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

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

Madam Speaker, we need less idiots. I wish we would appoint more people who do not need to have sensitivity training. I find the premise of this to be ridiculous.

Think about this for a second. We are debating a bill that presumes that those who we are about to elevate to positions of influence where they are deciding justice in situations of sexual violence will need this training. Might this not already be a condition for their elevation? It is actually ridiculous. It is fundamentally misogynist in its nature.

I do not understand why I have to talk about having to train somebody not to be John Reilly. It makes me really angry. I think it sends a message to women that somehow we have to train people to do the right thing when we should be hiring people who have already done that.

For too long we have hired people, we have elevated people who do not take action on these issues, who do not believe in it and I am tired of it. I understand the intent of the bill, but it does not address the bigger problem and everybody here is guilty of it. After almost 10 years of being here, enough is enough. I am tired of having these debates. I am tired of talking about sexual violence, sexual harassment, women in politics and this stuff. I am done. I am tired of the requests for interviews.

There just needs to be equality. There needs to be an understanding that certain things are just wrong and that my agency is equal to everyone else. That is what needs to happen.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.

In many ways, she and I are just as passionate about the cause and the advancement of women in politics. In fact, before I was elected, I ran workshops focusing on the issue of women and poverty. Clearly, there is a connection. Women need to be able to access better jobs, get into politics and have the same opportunities as men. We agree on that.

The problem of violence against women goes well beyond the scope of the bill before us today. However, I think this bill is an important step. This has been discussed with members of the Quebec National Assembly and with elected officials in Australia and elsewhere in the world. We want to see diversity and we hope to see diversity when we make judicial appointments, to bring in a new awareness.

I think that we can work on that and pass this bill at the same time. It is a matter of awareness and helping victims be better understood. This bill is certainly not perfect. It is not a panacea. However, it is an important step in advancing the cause of women who are victims of sexual violence and assault.

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

Madam Speaker, I said I support the bill. What I am done with are the fig leaves, where we take a small gesture to cover up a much larger problem and say that we are good. What that means is that we keep debating these things and we never see meaningful change. After almost a decade of it in this place I am still doing the same media requests, I am still seeing the same problems here with regard to sexism, and I am still getting the sexist comments. I am almost 40 years old, and it still happens to me. I do not understand it. This is me. I am in a position of privilege.

What I am saying is that this issue in particular is one that is tokenized. It is one where there is a small crumb that is always put forward, and it is meant to be a feast but it is not sufficient. We cannot just be debating this without debating every other issue. This is not going to deliver justice to first nations and indigenous women. It is not going to make it easier for women to report sexual assault. It really is not.

It is not enough. Maybe it is a small step, but it cannot be celebrated. It cannot because we still have so many things that we have to address. I live this, and I am tired of living it. If I am living it, what about the women who do not have my privilege? That is why this is so important. That is why we need actual, real, fundamental change.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank the member for Calgary Nose Hill for empowering all women. That is the thing; it is about how we can empower women and how we actually get to equality. Like her, I know I have gone through sexual harassment and different ordeals over my last 49 years, so I totally understand. These are things we need to do.

I am looking for the member's thoughts, specific to what we should be doing with young women and boys, how we can teach empowerment and at what levels we should work at that. To me, the core of the issue has to start through education.

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

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her work, collegiality and friendship to me. I wish I had two hours for this. I do not.

This is my lived experience. I think I scare people because I am really good at what I do. I do not tolerate things that are unjust, I do not tolerate cowardice, and I do not apologize for that. What we need to do is embrace the fact that this quality in a woman is inherent to all women, and it is something that we should nurture and empower, rather than trying to snuff it out. That quality is punished. It is. That is the starting point.

A strong empowered woman who leans into her courage and her place of power is everything that our society needs. It is just not respected in our systems. We have to realize that there are many barriers for many women across this country, millions of women, to being able to do that, be it poverty or housing or lack of access to education or lack of access to justice or trauma. That is where we need to start.

We need to start understanding that this is something that we value, not that we value with a “like” on social media but that we like in our own practice and actions. When someone is confronted with a strong woman who does something bold, rather than castigating her for it, they should embrace it and empower her and run with it.

