, as well as members of the LGBTQ2 community.

I strongly encourage all members of this House to recognize the importance of Bill C-5 and to support it. Together we can continue to strengthen Canada's criminal justice system and give survivors of sexual assault and all Canadians more confidence in our justice system. Let us seize the opportunity to create a safer and more responsive justice system for all those who have experienced sexual violence and provide a better future for families, communities and all Canadians.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, during the statement that my colleague made today, she made reference to the gender-based violence strategy.

In 2017, our government launched its first-ever gender-based violence strategy and we backed it up with over $100 million in funding over five years.

Would my colleague elaborate on how Bill C-5 would fit within that strategy?

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, as has been mentioned by my colleague, in 2017, our government launched the gender-based violence strategy. We have invested close to $200 million in federal initiatives to ensure we prevent gender-based violence, supported survivors and their families and promote responsive legal and justice systems. Bill C-5 fits perfectly with many parts of our gender-based violence strategy.

It is so nice to see, especially on issues like this, all members of the House come together and support it. I am very optimistic and thankful for each and every member who spoke to this important issue.

[Alexandre Boulerice, NDP, Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

Enhancing judicial training and knowledge is a step in the right direction.

However, we must not have situations where women are physically unsafe. Sadly, the fact is that, at least 20,000 times a year, Quebec's shelters have to turn away women who need help, because there are not enough beds, because there are no rooms for them. The women must either go back to an unsafe situation or live on the streets.

I would like my colleague to tell me about our underfunded shelters for female victims of violence.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague has raised an important question. Part of our gender-based violence strategy is to ensure we listen, especially to front-line workers and community organizations that do incredible work to support the survivors of gender-based violence. We continue to support those people. That is a very important aspect of our gender-based violence strategy. I look forward to working with all members of the House to continue to support these organizations.

It is important to recognize that the bill before us today is an important one. It was introduced previously and was supported by all members of the House. I look forward to working with many members of the House to ensure we work hard and continue to support survivors of gender-based violence.

[Louis Plamondon, Bloc, Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, QC]

Madam Speaker, I listened to the answer from my colleague who just spoke. I do not think she answered the question asked by the NDP member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie.

The member said that 20,000 women seeking help from women's shelters are turned away due to a shortage of beds. Of course, the government had good intentions and has done this and that.

Should there not be a special budget specifically for expanding these shelters or building new ones? That would ensure that no woman fleeing from violence is forced to stay in an unsafe situation because there is no room for her.

[Kamal Khera, Liberal, Brampton West, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is important to recognize that our gender-based violence strategy invests over $200 million in federal initiatives to prevent gender-based violence, to support survivors and their families, to promote a responsive legal and justice system and to ensure we support those front-line organizations that provide that support. This is an issue that impacts every riding. It is important to also work with our provincial and municipal counterparts to make this a reality in every community.

I look forward to working with my colleague on this ongoing issue.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, it is an absolute pleasure for me to rise in the House today to speak to this important legislation, Bill C-5, an act to amend the Judges Act and also the Criminal Code of Canada.

I feel very passionate about this piece of legislation, because I have seen first-hand many barriers that women and Canadians face when they are victims of sexual violence.

Prior to entering politics, as I have mentioned a few times in this House, I was a front-line social worker. I served over 23 years with the Codiac regional RCMP as the victim services coordinator. During that time, I had the privilege of accompanying many survivors of sexual violence through some very difficult times.

Within the RCMP, a part of my job was assisting police officers in conducting these types of investigations and also helping victims navigate through a very a complex system, preparing them for court and often times accompanying them to court. I have personally had the privilege of accompanying probably thousands of victims who faced these very difficult situations. I wish I could stand here today and say that I have never heard any inappropriate comments made by judiciaries, but that is not the case. I have seen first-hand some of the treatment that women and individuals have gone through, which is why I feel so passionate that this bill move forward. I am pleased to see that all members of this House are supporting the bill.

If passed, this bill will ensure that superior court judges who hear sexual assault cases get proper training so they will not be influenced by harmful myths and stereotypes that persist in our society. It will also lead to a better understanding of the social context surrounding this type of crime in our country. This training will also assure the public that judges are applying the law in a way that respects survivors' dignity and reality. This training will give judges the right tools to make fair, impartial decisions.

The bill will also require judges to explain their final decisions in sexual assault proceedings in writing, which will make the process more open and transparent.

Sexual assault is a form of gender-based violence and one of the most under-reported crimes in Canada. When I was a front-line worker, we would often say that fewer than 6% of survivors came forward, and today we have heard in the House the statistic of 5%, and so we know that this crime is truly under-reported. Unfortunately, gender-based violence is one of the most pervasive and deeply rooted human rights violation of our time, and we have to remember that it is 100% preventable.

I would like to talk about the Government of Canada's co-ordinated efforts to prevent and address gender-based violence, because Bill C-5 is another important piece of a larger suite of initiatives designed to better support survivors and their families, as well as to promote a responsive legal justice system.

First, let me explain what gender-based violence is.

Gender-based violence is violence directed towards another person based on their gender identity, gender expression or perceived gender. Gender-based violence is linked to gender inequities, unequal power dynamics and harmful gender norms and behaviours. It is made worse by other forms of discrimination.

Women and girls, racialized women, lesbian, gay and bisexual people, indigenous people and people with disabilities are at an increased risk of experiencing gender-based violence. Transgender, two-spirit and gender-diverse people in Canada also experience higher rates of violence.

In Canada, gender-based violence continues to happen at an extremely alarming rate. According to data collected by Statistics Canada, between 2008 and 2018, over 700 women were killed by their intimate partner in this country. In 2018, one in every three women experienced unwanted sexual behaviour in public. While these numbers are terrifying, the reality for indigenous women and girls is even worse. In 2018, the rate of homicide was nearly seven times higher for indigenous women and girls than that of their non-indigenous counterparts.

