Bill C-3 (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 provide that the Canadian Judicial Council should report on seminars offered for the continuing education of judges on matters related to sexual assault law and social context. Finally, it amends the Criminal Code to require that judges provide reasons for decisions in sexual assault proceedings.

Judges Act

[Rob Moore, Conservative, Fundy Royal, NB]

Madam Speaker, that was an unfortunate display we just saw from the hon. member as we are discussing a bill as important as Bill C-3. He spent virtually no time on the bill and spoke only about delay.

I just want to draw the attention of the hon. member. Maybe he could answer a question for me. Prorogation of Parliament, according to Marleau and Montpetit, results in the termination of a session. Prorogation is taken on the advice of the prime minister, and the effect of it is to terminate all business, including the work of committees.

My question for the hon. member is this: Who is the prime minister whose advice it was to prorogue Parliament, thereby requiring a restart on all business in this House?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in my home province of Manitoba, the Progressive Conservative premier, Brian Pallister, did the very same thing. He prorogued the Manitoba legislature.

The Prime Minister has recognized, as this government and some other members have recognized, that we need to be very much focused on coronavirus, as well as the health and well-being of Canadians and our economy. That is something that justifies the need to prorogue, reset and put into focus what is important to Canadians in all regions of our country.

I believe that the Province of Manitoba, after proroguing, is reading its throne speech today.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I will elaborate on my colleague's comments.

We are here to debate Bill C-3, an important bill that will help victims of sexual assault. My colleague just said that prorogation made it possible to turn the page and focus on the economy. Let us talk about the economic victims: women.

This summer, I was a member of the Standing Committee on the Status of Women. We met on an emergency basis to study the impact of the pandemic on women in particular. The Liberal government decided to prorogue Parliament and our work was stopped. We had an important report to give to the Minister for Women and Gender Equality, but we were unable to complete it. We have to start from scratch.

Does that really help the victims of COVID-19?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I suspect that if the member was to pose the question to the Minister for Women, she would probably have no problem providing a two- or three-minute answer discussing the types of things that we, as the government, have tried to do. We are working with different levels of government, municipal and provincial, and the many different stakeholders to minimize the negative impact of coronavirus on women and girls throughout the country. We take the issue very seriously.

The member raises a good point by posing that particular question. That is one of the reasons we needed to prorogue, so that we would be able, through the throne speech, to refocus and ensure we are talking about the coronavirus. If members read the throne speech, they will see that some of the answers to the questions the member just posed can be found right in that document.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, it is encouraging to me that we have unanimous support for this bill, and I would love to see this pass as quickly as possible, but I am disappointed that we have had to go back to the beginning. The Liberal government's decision to prorogue Parliament had many impacts, and one of them was restarting and slowing down the progress on important bills from the last session, such as this one.

When I spoke on this bill last February I mentioned that, like it is for many Canadians, this is a deeply personal issue for me. I am one of the one in three women who have experienced sexual assault in their lifetime. That statistic is staggering, but for most women it is not surprising. Yesterday, Tanya Tagaq, the incredible artist and Inuk throat singer, said, “Every woman I know has to carry the memory of at least one unreported sexual assault”.

I am curious if the member has an answer for women like me who have to carry that story. Why did his government prorogue Parliament? Why did they slow down the progress of bills like this? How can he stand in defence of a government that prorogued Parliament for what seems like no good reason?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, I truly appreciate the member's willingness to share her story. Throughout the debates over the years, we have heard many personal stories. Hearing the stories and comments first-hand inspires me to work harder and make sure we do the right thing.

As for the prorogation, one of the nice things about the House of Commons is that we have the capacity to put it aside, whether one agrees or disagrees with it. We have the ability to unanimously pass this bill if the political will is there. If we were to ask the member who just posed a question, I suspect she would support that political will. I believe most people in this chamber would support that political will, because we see the passion, whether it is from the member who just posed a question or from other individuals who have been profoundly impacted by this particular issue.

[Marilyn Gladu, Conservative, Sarnia—Lambton, ON]

Madam Speaker, in light of the prorogation and the fact that the committee receiving this bill does not even start for two weeks, would the member not agree that it is worthwhile to have a discussion on an issue that is so serious for one is six people in Canada and that educating new members is also worthwhile?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, there are all sorts of things that could be done to pass this bill sooner rather than later. There are many ways it can be done, and I would encourage the member and others to consider that.