Until that happens, we will never see change and we will always be fighting for our rights. While I am here, and while I have breath, I will do my best to make people do that and to empower those who will come behind me.

[Laurel Collins, NDP, Victoria, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the hon. member for her speech, for her words and for her frustration and rage at the situation that women are facing. I share that.

I have been a member of Parliament for just a year, which means I have only had maybe a 10th of the barrage of sexism. I think back to February when this bill was put forward, and one of the Conservative members rose in the House after I spoke about the importance of listening to sex workers and of acknowledging that sex work is work. That member asked me if I had ever considered sex work. Underneath that was an undermining of sex workers' value and a restigmatizing of the sex workers out there.

I am curious if the member would want to comment on the need for legislation that actually protects sex workers and destigmatizes the work that they do.

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

Madam Speaker, I would love two hours for this topic too. I share the member's concern about protections for sex workers. This goes back to my comment that, overall, our society, especially in Canada, has a very poor understanding of what consent means. We do not openly talk about women's sexuality, their agency, their rights and their bodies. It is something we put in these little silos and do not think about. There is so much work to be done on that. It is something we can all work on across party lines, and I would really support the member on it.

I would say this to the member: I am angry. I am angry that I have to carry the emotional labour of this stuff and my male colleagues do not, or that they put it on me and do not think about doing it. Enough is enough.

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

Madam Speaker, could you clarify how much time I have before the end of the day?

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

There are 15 minutes remaining.

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

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak today to Bill C-3.

Before getting elected, I had the opportunity to serve on the board of an organization in my riding called the Saffron Centre, and I want to recognize the great work it is doing in providing counselling and education on bullying, sexual violence, boundaries and related points. I served on the board of that organization prior to the #MeToo movement. At the time, the board would have conversations about the lack of social awareness around these issues and some of the challenges of fundraising and engaging people in supporting our organization in the context of where the awareness was at that time.

There is still a long way to go, but I think a lot has changed. As a result of the #MeToo movement, there has been a real growth, awareness and recognition. It was interesting for me to speak with some of the people involved in the organization after the start of the #MeToo movement. They shared with me that there was a significant increase in the demand for counselling. A lot of it was cases of historic trauma, that is, people who had experienced sexual harassment and violence, perhaps decades ago, and had never come forward or sought help. They were empowered to seek help based on what they were hearing about in the media or on social media when other people were stepping forward and sharing their experiences. We probably all have stories about community-based organizations in our riding. The way that public conversations around the #MeToo movement encouraged people to come forward to seek counselling and support for historic trauma really reminds us of the importance of these conversations.

Some time today has been spent debating the debate, with members across the way challenging why we are having this debate and asking why we cannot just give unanimous consent at all stages of the bill. We have seen cases in which bills that maybe have one objective do not fulfill that objective or could be strengthened in other ways at committee, so the parliamentary process is important. We have also seen, even today, how the conversations around these issues can be important and inspiring for people. It is therefore important for us, as members of Parliament, to discuss these issues as we support Bill C-3 and work to move it forward.

In 2017, our former Conservative leader, Rona Ambrose, introduced the just act, a bill that would have required lawyers seeking a judicial appointment to undergo training about sexual assault. It would also have required courts to provide written reasons in sexual assault rulings. The House of Commons passed the bill unanimously, but it was delayed in the Senate, and as a result the just act was never passed.

In Canada, an estimated one in three women and one in eight men are victims of sexual violence at some time in their lives. That means approximately 5.73 million women and 2.3 million men will be victims. We can all agree that those numbers are too high. Statistics Canada reported in 2014 that, sadly, only 5% of sexual assaults were reported to the police. That means that fewer than 5% of sexual predators get the justice they deserve for their despicable acts.

The low number of reported cases is due to the fact that victims of sexual assault no longer have confidence in our justice system. A report published by the Department of Justice entitled “A Survey of Survivors of Sexual Violence in Three Canadian Cities” found that two out of three women had little or no confidence in the justice process. This is because the judges presiding over sexual assault cases had no knowledge of Canada's sexual assault laws. This led to incidents where judges unfairly questioned the character of the victims and completely ignored our sexual assault laws.