Faced with such a bleak picture, the government took action.

In 2017, the Government of Canada took action, launching the very first federal strategy to prevent and address gender-based violence entitled “Canada's Strategy to Prevent and Address Gender-Based Violence”.

The strategy includes over $200 million for federal initiatives to prevent gender-based violence, support survivors and their families, and promote responsive legal and justice systems.

The gender-based violence strategy is the first-ever federal strategy of its kind because it takes a whole-of-government approach and is informed by grassroots activism and feminist action.

We listened to survivors and women's and equality-seeking organizations in communities across the country that are working tirelessly to address gender-based violence within their communities. Let me give some examples of the initiatives under the strategy that were informed by their voices.

As a part of the strategy, the Public Health Agency of Canada, also known as PHAC, is investing more than $40 million over five years and more than $9 million per year ongoing. This includes investing in initiatives that prevent child maltreatment and teen and youth dating violence, and equip health professionals to respond to gender-based violence.

For example, the Public Health Agency of Canada is funding projects through which young Canadians learn how to develop and maintain healthy relationships that are free from violence and abuse. Educators are also provided with new tools to increase their capacity to deliver this type of guidance to young Canadians.

Teaching teenagers across Canada about what a healthy relationship looks like also helps foster positive relationships, changes attitudes and promotes gender equality. It helps foster a greater understanding, ultimately resulting in a safer community for young Canadians anywhere in Canada from coast to coast to coast.

In addition, the Public Health Agency of Canada is investing more than $6 million per year to support the health of survivors of family violence. Improving physical and mental health outcomes for youth and children, helping mothers experiencing family violence learn the impact of violence on their parenting and their children's development, while building mothers' self-esteem and improving their positive parenting and healthy relationship skills, and building resilience and life skills in young women are just some examples of what the funded projects aim to accomplish.

Just as Bill C-5 proposes to train judges, under the strategy we are training RCMP front-line officers so that they can better understand the social context surrounding gender-based violence. The goal is for survivors to feel more confident in moving forward to denounce their aggressors and for officers to be more understanding of the survivors' situation.

These are just a few examples that demonstrate the ongoing progress of the strategy.

As part of the strategy, we are working in close co-operation with every level of government, including the provincial and territorial governments, as well as several departments and organizations. We are pooling our resources to strengthen our ability to support those affected by gender-based violence in communities across Canada.

We are working on establishing a national plan that would ensure that anyone facing gender-based violence is protected and has reliable and timely access to services, no matter where they live.

In closing, I could continue discussing our accomplishments and the continuous efforts we are making. The point is that Canada's strategy to prevent gender-based violence is moving forward because we know there is still more work that needs to be done.

We need to give Bill C-5 our full support. We are counting on all members of Parliament to help us continue this crucial work to end gender-based violence within our communities.

[Lloyd Longfield, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Madam Speaker, I know the hon. member down the way has had a lot of experience in this field through her work in social work and also with the RCMP. At the core of it, this bill is about safety for women and girls and it would give judges the training and the tools to support mental health, address gun violence in homes and support victims of violence in other ways.

Could the hon. member talk about how nuanced and interconnected issues are around gender-based violence, and how judges need to understand the nuances in order to protect the safety of women and girls in our communities, and work with agencies like the Canadian Mental Health Association, Women in Crisis in Guelph and agencies helping women in other ways as well?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to thank my colleague from Guelph for his tremendous work in his riding when it comes to mental health and support services. I thank him for all the work he continues to do.

When it comes to providing the appropriate sensitivity training, it is a must for all professions, and judges are not excluded from that. It is truly important. When I look at the work Ms. Ambrose did in putting the bill together, she has to be commended for a job very well done. This is probably an area that perhaps was not addressed in years gone by, but we certainly recognize that if we want to have an effective judicial system to meet the needs of all survivors of sexual violence or all types of victims, we have to ensure the appropriate training is in place.

Again, I commend all members of the House for wanting to support the bill and hopefully getting it to the other House in a timely fashion.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I enjoy my time with the member at the PROC committee, and I appreciate her time in the House on this issue.

One of the realities is that sexual assault and gender-based violence disproportionately impacts women, members of the LGBTQ2+ community, persons living with disabilities, people who are poor and suffering on the socio-economic ladder and sex workers.

Could the member speak to the issue of how the bill will ensure those groups are consulted. hopefully, and implement the training to better educate these folks on the realities facing them?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Speaker, I also appreciate working with the member opposite on the PROC committee. I always appreciate her interventions.

When it comes to providing the training that is needed, we certainly have to recognize that we have many vulnerable groups within our society. We recognize the groups the member has listed are also victims of sexual violence at a higher proportion than many others. Therefore, we have to ensure the training is appropriate.

I would also like to highlight, however, that when it comes to gender-based violence strategies, I am extremely proud that our government has consulted with many of those vulnerable groups mentioned by my colleague. We wanted to ensure that we had the strategy right and to get it right we had to meet with people with lived experience, and living experience, and also people who worked with these clients as well.

As a result, we have come up with a wonderful strategy, the first of its kind in Canada. Not only are we looking at the judicial system within the strategy, but also at all social services that affect survivors of sexual violence and other forms of gender-based violence.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is the House ready for the question?

[Some hon. members]

Question.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Accordingly, the bill stands referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

(Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to a committee)

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if you were to canvass the House, you would find unanimous consent to call it 6:39 p.m.

[The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Alexandra Mendès), Liberal, Alexandra Mendes]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.