At the end of the day, many pieces of legislation are absolutely fabulous and deserve hours and hours of, if not endless, debate. However, time does not necessarily allow for that to occur. When we have the opportunity to do something good on an issue that is unanimously supported in the House, why squander that opportunity? As I said, if we wanted to, we could have passed the bill last Friday.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, I can maybe understand why some members are complaining that the debate is going on too long, but for the member for Winnipeg North to complain that other people are talking too much on a particular piece of legislation is something I never would have expected.

I know the member across the way is not new to this place. He spends a fair bit of time in Parliament, as he has over the years. I think he knows that it is the prerogative of the Prime Minister, to a significant extent, to schedule the debates that occur in this place. We know, for instance, that the government's euthanasia legislation removing safeguards is scheduled for Friday and the following Monday. The government has a choice over what bills it wants to schedule and when. If moving this bill forward is a priority of the government, it could schedule this bill more frequently than it has.

What we have seen from the government, though, is that no legislation has been passed this year, except for spending bills, and that the House has barely sat, sitting less than 40 days since the last election, with a prorogation of Parliament and the complete suspension of Parliament prior to the prorogation, other than the committees. The House has barely sat, and it is a pattern of the government to demand that we quickly pass legislation in the very short windows that it prescribes, and then it shuts down Parliament.

How do we know that it is not the intention of the government to again shut down Parliament as soon as possible after some of this legislation moves forward?

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Madam Speaker, in part, the member makes my point.

I must say at the outset that I do enjoy very much the opportunity to address the House. I am often afforded the opportunity, and I do appreciate it.

Having said that, there is important legislation that I would love to see debated, such as the assistance in dying legislation and the reconciliation legislation, but I suspect that there is going to be a great deal of demand to make time for that. We will have at least two opposition days—

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

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, today, while we are celebrating the International Day of the Girl Child, we are debating a bill that would require judges to take sensitivity training around “sexual assault law and social context”. This is because of men like John Reilly, former judge and federal Liberal candidate who said, “Well, you know, there are sexual assaults and there are sexual assaults”. Reilly then pointed to a case of a man who had digitally penetrated his girlfriend while she was sleeping, saying that a three-year sentence would have been too harsh.

We are also debating this bill because of men like former judge Robin Camp who asked a 19-year-old complainant why she had not done more to prevent her alleged rape and then told her that “sex and pain sometimes go together”.

However, there is something about this bill that really makes me angry. It is absurd to me that we have to spend time figuring out how to train the men in Canada's systemically misogynistic justice system to be sensitive to sexual assault. In so many ways, it is blindly the wrong approach because it is so paternalistic in its design.

Instead of using tax dollars and research to illuminate men on the finer points of how being fingered against one's will while one is sleeping is wrong, or that it is kind of hard to keep one's knees together when one is being overpowered by somebody twice one's size, or the lingering shame and emotional burden these things can cause a woman, why can we not simply appoint fewer sexist women-haters to the bench? If men want to be honoured with a judicial appointment, why can the hiring criteria not be what they have done in their career to remove the systemic barriers women face? Why do we have to train the idiots in society, and why could we not just hire the allies?

This bill would not do much to fundamentally change the systemic misogyny embedded in the Canadian government, whatever the branch may be. There are those who will say that systemic misogyny does not exist in Canada. To these people I would say this: That we are debating this bill today is clear evidence of systemic misogyny.

If people are part of a system that they benefit from at the expense of others due to barriers others experience of stereotypes, bigoted social mores or rigidly traditionalist beliefs about women, and they do nothing to stop it, then they are part of the problem. That is systemic misogyny. If they refuse to look for these issues or address them when they see them because they think it does not exist, then they are part of the problem. If they think that protecting the rights of women will erode their own rights, they are part of the problem. They are lazy and cowardly at best and misogynist at worst. No amount of training will fix that system. Only removing those who benefit from perpetuating it from their position of privilege and power will.

This system has affected me. I regularly receive sexualized death threats. I get microaggressions like being asked by a colleague if I am pregnant because I committed the sin of eating a sandwich during a Zoom meeting, or being called the B-word because I am a woman who unapologetically challenges the dogma of the system. I have had my gender and my brand used as a fig leaf to cover the misogyny of others through tokenization, and there has been so much more.