The just act would have improved this situation. Last Monday the Liberals decided to re-introduce this bill. Like the just act, Bill C-3 would require all newly appointed provincial superior court judges to participate in training on sexual assault and would amend the Criminal Code to require judges to provide written reasons or provide reasons in the record when making a decision in a sexual assault case.

Let us put politics aside. I am pleased that this bill has been brought forward again to protect the vulnerable victims of sexual assault. However, I think that we should take this opportunity to go even further. In February, I told the House that it would be useful to include sexual assault training for parole officers as well. I would like the government to add that to this bill.

We know that there have been problems in the past with the Parole Board of Canada. Dangerous criminals have committed more crimes after being released on parole. One example is the case of Eustachio Gallese, a convicted murderer who stabbed a woman after being released on parole. This incident could have been completely avoided had the Parole Board of Canada demonstrated good judgment. I am worried that this sort of thing could happen again when predators are released on parole. That is why it is essential that we give parole officers training on sexual assault and sexual predators. Victims must be protected.

I know that the current Liberal government likes to boast about being feminist. Here is a perfect opportunity to show Canadians that its feminist approach is legitimate and not just a political talking point. Going above and beyond the previous proposal by adding other measures to protect victims of sexual assault would be a worthwhile initiative. I know that we all want to ensure that Canadian women and men are protected from predators.

As legislators in this minority Parliament, I think it is important that we work together to ensure that we pass good, comprehensive legislation. I look forward to discussing the need for sexual assault training for our judges and our parole officers with my colleagues from all parties.

Having discussed now the substance and history of this particular bill and some related issues, I would like to add a few additional general comments about the vital work of combatting sexual assault and then respond to some of the other comments that have been made thus far in this debate.

While recognizing the value of educational initiatives, we also need to recognize their inherent limits. Criminal behaviour by some and callousness or indifference by others can, indeed, result from ignorance. Ignorance can be resolved through education, but ignorance is not the only cause of bad behaviour. Some people who are fully informed about what is right and wrong will still go on to commit heinous crimes or show indifference to the suffering of others. For such people, the problem is not awareness; rather, it is inclinations or patterns of behaviour that they have not brought under control.

It also might be a lack of empathy. For those who lack a requisite degree of empathy, no amount of information will change their behaviour. As author C.S. Lewis once observed, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” Lewis's point deserves reflection as we consider the importance, but also the limitations, of prescribing education and training in response to sexual assault and harassment. We need to ask ourselves what actions we can take and what actions other institutions can take to support the development of positive, as opposed to negative, patterns of behaviour, as well as the development of empathy. Without this necessary development of character and virtue, more education in terms of legal lines and processes will be ineffective.

Another way to consider this issue is through the lens of the old debate between virtue ethics and rule-based ethics. Rule-based ethics frames ethical actions being about adherence to rules. In the present case, a rule like, “Don't assault or harass another person” is the one being applied.

Virtue ethics, on the other hand, frames ethics in terms of the need to develop positive qualities of character that allow individuals both to know what is right and to be able to apply that knowledge in specific situations. Virtue ethics would emphasize the need to develop the virtues of justice and self-control. A person who has developed the virtues of justice and self-control will necessarily not engage in behaviour that hurts or threatens other people, justice being the virtue of giving to others what is due to them and self-control being the virtue of controlling one's own appetites or inclinations.

These two ethical frameworks, rule-based and virtue ethics, are not mutually exclusive, but there is a question of emphasis. Personally, I believe the virtue ethics framework is more important because it seeks to not only attend to questions of what we ought to do, but also attend to questions of how to develop the capacity to consistently do what we ought to do.

Efforts to combat sexual assault should not just involve education in the form of passing on information about standards of conduct and legal frameworks but should also involve the positive promotion of qualities of character like justice and self-control. Growing up, I do not specifically recall ever being directly told not to sexually harass or assault people. Instead, I was taught to recognize the innate dignity of all people and to exercise control over my impulses. When justice and self-control are fully absorbed, the specific rule in this case seems very obvious.

