This bill is from the 43rd Parliament, 2nd session, which ended in August 2021.
David Lametti Liberal
This bill has received Royal Assent and is now law.
This is from the published bill. The Library of Parliament has also written a full legislative summary of the bill.
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.
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament. You can also read the full text of the bill.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-3s:
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Madam Speaker, the question raises somewhat the same issue as the first question I had the honour of answering. There is more work to be done. This is not the end. If we look at training and education, I do not think there is anybody who would say that they are smart enough, have been trained enough and do not need any further training.
An overarching belief in my system is that we can always learn more. I would be interested to hear what other steps we could consider as a Parliament.
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
Madam Speaker, my colleague raised the important issues of aggressive cross-examination and the impact that can have on people's willingness to come forward, as well as the pain that could be associated with those cross-examinations. Training will not change the fact that defence lawyers may choose to use that tactic. Judges, even if they are educated, may fear that to intervene would lead to problems at appeal.
This may be an area for further study, but I wonder if the member has suggestions for additional things we should consider to deter aggressive cross-examinations in cases where it is not actually going to produce any information that is useful for the determination of guilt or innocence, but is just used as an intimidation tactic.
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
Madam Speaker, I am not a lawyer. I have not been trained in law in Canada. However, from my experience, I would expect that judges today would involve themselves if, in their minds, the defence has gone a little too far in their cross-examination.
I am not a judge. I am not a member of the court. As much as this is a court of record, I am not a member of a judiciary court, and I would not comment on the practices of judges. I would need to do further study on these different tactics.
However, I do know, and I have read, that some of these tactics are terrible. They are terrible in that they revictimize the victim. I would hope that some additional sensitivity training would help.
Nelly Shin Conservative Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, as I give my first speech in this session of the 43rd Parliament, I would like to thank the amazing people in my riding of Port Moody—Coquitlam, Anmore and Belcarra for allowing me the privilege to stand here today. I want them to know that it is my joy and honour to serve them, especially during this unique and challenging time in Canadian history.
I am grateful to stand here in the House of Commons as a woman speaking on Bill C-3, legislation that I trust will mark one step forward in the healing and empowering of women and girls to thrive and beautify the world with their vision, wisdom and love. I would like to thank the Hon. Rona Ambrose, former interim leader of the Conservative Party of Canada and the official opposition. She originally introduced it as Bill C-337 on February 27, 2017. I am encouraged to see this legislation adopted by the Liberal government earlier this year as Bill C-5 and reintroduced in this session as Bill C-3. I am happy to see many members contribute their ideas, thoughts and feelings during the course of debate on the bill.
One in three women around the world is victim to physical or sexual violence. In Canada, young women aged 15 to 24 years have the highest rate of sexual assaults, 71 incidents for every population of 1,000. The impact of COVID-19 has created an environment of an increase in violence against women and girls, but I know there is hope because of counsellors, social workers and community outreach programs on the front lines across Canada that provide a safe oasis for vulnerable and victimized women.
On that note, I would like to thank Tri-City Transitions, a shelter for domestically abused women and children in my community. The unconditional love and caring work of women like Carol Metz and her counsellors help the women in my community find hope to heal and the courage to break free from the cycles of abuse and violence.
I am also grateful for the tireless work of champions like Mary O'Neill and recovery programs like Talitha Koum that provide caring mentorship to help women reclaim their lives, not only from addiction but many times the trauma behind their substance abuse. I thank them for being beacons of hope to women who are hiding in the shadows of fear, broken will and shattered self-image. The sad truth is that the fact that we need more shelters and programs for victims of domestic violence and assault, and the fact that they exist, shows a broken system that allows the cycle to perpetuate. This cycle must stop.
I support Bill C-3, an act to amend the Judges Act and the Criminal Code, because it is one step in a long series of many steps we must take to break the cycle of violence and abuse against women. Bill C-3 addresses the lack of justice for women in the court of law by seeking to improve the interactions between sexual assault complainants and the justice system, specifically the judiciary. Bill C-3 seeks to amend the Judges Act to restrict eligibility of who may be appointed a judge of a superior court by requiring them to commit to undertaking and participating in continuing education on matters related to sexual assault law and social context, including attending seminars.