If this is me, a white straight woman in a position of power, imagine what it is like for a racialized, queer or trans woman. Imagine what it is like for a woman in poverty with children. Imagine what it is like for a woman living on reserve. Imagine what it is like for Nadia Murad and the millions of other woman around the world who have had their bodies used as tools of war while the world refuses to even prosecute their oppressors.

This bill is a good opportunity to take a moment to reflect on the experience of these women, the Yazidi genocide survivors, because the experience of these women really does highlight to me the problems embedded in our system, not only for women on the international stage but their quest for justice here in our own country. As some of the members in the House might remember, several years ago I worked with these women to bring their plight to the attention of Canadian parliamentarians and to get justice and action for their people. It was the voices of these women, these survivors who were seeking justice after experiencing genocide and sexual enslavement, that effected some change.

Imagine what these women went through and then imagine, after all of that trauma, having to come to Canada's Parliament time and time again to push the government to do something when it was obvious that action was needed to do what is right. Take a moment and reflect on that.

Take a moment and reflect on being a victimized woman who was sold as a sexual slave and who had to beg to have her plight recognized by those who sit in this position of power, and then having them wonder if this was going to be politically convenient for them. That is what is wrong with the system, and no amount of training is going to fix that.

After many motions in the House, committee studies, press conferences, news releases and, most importantly, advocacy by the Yazidi community here in Canada and abroad, we were able to get some movement, but it is not close to being enough. We must seek justice for these women, and that includes prosecuting their oppressors. To date, there has been no justice for these women. ISIS has not been brought to trial on the international stage, and day after day the women are revictimized because they have to explain to the world that there is no closure and there is no change without justice being sought.

This issue alone shows that Canada has much work to do on gender equality. We live in a country where human trafficking occurs, and indigenous and first nations women go missing and are murdered. Last year, the national inquiry on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls found a “significant, persistent, and deliberate pattern of systemic racial and gendered human rights and Indigenous rights violations and abuses”, yet the government continues to fail to take meaningful action in creating safer conditions for indigenous women and girls. Instead, the Prime Minister offers up a lot of platitudes on Twitter. He was rightly criticized for that this week. He is more interested in keeping up the appearance of positive change than in actually effecting it.

That is what this bill is about. We cannot speak about the misogyny in the justice system today without recognizing the significant racialized and colonial violence against indigenous women across our country, both inside and outside the courts. We live in a country where we feel we need to educate the ones who are supposed to uphold and champion justice, our judges, not to be sexist. We live in a country where we have to talk about how those meant to care for us in our time of need, nurses and doctors, need sensitivity training.

We saw this intersection of sexism and racism in the heartbreaking tragedy of Joyce Echaquan. It is difficult for us to admit Canada is not as exceptional as we may think. The reality is these systems, which were meant to protect us, often fail many because we are not getting to the heart of the problem. We need to do more to disrupt the systems that perpetuate this aggression.

I will go back to this bill about judges, and training them to be more sensitive. No amount of training, for someone who was privileged enough to finish law school as they were about to get a plum judicial position, will correct a systemically misogynistic system. Everyone needs to change their actions, and it should start here in this place.

People should not be running under the banner of a major political party if they have substantiated harassment allegations. People within the tents of these parties should find the courage to speak up when this happens. The most senior levels of leadership should not be allowed to follow a different set of rules from the rank and file when harassment allegations surface. Women who speak truth to power should not be turfed and labelled as problematic.

I have watched all of this and more happen in this place during my time here. Just this week, I watched the chair of a major parliamentary association stay silent as a group tried to force a Canadian woman off the ballot for the presidency of an international organization. All of these—

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

I am going to interrupt the member for two seconds.

I would like to remind members that there is a member speaking very seriously, and we would like to hear her.

The hon. member for Calgary Nose Hill.

[Michelle Rempel, Conservative, Calgary Nose Hill, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have watched all of this and more happen in this place during my time here. Just this week, I watched as the chair of a major parliamentary association stayed silent as a group tried to force a Canadian woman off the ballot for the presidency of an international organization. All of these experiences have led me to this central question: Why is it that the women always have to be ones to do the heavy lifting on these issues? Why is it that, in many cases, it is the women who have to stand up and demand these changes?