As a father, I obviously think a lot about how to raise my own children to be good people and good citizens. My own children are too young for discussions about sexual violence, but I already try to work to encourage the development of the virtues of justice and self-control as well as a sense of solidarity and empathy. The development of these intellectual and practical virtues will hopefully make it obvious how to behave in situations they may encounter in the future.

Much is said today about the idea of toxic masculinity. In my opinion, it is important for us to seek to replace toxic masculinity with a redefined masculinity. Toxic masculinity involves seeking power over others, but a redefined concept of masculinity means power and control over oneself and one's own appetites and the courage to work to protect vulnerable people and advance justice.

Winston Churchill once observed that the power of man has grown in every sphere except over himself. Here, Churchill puts his finger on one of the biggest problems we face today: People who may know what is right and have been fully educated in terms of what is right still do not always have the will or virtues required to exercise the necessary power over their whims and appetites. The exercise of that power over self is vitally important in order to be a good person and a good citizen. A person without the virtues of justice and self-control can never be truly happy or resilient.

A redefined masculinity would emphasize justice and control of self, not personal gratification and the domination of others. I worry that in so many domains modern governments emphasize rules but not virtues, training but not the development of character. We need to give more considerations to the lessons virtue ethics can provide for combatting evils like sexual harassment and assault. I hope those who are developing these training programs for judges as well as for young people, educators, former offenders, etc., will take into consideration the important insights of the virtue tradition.

I want to take the remainder of my speech today to just respond to some of the points made. My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton spoke very eloquently about many different issues. She spoke about the importance of jurisdictions. This bill is an action in federal jurisdiction but it reminds us as well that there is other action that needs to be taken in other levels of government. The debate we are having today can hopefully be an impetus for further conversations.

My colleague from Sarnia—Lambton also spoke about the issue of rape culture. It is worth revisiting the important work done in the last Parliament that was initiated by my colleague, the member for Peace River—Westlock, on understanding the impact violent sexual images can have on especially young boys who see those images. We need policy changes that specifically combat rape culture, such as having requirements for meaningful age verification on the Internet. We should not be allowing young boys to access violent sexual images on the Internet. By instituting mechanisms for meaningful age verification, we could provide greater protections to ensure there are not those aspects of rape culture shaping the early sexualization of young boys.

I want to salute the member for Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Peace River—Westlock for the work they have done on those issues. I hope we will see, in the spirit of meaningful action on these issues, things like meaningful age verification. I will be picking up my remarks when we return.

The House resumed from October 7 consideration of the motion that Bill C-3, An Act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a committee.

[The Speaker, Anthony Rota]

The member for Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan has five minutes left in his speech.

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

Mr. Speaker, the bulk of my remarks were shared yesterday when I spoke about the importance of Bill C-3, a bill which would introduce mandatory training with respect to sexual assault for people becoming judges, and also require them to provide written arguments in those cases. I will not repeat all of those arguments. I wanted to spend my remaining time today responding to some of the things that other members have said over the course of this debate.

Maybe I will remake one specific point that I made yesterday, which I think is important. When it comes to mandating training, we need to appreciate the benefits that come with training but also the limitations that come with training, such as training not replacing the importance of developing character and empathy. As C. S. Lewis once said, and I quoted him yesterday, “Education without values, as useful as it is, seems rather to make man a more clever devil.” Therefore, we recognize the value in terms of education and training but also, at the same time, the importance of doing more.

The bill is particularly timely now. I was just reading a great column in the National Post by a friend of mine, Kathryn Marshall, who spoke about how there has really been an increase, in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, of instances of domestic violence. While other instances of violent crime have been declining, we have seen an increase in reported instances of sexual and domestic violence, and it really calls on us to respond.

Unfortunately, in the course of this debate, most of what we have heard from the Liberal side is not arguments about the issue or the bill. They are more interested in debating the debate. They are advancing the argument that we really should not be talking about this, and that, given there is a general consensus on moving the bill forward, we should just let debate collapse and have as limited a discussion as possible.