This bill also requires the Canadian Judicial Council to submit an annual report to Parliament on delivery and participation in the sexual assault information seminars established by it. Bill C-3 also requires judges to provide reasons for their decisions in sexual assault cases.
We need only look at a couple of incidents as prototypes of court decisions that show reviling misogyny and biases. Robin Camp, a former federal judge, in 2014, when the alleged rape victim was testifying, asked her why she could not just keep her knees together. Throughout the trial, he criticized her for not screaming while the alleged assault took place and suggested she wanted to have sex. Camp later acquitted the defendant, Alexander Wagar. After acquitting him, he told the defendant, “I want you to tell your friends, your male friends, that they have to be far more gentle with women.” This is absolutely disgusting.
Cindy Gladue, an indigenous woman, was paid for sex by Bradley Barton, the alleged killer, and was found dead in a pool of blood in a motel room after a violent death. I dare not repeat how graphic that picture was because it is just so reviling. The judge presiding over the trial repeatedly referred to her as native and a prostitute. Barton was acquitted because of biases formed against Gladue's history. Such appalling incidents further victimize and silence women from speaking up. It is also unjust for families of victims.
The majority, 83%, of sexual assaults are not reported to police. These two examples alone illustrate very clearly the cause of this hesitation: 67% of women in Canada have no confidence in the justice system and of the 20% of women who take their cases to court, only 10% that make it to court come out with convictions. Among those convicted, only 7% of the perpetrators actually get punished with jail time. Others get probation or fines at the judge's discretion. There is no justice, so why would these women pursue it?
Insult is added to injury when they are left to walk away, feeling like the ones who were sentenced. When an agent of authority like a federal judge gaslights a woman before the court, where does that leave her? There is no justice for that woman. That little seedling of self- esteem she fought to salvage is trampled, but the chain of injustice is long.
There is fear of retaliation from perpetrators when they are not locked up in jail and are free to stalk and repeat their offences, and perhaps even go further and murder the victims. The lack of support, condemnation, shaming and shunning that victims experience from taboos and cultural stigmas prevent women from speaking up. If the perpetrator is someone she knows, like a friend, acquaintance or neighbour, as is the case in 52% of sexual assault incidents, it is even harder.
The court's decision can take away a victim's credibility in the community and inevitably put a toll on the mental and physical health of that victim. It takes a lot of courage for women who have experienced sexual assault to speak up.
I just want to pause here and commend and congratulate the women who have taken steps to speak up and go to the courts. This is why we are standing here as parliamentarians. They inspire us. It takes a lot of courage for women who have experienced sexual assault to speak up and seek the justice they deserve. They have to relive the trauma when speaking about it. If they go forward to the courts, they risk being condemned for speaking up.
Similarly, it does not help when families of victims like those who came forward with testimonies for the report on missing and murdered indigenous women and girls have to relive their traumas through the retelling of their stories and now still await action from the government. However, I hope that these discussions will inspire the government to take action more quickly.
I am very proud that my Conservative colleagues in the last Parliament supported the “JUST Act”, because we recognized that the justice system failed to respect the experiences of victims of sexual assault far too often. I would like to thank Ms. Ambrose again for her work on this important file.
As I support Bill C-3, I do so with a hope that it is an important step among lawmakers in Canada to improve the justice system to work for all people, including women and girls, and not against them. Bill C-3 is a positive beginning, but simply that. I hope the passage of the bill will not give license to the government or my colleagues across all aisles to simply relax, because the bill does not get to the root of violence against women.
If we are to break the cycle of violence against women, we need to get to the root. The root begins with the family and the way women are treated by their intimate partners and their parents. Domestic violence breeds abuse and violence. There needs to be more education, awareness and a breaking of the code of shame and silence. Speaking with women's shelters, men also need mentoring and accountability. They are a missing part of the puzzle that is necessary to make the healing journey for families and society fulsome.