Yes, I see men speaking up when it is politically convenient for them. I see the social media posts. However, what we need to see is more courage demonstrated through action. As parliamentarians, we need to be reflecting on this, because it is this system that we work in that needs to be shaken.

I think about how no one has spoken out against the former Liberal MP for Kitchener South—Hespeler who is facing assault and criminal harassment charges. This is after the Liberal Party allowed him to run under the party banner, despite the fact that claims about inappropriate behaviour involving him and a female staffer were reported to the party multiple times over the last five years. I did that when it happened under my own tent. Where are the feminists on this side on that issue? We need men standing up in the House acknowledging the privilege found within patriarchal systems of power and, more importantly, we need them to take action when sexism happens within their own caucuses. It should not be me having to do that work all the time. Where were the woke MPs when we needed them to speak out, to enact change and to ensure that all of these things never happen again? It is all good and well to post on social media or voice support for gender equality, but when there is no action, there is no change.

Let us not forget about the issue of female genital mutilation. When I served as the shadow minister for Immigration, Refugees and Citizenship, this was an issue I had to repeatedly and shamefully push in the House of Commons. Media had reported that a draft version of the new citizen guide had dropped the condemnation of this abhorrent practice. There were headlines like, “[The minister of immigration] won't commit to keeping warning about genital mutilation in immigration guide”. After these reports came to light, I had to sponsor a petition that called on the government to ensure that the final draft of the new citizenship guide included the condemnation of this practice. I questioned the minister about this change repeatedly. Why did I have to do that? This is a no-brainer, yet it was weeks, months before we saw action on feminism. The fact that this question had to even be brought up and officially condemned in our Parliament is appalling to me.

When I think about today's debate, I also think about the women in my riding who have been devastated by this government's policy on the energy sector in Alberta more broadly. Everyone in my community wants to support a transition to a renewable energy-based economy. Having no plan to support them and no plan for other jobs has left my community destitute, and that has a unique effect on women. Almost every day, I heard about how the Liberal-induced jobs crisis in my community has left women in unimaginable situations. I have had women in my community say that, with job losses in the energy sector, they have contemplated turning to prostitution as a means of feeding their families. Rates of domestic violence are up, and they are losing their homes and their children. Yet, we are talking about training people who have the privilege of being appointed into a judicial position.

It is abhorrent that we are putting women in these situations because of the bourgeois attitude of this government. It is abhorrent that the women of my community are left behind while the Prime Minister stands idly by, claiming to be a feminist without any compassion or plans to address their plight. Do these women and their families not matter simply because the province they live in and their gender does not tend to overwhelmingly vote for this brand? Is their struggle any less, simply because the Prime Minister believes that their jobs are dirty? This is systemic misogyny, and it is right here in this place and we are not addressing it.

These issues are not limited to our legal system. In schools across this country, young women are taught next to nothing about their bodies. Female sexuality is still taboo to discuss, never mind talking about pleasure. We still see unfair dress codes that target girls who are wearing so-called revealing clothing that is just comfortable to wear. We see this with the ridiculous stigma around menstruation, a completely normal bodily function that billions of people around the world experience. That is to say nothing about the complete lack of discussion in schools about the unique experience of trans women and girls and the violence that they are subject to. This lack of education extends to issues of consent as well. Our youth, especially our men, are not taught that “yes” means “yes” and that “no” means “no”. How can we expect to actually address sexual violence in this country if girls learn to be ashamed of their bodies and young boys are not being taught when sex is consensual?

If we are silent across party lines on these issues here, in the centre of power in our nation, what good does training judges do? If those who run the show here do not face consequences, why should those in the judiciary expect that they will be treated any differently? Every person has an individual responsibility to change the culture that has precipitated the need for the bill, and that includes calling out people in our own networks and challenging our own rigidly held dogmas.

We are in the month of October when the traditional images of witches take centre stage in popular culture across the country. Warped, disfigured, evil-looking women are held up as signs of all that is evil and wrong in the world, and if something bad befalls us, witches are to blame. I could not think of a more apt month to discuss the bill.