I wanted to make five specific points in response to that rather bad argument from the Liberal side.

First of all, I think it is important to point out that the government controls the scheduling of debate. It is up to the government whether the bill is a priority, and we think it should be a priority. It is up to the Liberals to schedule the debate to occur as urgently as possible. They could have scheduled this debate on Monday or Tuesday of this week. They had earlier opportunities to schedule the debate. They chose to wait until Wednesday to schedule the first day of debate.

We want to see the bill moved forward, but it is up to the government, which controls the vast majority of the structure, to schedule the debate in a way that allows the bill to move forward while still giving members the opportunity to speak to it.

A second point that I think we need to underline is that the debate is important. Points could come to light about this issue through the debate that would maybe identify ways in which we could refine and strengthen the bill, as well as other areas that require our action. We have talked, for example, about the way in which young boys seeing violent sexual images online can contribute to sexualization and an increase in rape culture, and the need for the government to move on meaningful age verification. That is another issue that comes out of the debate and demonstrates why this debate is important.

The third point I want to make is that, unfortunately, because of the government's allergy to committee work, it has not yet struck the committee that would be studying the bill. Despite our efforts to have committees struck right away, the government put in place mechanisms to delay the striking of committees. The justice committee has not even met yet. Frankly, by having more debate and more discussion in this place, the bill is not in any way being slowed down, because what is required for the bill to move forward is the justice committee to be struck. That committee, thanks to the government not wanting committees to be struck early, is not yet meeting.

Fourth, I just wanted to observe that the current government shut down Parliament. It prorogued Parliament, which created the necessity for the bill to be started all over again. There were many issues we could have been debating in the summer. Of course, we could have been having the studies of the We scandal, the study of the public safety committee on systemic racism, as well as this bill continuing to be discussed and moved forward, but the Liberals made the choice to shut down the debate on this.

Finally, recognizing the urgency of action, I would call on the government, before this legislation is passed, to act by policy. The Liberals could put in place a policy whereby they would say that they will not appoint people who have not been through this training. In other words, as important as the bill is, many of the things that would be achieved through the bill can also be done in the short term by policy. As far as I know, the government has not enacted the policy to do that yet.

Recognizing these points, I think the government's desire to debate the debate, as opposed to actually talking about the issue, is missing the mark. I think this is a good opportunity for us to be talking about an important issue. We want to see the bill move forward, but this requires the government to take some action in terms of allowing the justice committee to be struck, not proroguing Parliament and scheduling when the debate would occur. All of those things would allow us to move forward with this issue and move the bill forward more quickly.

[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 government demonstrated just how important the legislation is when it introduced it last Friday, even ahead of the throne speech. We also have other important legislation dealing with truth and reconciliation, Bill C-5, as well as assisted dying legislation. These are good, substantial pieces of legislation that I know opposition members would also like to debate.

In terms of the comments coming from the Conservative Party, I am wondering if the member would not agree, given the sensitivity of the topic and the importance of the issue, that maybe this might be a good opportunity for the official opposition to use one of its opposition day motions. If the Conservatives feel so passionate about the issue and want to see that debate take place, would the member not support having a wider spectrum of debate on this very important issue and use it as a day of opposition?

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

Madam Speaker, when it comes to the selection of topics for opposition days, I can only say that it is often difficult to decide because it is a target-rich environment. There are many challenges facing this country. We could be talking about the pandemic, the way Canadians have a hard time having confidence in the government because of all of these ethical scandals, the way the Liberals have used the pandemic to try to funnel money to and enrich organizations with which they have close personal connections, as well as issues around sexual assault, foreign affairs and the crises we see around the world. There are many issues that we could be talking about, but one thing is clear: When the government puts forward a bill that would change Canadian law, it is our job as lawmakers to debate it.

Some members of the government think the role of parliamentarians is just to be public relations ambassadors for the government. I do not believe that. I believe our primary vocation in this place is to be lawmakers, that is, to study, debate and pass laws, and that requires a level of engagement and seriousness in every case.