Indigenous communities need all the support they can get to help their women, and the provinces cannot do all of this alone. We need all tiers of government and all community front-line agencies to work together to create long-term solutions. Prevention will save lives.
My mandate as a member of Parliament is to contribute to the making and passing of laws and policies that will help heal individuals, families and society, so each person will prosper, so Canada will prosper and that personal peace will help build a strong and free nation. Bill C-3 is a bill that I am happy to support and reminds me why I am here. However, let us not applaud too loud, lest we become complacent and fail to do the daunting work that lies ahead: to heal our women and our nation.
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for her speech.
I heard many things that really resonate with me, namely respect for women's bodies, their right to not suffer genital mutilation, and the fact that they do not have to enter into a forced marriage. All of this really speaks to me, but there is still one issue remaining, something that was not named.
Sometimes after a rape, a woman might end up pregnant with a child she does not want to carry. When we talk about revictimization, I wonder if leaving the woman no choice is a form of victimization. I would like to hear my colleague's comments on the fact that we must assure women that in future this issue will no longer be debated and that they will not become victims again as a result of what they have suffered.
Nelly Shin Conservative Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, those are issues that certainly require sensitivity and compassion. When it comes to the rights of women, especially after a rape, I do not think it would be questionable for anyone to consider that a woman has a choice to do what would make her feel safe and that she is not being victimized again.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary 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, absolutely no one questions the importance of the issue of sexual assault and the severity of it. There is a need for the House of Commons to deal with it in whatever way it can. This is a very good example. In fact, I am expecting there will be unanimous support for the legislation. I see that as strong and encouraging.
Would the member not agree that when the national government takes a positive action of this nature, it actually has a positive reflection in other jurisdictions? For example, I understand at least a couple provinces are doing something of a similar nature for appointments at the provincial level of the judicial system. How important is it that we, as a national government, demonstrate leadership on such important issues?
Nelly Shin Conservative Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, the reason we are all here is because we want to see a better society. Before we get elected, we go through many processes to come to this place. We spend lots of money and the time resources of our volunteers to be here. We owe it to our country that we do show leadership. I am grateful for opportunities like this on issues that unify the House of Commons, give us the opportunity to inspire the other tiers of government and show that we can work together.
Richard Cannings NDP South Okanagan—West Kootenay, BC
Madam Speaker, I want to talk about the final report of the National Inquiry into Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women and Girls, which pointed out that police apathy was indicative of racism and sexism that revictimized girls and women.
What does the member think of the proposed sexual assault and social context aspects of this legislation extending into police services as well as judges? Not in this legislation, perhaps, but overall.
Nelly Shin Conservative Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC
Madam Speaker, I appreciate the member's sensitivity on these issues. Just as the parliamentary secretary stated, I hope that this does inspire and trickle down to all levels of law enforcement.
Judges ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
Order. 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, Indigenous Affairs; the hon. member for Edmonton Strathcona, COVID-19 Emergency Response; the hon. member for Calgary Rocky Ridge, Natural Resources.
We are going to resuming debate. We are just going to double-check that the technology is working.
I will recognize the member for Calgary Midnapore. Is the member able to check her camera? I can hear her, but I cannot see her.
Stephanie Kusie Conservative Calgary Midnapore, AB
Madam Speaker, I have had this problem before. I apologize.
Judges ActGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
There seems to be a technical issue. The best thing to do is allow the member to do her speech, and we can maybe work with IT to see how best to resolve this in the future.
There is a point of order from the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona.
The House resumed 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.
John Williamson Conservative New Brunswick Southwest, NB
Madam Speaker, it is to my surprise and privilege that I rise and speak to the bill, but I am happy to do so. This is an issue that has gripped this Parliament for several years, starting first in the 42nd Parliament and then into this Parliament, not just the first session but now the second session.
I too want to commend Ms. Ambrose for bringing the bill to the floor of the House of Commons. Thanks to her hard work and the work of colleagues, it would appear the bill is receiving broad support. It is long overdue. It is unfortunate this bill, Bill C-3, did not pass in the 42nd Parliament. It is equally unfortunate the bill was upended due to the prorogation the government triggered just a few weeks ago in order to avoid further committee investigation into the WE scandal.