For a significant portion of relatively recent history, women were burned at the stake for being midwives and herbalists because the church and wealthy mercantile class wanted to consolidate the medical trade into the hands of men. Women were burned if they embraced their sexuality. Women were burned if they were too pretty and spurned the advances of a wealthy man, or if they spoke truth to power. For a time, between 10,000 and 40,000 women were burned simply for being women who did not conform with the behaviour that the system of male patriarchal institutions prescribed.

Today, the image of a witch still evokes deep-seated cultural norms that strong, empowered women with extraordinary ability are evil: something to be feared, at best, and eliminated at worst. The shamans, the elders, the wise women, the truth tellers, the midwives and the empaths are the women who have brought change for the better to our world, yet in our history and celebrations they are still portrayed as something to be warded against.

While women in our country are no longer literally burned at the stake for being powerful, how many are passed over for promotions by those who fear their courage? How many women are sexually assaulted and made to feel that they brought it on themselves? How many children sit in poverty because they bear the cost of child care? How many women are taught that their sexuality is a sin, not a gift? How many women are placed in situations where they do not have total control over their bodies? How many women never see justice for wrongs they have experienced?

We still burn women for being witches, even if it is metaphorically. That is why we are debating the bill, but there is hope. Women have always had the innate power to create, to bless, to lead and to heal. When I came here, I thought I knew my power but I really did not. It took me time to understand that my intuition is always right, that my voice always has agency, that compassion always wins and that courage, while sometimes met with great personal cost, will always deliver change.

I have learned from tremendously courageous women in my time here. I remember the power and blinding radiance of Nadia Murad's face when she sat in the gallery as I fought alongside her for justice for her people. I remember the member for Vancouver Granville sitting resolute in her truth as her party worked to suppress her agency, but could not because her source of power was from something far greater that they could never remove.

I remember Jane Philpott, now the Dean of Medicine at Queen's University, courageously supporting her in her cause even though it cost her political career. Congratulations, Jane. I remember Megan Leslie, a champion for Canada's environment as she pushed to remove plastic beads from our lakes and rivers. I remember Lisa Raitt as she gracefully mentored me through some of the hardest lessons these halls of power can present.

I name these women and salute their courage and power, but we cannot forget the millions of unnamed women across this country who demonstrate their power on a daily basis. There is the mother who manages to feed her children with no partner to help her. There is the grandmother who takes care of her daughter's children. There is the doctor who finds a breakthrough in a disease, and the lawyer who wins a case, and more.

I stand here today unafraid, after all these years, of doing what is right no matter what is thrown against me. This is the magic that entrenched misogynistic systems try to beat out of women. They still try to beat it out of me every day, but we are remembering our power that has never left, and we are embracing it. We are demanding justice. We are claiming our power and refusing to let men in power skate by. We are not here to make the system comfortable. I am not here to make anyone comfortable, I am here to effect change. That is why the bill angers me: that we must put forward a program of training, in the expectation that those who we elevate to the judiciary have come to this place of power needing it, is a clear demonstration to me that the system is broken.

Why do we not appoint less misogynists to the bench instead of coming up with special programs to train away the hate that women experience?

Why do we not appoint more brilliant women to the bench, women who will work to dismantle the systemic misogyny that exists across our legal system rather than pour tax dollars into a training program that does little to actually protect women?

There are questions that this bill plainly fails to address and the government has taken precious little meaningful action to address them. While I support the bill, I refuse to be quiet about how it clearly takes the wrong approach to an issue that cuts to the very core of our society. This topic is worthy of much debate. I have no problem criticizing the bill for not going far enough. There are those who might even call me a witch for doing so, but I will not be silent.

By the way, happy Samhain to those who are celebrating.

We owe it to women and girls in my riding and across the country, our daughters and those who will come after them to demand more for them, a future where women and girls no longer live under the constant fear of sexual violence.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Madam Speaker, my colleague has demonstrated the importance of having debate on this bill. We have heard from members across the way that we should not have to debate it, but what we have heard today in the important, thoughtful and impassioned speeches is just how the debate itself is moving forward awareness and important conversations that need to happen.

Could the member speak more to the nature of training? She spoke very well about the limitations of training in that it will not change what is in the hearts and minds of certain people who are appointed to the bench and must go through a perfunctory training requirement.

Does the member have thoughts on the types or forms of training that are more effective than others and what guidance she would give to those who shape these kinds of training programs on how to make them as effective as possible?