Of course we now hear government members complaining about the democratic process, a process that is there to ensure members of Parliament from across this country have the opportunity to examine and speak about bills like this, even when they have broad support. For no other reason, I think the voices and debates we have today will echo and be that much louder, as opposed to passing it quickly as the government would like.
If the government members wanted to move quickly on this, they had that opportunity. Instead they tried to play politics on other issues and they are now paying the price and trying to blame everyone but themselves, when they should look in the mirror.
I want to thank as well my colleague from New Brunswick, the member for Fredericton, who I thought made a very strong bipartisan point about the importance of allowing members to speak up on issues. This chamber sometimes does move very quickly and at moments like this we are all given a chance to speak on important bills like Bill C-3.
The bill serves to do a number of things that are frankly long overdue. I hope in this go-around it will be three times lucky and the government will finally have the support to do something that should have been done years ago. I would remind the government, which is quick to point to the opposition and say we should advance the bill, that we have been doing everything we can. We have been talking about this the longest. We have been talking about it and trying to make it an issue, but at the end of the day, it is not our responsibility to shepherd legislation through the House of Commons. It is the government's responsibility. If the government is not prepared to do that or is unable to do that, we are happy to take over for it at any time and get legislation through.
This has been a pattern with the current government. It makes grandiose announcements, such as on infrastructure, and fails to deliver. This is another example of good work getting sidelined because of politics.
Why is the bill important and necessary? Let me give the House some facts and evidence. Victims are female, overwhelmingly so. They are young and too often they know their assailants. This of course makes it more difficult, not easier, to come forward when an assault has taken place. Sadly, the vast majority of sexual assaults are not reported to police. This is something we need to change as a country to ensure that when a wrong happens it is righted. Less than half of the sexual assault cases that end up in adult criminal court result in a guilty verdict.
I am not here to second-guess the judiciary today with respect to sentencing, but I think it is important for voices to be heard and for victims to have their day in court and be given every opportunity to express themselves and to be treated fairly and in a judicious manner. There are far too many cases, and we have heard about some of them today, repeatedly so, where that is just not happening. If we as parliamentarians can change that and set a better tone so that our judges are treating young people, young women in particular, with the respect they deserve, I think we should view it as a good day and something we should strive for.
I do want this bill to pass, as my colleagues do, and I think that is on both sides of the Commons.
The opposition is not here to do the government's work for it. We are prepared to replace the government and do a better job. We would do it with fewer scandals, with less WE, and with less rule breaking, law breaking and ethical violations. At the end of the day, it is up to the government to get the bill through. We are not going to make it difficult, but we are going to respect the rules of this place. While the government would prefer to govern alone, there are 338 members in this chamber and they should all have the opportunity to speak out on these issues as they see fit.
We hear a lot about the other place. We are breaking tradition here in referring to it as the Senate. In the other place, Conservatives do not hold a majority of seats. Not only that, as one of my hon. colleagues pointed out today, the bill failed in the 42nd Parliament because, again, the government mishandled the legislative business.
Maybe the government should prioritize what is actually important, which is bills such as this, and getting them through as opposed to focusing on handouts for their friends, and the WE scandal, and some of the other scandals we have seen over the years that resulted in Parliament being shut down and the work stopping. On this side of the House, we want to see bills like this pass. We want to see the committees going.
Even if my hon. friend on the government bench had his way and passed this bill today, to what end would it be? The committees are not sitting, because the government and this Prime Minister closed down Parliament weeks ago to protect him from the investigations of numerous committees into the government's malfeasance when it came to dealing with friends and cronies and the handouts to family members of the Liberal Prime Minister and the former finance minister.
Let us do the work, but set priorities and make sure they are the priorities that Canadians care about, not what is important to Liberals and their friends. The case for this bill has been made time and again. I echo the support of this bill, and I appreciate the opportunity to speak here today, suddenly and with little notice. I look forward to taking some questions on it.